On October 25, the California State Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Keyes v Bowen, C062321, holding that state elections officials are not supposed to keep presidential candidates off the general election ballot because they may not meet the constitutional qualifications to hold the office. The lawsuit had been filed in 2008 by Alan Keyes, who had sued the California Secretary of State because she allegedly did not investigate whether Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be President. See this story.
The Court said, “An investigation of eligibility is best left to each political party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes…The Secretary of State has no such discretion for the general election ballot. With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must (“must” is in italics in the opinion) place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates…
“In any event, the truly absurd result would be to require each state’s election official to investigate and determine whether the proffered candidate met eligibility criteria of the United States Constitution, giving each the power to override a party’s selection of a presidential candidate. The presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results.”
The opinion acknowledges that in 1968, California Secretary of State Frank Jordan determined that the Peace & Freedom Party presidential nominee, Eldridge Cleaver, should be kept off the ballot because Cleaver was under age 35, but the opinion says the fact that Jordan acted this way does not demonstrate that what he did was lawful.
This opinion will be useful in the future, when certain states try to say that some particular presidential or vice-presidential candidate must not be on the ballot because he or she was registered in the wrong party. For example, in 2004, Montana said that Peter Camejo could not be on the November ballot for vice-president because he was a registered Green Party member. Camejo and his running mate, Ralph Nader, did not sue to overturn that decision, but simply substituted another vice-presidential candidate in Montana. This decision would also assist the Socialist Workers Party if it again runs Roger Calero for President, as it did in 2008 and 2004. Calero is not a natural-born citizen.
One more truly absurb MORON opinion.
The Congress does NOT rule on the qualifications for a Prez in the 12th Amdt counting of electoral votes.
The party hacks in each party have NO judicial power to declare anything about anybody.
On to the next higher court.
When Congress counts electoral votes, it does have the power to reject votes cast for unqualified presidential and vice-presidential candidates. In 1872 Congress refused to count the 3 electoral votes cast for Horace Greeley, because he was dead and therefore did not meet the qualifications to be President.
Richard please blog the status of companion case
USDC-CAED 10-2216 (removed from CA Sacramento state court)
Barnett v Dunn
hearing held 10/25/2010
EAC motioned for removal
Barnett cross-motioned for special thre judge district court panel
here is the latest docket — CA SOS/AG attempted to rig state election of officer (SOS) who vetted Obama in 2008 and attempting to do so again in service to Soros & un-american foreign interests
28 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd: MOTION HEARING held on 10/25/2010 re 12 MOTION filed by Pamela Barnett, 15 Amended Notice of 11 Cross-Motion filed by Pamela Barnett, 11 Cross-Motion for Three Judge Panel filed by Pamela Barnett. The Motions are taken under submission and the court will F & Rs to the District Court. Plaintiffs Counsel Pro Se present. Defendants Counsel Brian Hildreth, Anthony O’Brien, Yoshiori Himel and Via Telephone James Harman present. Court Reporter/CD Number: 1 of 1. (Callen, V) Modified on 10/25/2010 (Callen, V). (Entered: 10/25/2010)
#2 The party hack Congress has judicial power ONLY in —
ruling on the election returns in each house Art. I, Sec. 5
in impeachments – various sections
— Both exceptions due to evil rotted stuff in England in the past.
12th Amdt part —
*** the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; ***
What if the party hacks deliberately have an illegal count ???
Civil WAR II ???
What the party hacks did ILLEGALLY in the past is totally irrelevant.
For any brain dead folks on this list —
See the natural born info in
Blackstone’s Commentaries 1765-1769
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 10
Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives
***
THE first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.
—
Lots more in B.C.
Too difficult for New Age MORON judges to understand.
as if the definition of U.S.A. citizen in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 is too difficult to understand.
This IS the New Age of nonstop MORONS in high places.
reposted from Chris says:
…
The real question is the VRA and she being a Federal Officer under HAVA.
…
Bowen had a ministerial duty as a Federal Employee of the EAC to refer any complaint of ballot and or voter irregularity to the EAC and DOJ for further investigation. As far as we know she did not do that and therefore is culpable as a breach of her federal fiduciary duty as a state officier for a state that maintains a voter registration datatbase.
…
HAVA SEC. 213. MEMBERSHIP OF STANDARDS BOARD.
(a) COMPOSITION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to certification by the chair of the Federal Election Commission under subsection (b), the Standards Board shall be composed of 110 members as follows:
(A) 55 shall be State election officials selected by the chief State election official of each State.
…
(4) DUTIES.—In addition to any other duties assigned under this title, the Executive Board of the Standards Board may carry out such duties of the Standards Board as the Standards Board may delegate.
HAVA SEC. 216. STATUS OF BOARDS AND MEMBERS FOR PURPOSES OF CLAIMS AGAINST BOARD.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of chapters 161 and 171 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply with respect to the liability of the Standards Board, the Board of Advisors, and their members for acts or omissions performed pursuant to and in the course of the duties and responsibilities of the Board.
28 USC Chapter 161 Sec. 2401. Time for commencing action against United States
-STATUTE-
(a) Except as provided by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978,
every civil action commenced against the United
States shall be
barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the
right of action first accrues. The action of any person under legal
disability or beyond the seas at the time the claim accrues may be
commenced within three years after the disability ceases.
(b) A tort claim against the United States shall be forever
barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal
agency within two years after such claim accrues or unless action
is begun within six months after the date of mailing, by certified
or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the
agency to which it was presented.
TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 171 > § 2671
Prev | Next
§ 2671. Definitions
How Current is This?
As used in this chapter and sections 1346 (b) and 2401 (b) of this title, the term “Federal agency” includes the executive departments, the judicial and legislative branches, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States, but does not include any contractor with the United States.
“Employee of the government” includes
(1) officers or employees of any federal agency, members of the military or naval forces of the United States, members of the National Guard while engaged in training or duty under section 115, 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32, and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the United States, whether with or without compensation, and
(2) any officer or employee of a Federal public defender organization, except when such officer or employee performs professional services in the course of providing representation under section 3006A of title 18.
“Acting within the scope of his office or employment”, in the case of a member of the military or naval forces of the United States or a member of the National Guard as defined in section 101 (3) of title 32, means acting in line of duty.
(b) EXCEPTION FOR CRIMINAL ACTS AND OTHER WILLFUL CONDUCT.—Subsection (a) may not be construed to limit personal liability for criminal acts or omissions, willful or malicious misconduct, acts or omissions for private gain, or any other act or omission outside the scope of the service of a member of the Standards Board or the Board of Advisors.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-110.htm
the above B.C. chapter
“The opinion acknowledges that in 1968, California Secretary of State Frank Jordan determined that the Peace & Freedom Party presidential nominee, Eldridge Cleaver, should be kept off the ballot because Cleaver was under age 35, but the opinion says the fact that Jordan acted this way does not demonstrate that what he did was lawful.”
Phil responds:
Does that ever bring back some memories! Here is part of a personal message that I wrote to a family member on September 11th of this year:
In the California Republican Primary Election that year [1968], Governor Reagan was a “favorite son” candidate for president and he was the only one on the ballot. I voted for him (via absentee ballot sent from Vietnam). [However, I was a member of the William W. Scranton, moderate-to-liberal, wing of the GOP – which I had written about earlier in the message.] As I was an avid reader of the military newspaper, “Stars and Stripes,” I became familiar with Senator Eugene J. McCarthy and his campaign for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. He became my latest political hero and he remains to this day another one of my heroes of all time (he is now deceased, unfortunately). In November of that year, still a Republican, I voted for the Nixon-Agnew ticket. I thought seriously about writing in Senator McCarthy but decided that I did not want to cast a “capricious” write-in vote for president in my first general election participation. (However, if I had known that there was an official write-in campaign for Gene in California – it was called The Committee for an Alternative in November – I would haven voted for him. Thanks to the poor reporting by the establishment news media, Mr. Nixon got my vote.) In addition, I thought seriously about voting for Eldridge Cleaver (the Peace and Freedom Party nominee) but the Secretary of State in California removed him from the ballot because of his age (too young to be president) and one could only vote for the vice-presidential nominee. Again, I did not want to cast a vote that I did not consider to be serious. Since there was no way that I was going to vote for the Humphrey-Muskie ticket, I went with the Republicans. After all, Mr. Nixon promised to end the War in Vietnam and I did not like what the Democrats had done to our country with its foreign policy. It was a very dificult choice for me to make.
Ummm…this opinion doesn’t say anything about demonstrating that what he did was lawful. It states that this crap brief that you birthers put together didn’t provide a citation with any authority, because your claims are a bunch of groundless collusions. Directly from the opinion:
In appellants’ view, this shows the Secretary of State has the duty to investigate a candidate’s qualifications and remove the person from the ballot if their qualifications are found lacking. Not so.
The citation provided by plaintiffs merely reflects that the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari; it states nothing about the facts of the case. As we explained earlier, appellants’ arguments must be supported by authority, and we are not obligated to search for it.
If you’re going to waste court resources with this nonsense, at least hire attorneys who know legal writing!
The premise behind the faithless elector statutes would appear to be that the appointment of an elector is conditional on their performing certain actions, and that their appointment can be rescinded and their vote voided if they act in a contrary manner.
If an appointment can be voided based on an action that was contrary to one which the elector had pledged to take, either implicitly or explicitly prior to their appointment; then why can not a candidate for appointment to the office of presidential elector be required to make an affirmative demonstration that the persons that they intend to vote for if elected are qualified for the office of President (and that at least one is not an inhabitant of their same state)?
Why would a State wish to risk the potential for its electoral votes being rejected by the Congress, when the possibility of that rejection could be foreseen?
California does not even require pledged electors, except in certain circumstances, so an expectation that the Secretary of State make a determination prior to the election is misplaced. But I see no reason that California could not enact such a law for a future election.
Each State has sole authority and responsibility for the appointment of its electors. The concerns of the California Supreme Court about the procedures for appointing electors in other States is misplaced.