On May 2, Alan Keyes asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his lawsuit against California Secretary Debra Bowen. The case is Keyes v Bowen, 10-1351. Here is the cert petition. Keyes, who ran for President in 2008, believes that President Obama does not meet the constitutional qualifications. He also believes that California law requires election officials to keep candidates off the ballot if they do not meet the constitutional qualifications.
The State Court of Appeals had ruled in this case last year that the California Secretary of State “has no discretion for the general election ballot…She must (“must” is in italics in the decision) place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates.” This is a significant ruling, given that in both 1968 and 1984, California Secretaries of State had removed presidential candidates from ballots because those presidential candidates did not meet the constitutional qualifications to hold the office. On February 2, 2011, the California Supreme Court had refused to hear the Keyes case, and it is likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will also refuse to hear it. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.
Mere defenders of the Const say that every word in the Const must be enforced — to avoid a TOTAL breakdown.
The New Age usual suspects say that the Const means nothing – is old and obsolete — with all sorts of discriminations.
What happened to the old quo warranto cases — causing the removal from office of UN-qualified persons ???
Exactly who was the Const for and who approved it ???
Clue – see Art. VII.
P.R. and App.V. – before it is too late.
“…before it is too late.”
It’s already too late.
there is also a SCOTUS conference scheduled for May 26th on redistricting that so far as is known (nothing in the SCOTUS Docket 10-1170 other than there is no docket entry for USSG waiving DOJ response) also includes a special petition for Re: Strunk a writ of prohibition that Sotomayor, Kagen, and Roberts recuse as well as (Holder and USSG recuse as Attorneys for Respondents: DOJ counsel).
Another waste of time and money, If you want Obama out of the white house, then wait til’ 2012- you will not win on this, get over it!
Who actually, legally elects the President and Vice-president? The constitutional Electors as representatives of the people of the states.
Constitutionally speaking(how anachronistic today), the Presidential Electors of the several states should be the ones furnished with proof of qualification – age, residence, ‘Born in the USA’ status. The old Constitution provides them with the ‘necessary and proper’ authority to compel the production of such proofs. Even though such Electors today have been emasculated into partisan rubber stamps, all it would take is for just one Elector to make such a demand to put the focus where it was originally pledged by the document, but many contemporary constitution mongers have agendas that make the plain language of the document inconvenient.
No amendments needed, just file a writ of mandamus to compel the Electors to perform the duties for which they were elected.
Or, just nevermind and secede.
Mr. Keyes, I suspect that even SCOTUS Justice Donald Trump, if there were such a person, would be inclined to find the issue you raise to be moot, given the fact that the long-demanded (by Birthers) long form birth certificate has now been presented. Casual Bystander and Cody Quirk are right. If you want the president out of the White House, focus on the 2012 election.
I know that several of the states did not allow a Socialist candidate on the ballots due to the fact that he was under 35, and they had to substitute another person older than 35 in those states.
Isn’t the US Constitution the same in all 50 states? Shouldn’t the same qualification for President thus be the same on all fifty states?
the founding fathers gave us a constitution — if we could keep it.
Manchurian candidates and their national major party political committees, and in general progressive “social justice” agents of foreign governments and corporations — including former slave traders — have been attempting moot the use of the POTUS/CINC natural born citizen section of the constitution.
See Strunk 2008 POTUS election litigation in USDC-DC and NYSSC Kings County
# 5 Who enforces the qualifications for elected State executive officers — in a State const and/or in a state law ???
Can the brains of usual suspects detect the reasons for NOT having a foreign subject/citizen being Commander in Chief of the U.S.A. military forces — in the context of 1787 — all sorts of dynasty monarchy/oligarchy stuff in Europe back then ???
How much chaos in North Africa and the Middle East since January ??? What happens if some top executive officer is NOT qualified in such regimes ??? Nothing good ??? Duh.
8 –
Quick! Look behind you! It’s a socialist.
BOO!
IMF doctrine: Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.
Whether Obama’s BC was filed in Hawaii is irrelevant, because Article II citizenship also depends on the citizenship of both parents, and Obama Sr. was never a US citizen–he was a British subject and therefore Obama is ineligible no matter what the BC says.
That being said, it’s all beside the point here, which is that Keyes is suing to compel the 50 Secretaries of State to actually do their jobs, which is to verify that the candidates on the ballots are actually eligible to be on there in the first place. On that point alone the case should succeed on merits.
As for the Electors, yes, they should demand that as well, and there needs to be a reform in the Electoral College system such that the Electors are not political party hacks–and publicize who they are.
The law related to “natural born” at the time of Obama’s birth did NOT require that a person born in the U.S. also be born to two parents with American citizenship. That would have been a clear violation of the 14th. Amendment. The provision of law Tannim is apparently referencing applied only to a person born as an American citizen but NOT within the territory of the U.S. For example, a brother of mine, born to two American parents but in a foreign country, would have been eligible for the presidency under this law. Since it has been confirmed beyond doubt that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii there is no doubt that he meets the citizenship qualification for the presidency even though his father was not an American citizen.
On June 6, 1951, in Washington DC, President Harry S. Truman signed the 1951 British Treaty, authorizing Britain consular jurisdiction over British citizens, in the USA, where consular officers could register births to British citizens, in the district of jurisdiction, and to issue passports to those children.
Barack Obama Sr, was a foreign born student, carrying a British passport, on a US non-immigrant student visa (8USC1101(a)(15)(F)(i)), under British consular jurisdiction, per 1951 British Treaty.
Since Barack H Obama II, was born in the Hawaii, then per (circa 1961 law) 8USC1401(a)(1), he would have been native born a US citizen; and under consular jurisdiction of the 1951 British Treaty and the under jurisdiction of British Nationality Act of 1948, Part II(5)(1)(a) he was born a British Citizen, thus a dual-citizen UK/US, and not a natural born citizen, and not constitutionally eligible for the 2008 or 2012 Presidential elections.
Hello. I stumpled across this post on Google. This is a very informative post and I will recommend it to friends.