Honest question for birthers--or anyone else

[Bradley in DC]

I posted this buried in another thread, but I would genuinely like an answer:

The constitution outlines rules and delegates powers. What role would the SCOTUS have for a power delegated to state legislatures (choosing electors to the electoral college) and the US Senate (ratifying the electoral college vote)? This goes to the point of the birther debate being laughable and ridiculous in my mind.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." Article II Section 1.

EDIT: "The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

"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;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed" Twelfth Amendment

[Stary Hickory]

Yeah to be eligible he must be a natural born citizen. So if he's eligible then then this process can proceed. However he may not be eligible, in fact he may have defrauded the system quite intentionally.

You can't circumvent constituional law like this.

[Bradley in DC]

Yeah to be eligible he must be a natural born citizen. So if he's eligible then then this process can proceed. However he may not be eligible, in fact he may have defrauded the system quite intentionally.

You can't circumvent constituional law like this.

The process is finished.

I'll rephrase. I wasn't ignoring the constitutional requirement (age, etc. too). I am saying what judicial role is there to question any of this birther issue under the constitution? (Are the birthers barking up the wrong tree) Please try to look at what I posted in the OP.

[Danke]

:confused:

And if some state legislators reintroduced slavery, the SCOTUS would have no jurisdiction to rule on the constitutional question?

Don't they do this all the time?

[Njon]

If the candidate chosen by the electors is Constitutionally ineligible, then the Electoral College vote is invalid. The fact that Obama was chosen by the Electoral College does not suddenly make him a natural born citizen. The electors have no power to override the Constitutional requirements, nor does anyone. Electors only have the legal authority to vote for eligible candidates.

Because Obama is the sitting president, the federal courts cannot order him to vacate the office; he must be removed by impeachment proceedings. What the courts can do, however, is impose civil judgment (and depending on jurisdiction, perhaps maybe even criminal judgment) against Obama. And if the courts find him to be ineligible, it would be the purview of Congress to respond in a manner they see fit. Though I suspect that if the courts declared Obama ineligible, the public pressure would be so strong that he would either have to resign, or Congress would have to begin impeachment proceedings.

[Bradley in DC]

Process: following the constitution, the state legislatures chose their electors to the electoral college, then a majority of the electoral college voted for Obama (who wasn't my choice, but my guy lost and I got over it), then the senate duly ratified the result according to the constitution, then Obama was sworn in lawfully (on the second attempt :)).

[Stary Hickory]

If the candidate chosen by the electors is Constitutionally ineligible, then the Electoral College vote is invalid. The fact that Obama was chosen by the Electoral College does not suddenly make him a natural born citizen. The electors have no power to override the Constitutional requirements, nor does anyone. Electors only have the legal authority to vote for eligible candidates.

Because Obama is the sitting president, the federal courts cannot order him to vacate the office; he must be removed by impeachment proceedings. What the courts can do, however, is impose civil judgment (and depending on jurisdiction, perhaps maybe even criminal judgment) against Obama. And if the courts find him to be ineligible, it would be the purview of Congress to respond in a manner they see fit. Though I suspect that if the courts declared Obama ineligible, the public pressure would be so strong that he would either have to resign, or Congress would have to begin impeachment proceedings.

Danke,

Very nice

[CitizenPlain]

...

[erowe1]

I think that if it were found that he lied about being born in Hawaii and thus did not meet the constitutional requirement for eligibility, then the constitutional method for righting that wrong would be that method of removing a president from office which is outlined in the Constitution, beginning with the House of Representatives impeaching him, followed by the Senate voting to remove him. The only role SCOTUS would play is that the chief justice would oversee the Senate hearings. I wouldn't expect the current Democrat controlled House or Senate to do this, but I would fully support impeaching him in that scenario (for that matter, I already would support it for any of the unconstitutional laws he has signed).

[erowe1]

..

[Bradley in DC]

If the candidate chosen by the electors is Constitutionally ineligible, then the Electoral College vote is invalid.

Because Obama is the sitting president, the federal courts cannot order him to vacate the office; he must be removed by impeachment proceedings. What the courts can do, however, is impose civil judgment (and depending on jurisdiction, perhaps maybe even criminal judgment) against Obama. And if the courts find him to be ineligible, it would be the purview of Congress to respond in a manner they see fit. Though I suspect that if the courts declared Obama ineligible, the public pressure would be so strong that he would either have to resign, or Congress would have to begin impeachment proceedings.

Thanks. Seriously.

The Senate ratified the electoral college vote following the constitution. It is valid. Constitutionally, they are the judges of that question. That's my point.


What the courts can do, however, is impose civil judgment (and depending on jurisdiction, perhaps maybe even criminal judgment) against Obama. And if the courts find him to be ineligible, it would be the purview of Congress to respond in a manner they see fit. Though I suspect that if the courts declared Obama ineligible, the public pressure would be so strong that he would either have to resign, or Congress would have to begin impeachment proceedings.

Impeachment, yup. But that would be the Senate again. Just trying to get people to focus on the constitution--why should this be so hard on RPFs?!


What the courts can do, however, is impose civil judgment (and depending on jurisdiction, perhaps maybe even criminal judgment) against Obama. And if the courts find him to be ineligible, it would be the purview of Congress to respond in a manner they see fit. Though I suspect that if the courts declared Obama ineligible, the public pressure would be so strong that he would either have to resign, or Congress would have to begin impeachment proceedings.

Where is the constitutional authority for your theory of the courts' role?


And if the courts find him to be ineligible, it would be the purview of Congress to respond in a manner they see fit. Though I suspect that if the courts declared Obama ineligible, the public pressure would be so strong that he would either have to resign, or Congress would have to begin impeachment proceedings.

And where, again, is the constitutional role for the courts to find him ineligible?

As the disputed 2000 election reminds us, the state courts have no role interfering with the exclusive constitutional right of the state legislators to decide how they pick their electors. ;)

[Bradley in DC]

all this only mattered back when laws were

enforced. There is no room for laws in socialism.

It's my hypothetical then, humor me. :D

[Danke]

So if the electoral college put forth someone under 35 years old, the SCOTUS could not rule that unconstitutional?

[Bradley in DC]

So if the electoral college put forth someone under 35 years old, the SCOTUS could not rule that unconstitutional?

As I read the constitution, it is the senate's role to vet that question--or the state legislators before that.

Could you cite something in the constitution different?

[Danke]

As I read the constitution, it is the senate's role to vet that question--or the state legislators before that.

Could you cite something in the constitution different?

What are you proposing is the role of the SCOTUS? As far as I can tell, you are disregarding over 200 years of SCOTUS cases and rulings.

[Bradley in DC]

What are you proposing is the role of the SCOTUS? As far as I can tell, you are disregarding over 200 years of SCOTUS cases and rulings.

No, the constitution defines roles and rules. For example, Congress has the authority (which they have exercised sometimes) to take issues away from the court.

Show me one case or ruling where the SCOTUS in the 200 years invalidated the constitutional role of the state legislators in picking their electoral college electors or the US senate in ratifying the vote of the electoral college. I don't think I'm disregarding anything.

I'm suggesting a more sophisticated examination then the current birther leaders have offered, IMHO (and I'm not a lawyer--not even from an online program). At a minimum, on a RON PAUL forum, we should consider the constitution. Why should that be so weird?

[Bradley in DC]

In the context of the OP of this thread, can anyone tell me how anything that Taitz does makes any sense? :confused: (At least among Ron Paul supporters who think the constitution ought to mean something)

(yes, this is rhetorical) :cool:

[Njon]

The Senate ratified the electoral college vote following the constitution. It is valid. Constitutionally, they are the judges of that question. That's my point.

No, because by that logic any legislation Congress passed would be valid because they are the legislature. But that's false, of course; most of what Congress does is invalid under the Constitution, yet they do it anyway.

Marbury v. Madison is not perfect, but it was correct when it said this:

"[...] the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
REFERENCE: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 180 (1803). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed August 4, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html

Congress does not have the authority to usurp the Constitution and then hide behind their role as the legislature, shielded from all questions and challenges.


Where is the constitutional authority for your theory of the courts' role?


And where, again, is the constitutional role for the courts to find him ineligible?

Article III, section 2, clause 1 says:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution [...]"
REFERENCE: United States Constitution. Article III, section 2, clause 1. Cited at the Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. Accessed August 4, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html

The Constitutional qualifications of the president are most certainly an issue arising under the Constitution, and thus the courts have the authority to hear cases (i.e., civil --- and insofar as the Constitution allows, criminal --- complaints) that are brought in regard to that matter.



As the disputed 2000 election reminds us, the state courts have no role interfering with the exclusive constitutional right of the state legislators to decide how they pick their electors. ;)

What does this have to do with anything? The choosing of electors is not even an issue here.

[qh4dotcom]

Bradley, if you were not physically present wherever he was born like Obama's grandmother was, then you don't know where he was born. Obama lies too much.

[Bradley in DC]

No, because by that logic any legislation Congress passed would be valid because they are the legislature.

Article III, section 2, clause 1 says:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution [...]"
REFERENCE: United States Constitution. Article III, section 2, clause 1. Cited at the Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. Accessed August 4, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html

The Constitutional qualifications of the president are most certainly an issue arising under the Constitution, and thus the courts have the authority to hear cases (i.e., civil --- and insofar as the Constitution allows, criminal --- complaints) that are brought in regard to that matter.

The choosing of electors is not even an issue here.

We're not talking about the court judging laws. We're talking about constitutionally proscribed roles.

Actually, read the OP, the choosing of electors (and ratifying their vote) is the thread topic.

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley, if you were not physically present wherever he was born like Obama's grandmother was, then you don't know where he was born. Obama lies too much.

And this relates to my constitutional question how? :confused: Or just trying to highjack the thread because your initiatives are contrary to Dr. Paul's respect for the constitution?

Oh, and please tell me you're not referring to this canard:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/23/liddy/

No matter, though, because people who believe in a conspiracy theory simply hear what they want to hear. So some Birther sites have posted transcripts and YouTube clips that end abruptly with the mistranslation and don't include the corrections. McRae, for his part, included the full translation in his affidavit -- he thinks it's all just part of the conspiracy. "Some few younger relatives, including [translator Vitalis Akech Ogombe]," McRae wrote in his court filing, "have obviously been versed to counter such facts with the common purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii."

Here's the conversation:

MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?

OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.

MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

[Bradley in DC]

To simplify people's understanding of the constitution, remember this (and look at how the constitution enumerates how we choose the president in the OP--what Article III powers do the birthers--or others--see that the constitution gives the judiciary?):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Preamble ["We the people...."]

Article I [The Legislative Branch]

Article II [The Presidency]

Article III [The Judiciary]

Article IV [The States]

Article V [The Amendment Process]

Article VI [Legal Status of the Constitution]

Article VII [Ratification]

Signers

Amendments

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Vox/?20031114-0

Also, Chief Justice Rehnquist, again in his concurring opinion of Bush v. Gore (00-949), states that "3 U.S.C. § 5 informs our application of Art. II, §1, cl. 2, to the Florida statutory scheme, which, as the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged, took that statute into account. Section 5 provides that the State's selection of electors "shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes" if the electors are chosen under laws enacted prior to election day, and if the selection process is completed six days prior to the meeting of the electoral college. As we noted in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, at 6.

"Since §5 contains a principle of federal law that would assure finality of the State's determination if made pursuant to a state law in effect before the election, a legislative wish to take advantage of the ‘safe harbor' would counsel against any construction of the Election Code that Congress might deem to be a change in the law."

If we are to respect the legislature's Article II powers, therefore, we must ensure that postelection state-court actions do not frustrate the legislative desire to attain the "safe harbor" provided by §5.

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Vox/?20031114-0
(different author)

In all three cases, Congress counted these ("faithless elector") Electoral Votes as having been "regularly given"- as required by 3 U.S.C. §15; in fact, the only time members of both houses of Congress ever challenged the counting the Electoral Vote cast by such a so-called "faithless" Presidential Elector was when, as a consequence of the 1968 Presidential Election, a North Carolina Elector had cast his vote for a candidate other than the one to which he was pledged who was on that State's ballot that year: his "faithless" vote was ultimately counted. . .

For Congress remains, as it has ever been since the U.S. Constitution first became effective back on that first Wednesday in March 1789, the ultimate "umpire" and final determiner of the result of a Presidential Election and there is absolutely nothing (absent a future Constitutional Amendment altering the manner in which we Americans utilize Presidential Electors to elect our President and Vice-President: I refer the interested reader to my Commentary entitled TO THE SPOILS GOES THE VICTOR: Proposals and Prospects for Electoral College Reform for a brief outline of the more likely alternatives) the U.S. Supreme Court- of any ideological makeup- can do about that!

[foofighter20x]

There's legal precedent for the Supreme Court getting involved in issues involving qualifications for federal office.

See: Powell v. McCormack.

[erowe1]

As far as I can tell, you are disregarding over 200 years of SCOTUS cases and rulings.

If that's what he's doing, then that's a good thing. Right?

[Bradley in DC]

There's legal precedent for the Supreme Court getting involved in issues involving qualifications for federal office.

See: Powell v. McCormack.

Very quick scan of the case seems to make my point.

"The majority opinion held that Congress does not have the power to develop qualifications other than those specified in Art. I, § 2, cl. 1-2." (wikipedia)
(The people, through their Constitution, affirmatively posited, defined, and delimited, in toto, the qualifications for standing in elections for membership in the Congress. The states, under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, explicitly retain unto themselves the power to make the laws for the government and regulation of elections for Federal offices that are apportioned to them (the states) by the U.S. Constitution.--but we aren't talking about a state-apportioned office)

For another example look at the McCloskey/McIntyre Congressional race in 1984. The Ds stole that election, fair and square.

[Bradley in DC]

There's legal precedent for the Supreme Court getting involved in issues involving qualifications for federal office.

See: Powell v. McCormack.

So you are saying that the birther bill in Congress would be unconstitutional because it would add to the constitutionally-proscribed requirements? ;)

[foofighter20x]

You should have read further in Wikipedia...


The opinion stated that the case was justiciable; that it did not constitute a political question that pit one branch of government against another. Rather, it required no more than an interpretation of the Constitution".

What constitutes an electoral vote? Is it merely what's been cast by the elector, or does it require more--i.e., the vote be for a person who qualifies for the office?

There is also federal code on the matter covering the process of how the electoral votes are counted which give the court, as the final interpreter of federal law, plenty of elbow room (see 3 U.S.C. 15 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000015----000-.html)).

What constitutes a "regularly given" vote? For all we know, SCOTUS may well deem that it means a vote for a person who meets all the qualifications for office, and that any vote for a candidate not meeting those criteria are "not regularly given."

And that's an issue a court can decide. Congress might preempt them, however, by fixing the statute and defining what a "regularly given" electoral vote is.

[Bradley in DC]

Only time I know of where the SCOTUS got involved:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/ElectoralCollege.html

As a result of these discussions, a bill was passed by both houses and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant on 29 January 1877, which created- for resolving that election only- a 15-member Electoral Commission (5 members from the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, 5 from the Republican-controlled Senate and 5 from the U.S. Supreme Court [4 Associate Justices (2 having been- before their appointment to the Court- Democrats, the other 2 having been Republicans in the past) were specifically named and they would subsequently pick a 5th Associate Justice, who- it was presumed- would be the deciding vote in case of a tie among the other 14 "Commissioners"]). The next day, the two houses of Congress chose their allotted "Commissioners"- the House choosing 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans (one of whom was a future President- Congressman James A. Garfield of Ohio), the Senate choosing 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, while the 4 Supreme Court Justices chose Associate Justice Joseph R. Bradley, a Republican (it was intended that Associate Justice David Davis, a true political Independent, be the 5th Justice on the Electoral Commission- but he was elected to the Senate from Illinois by a Republican legislature [back then, Senators were not yet chosen by popular vote but by the legislature of their State] just before the Commission was formed [but AFTER the bill forming the Commission was drafted!... there is, as one might suspect, a lot of interesting historical speculation about this little factoid!]; this forced the 5th Justice to be a Republican, as the only two former Democrats on the Supreme Court were already on the Commission!!).

[Bradley in DC]

What constitutes an electoral vote? Is it merely what's been cast by the elector, or does it require more--i.e., the vote be for a person who qualifies for the office?

There is also federal code on the matter covering the process of how the electoral votes are counted which give the court, as the final interpreter of federal law, plenty of elbow room (see 3 U.S.C. 15 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000015----000-.html)).

What constitutes a "regularly given" vote? For all we know, SCOTUS may well deem that it means a vote for a person who meets all the qualifications for office, and that any vote for a candidate not meeting those criteria are "not regularly given."

And that's an issue a court can decide. Congress might preempt them, however, by fixing the statute and defining what a "regularly given" electoral vote is.

Lots of "mays" so sure, but I doubt it. I think the constitution and history are clear enough.

[Bradley in DC]

There is also federal code on the matter covering the process of how the electoral votes are counted which give the court, as the final interpreter of federal law, plenty of elbow room (see 3 U.S.C. 15 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000015----000-.html)).

The code seems to reinforce my main point that it is the Congress that is the one to decide these questions:


Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

I think it spells out nicely the constitutional mechanism by which the Congress is the place where these questions are decided. (I truncated the part about dates, etc.)

More on certificates of vote here:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/certificates.html
(they're from the state legislatures)

[Njon]

We're not talking about the court judging laws. We're talking about constitutionally proscribed roles.

Actually, read the OP, the choosing of electors (and ratifying their vote) is the thread topic.

The process of choosing of electors has nothing to do with Obama being Constitutionally-qualified. If you think it does, then it seems you don't understand this issue very well at all.

In any case, I explained the Constitutional provision for what I stated.

[Bradley in DC]

The process of choosing of electors has nothing to do with Obama being Constitutionally-qualified. If you think it does, then it seems you don't understand this issue very well at all.

In any case, I explained the Constitutional provision for what I stated.

You're not getting my point (and yours is off topic).

Yes, the process has everything to do with it: the constitution not only lists the qualifications but also who/how/when questions are addressed about those qualifications.

We're not talking about making laws. That is separate. Similarly, there are different processes for treaties, etc., too, which would also be off point.

Those concerned with constitutional qualifications should be equally concerned that the process to evaluate those questions are also constitutional.

[demolama]

The code seems to reinforce my main point that it is the Congress that is the one to decide these questions:



I think it spells out nicely the constitutional mechanism by which the Congress is the place where these questions are decided. (I truncated the part about dates, etc.)

More on certificates of vote here:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/certificates.html
(they're from the state legislatures)

Yes, doesn't anyone remember in 2000 where a congresswoman objected to the Bush win while Gore proceeded the totals of the electoral college? No senators would sign on with the congresswoman and Gore had to certify his own defeat.

[pcosmar]

THE BOTTOM LINE IS

Even if we accept that the election procedures and practices were all above board, The people elected an empty suit with a smile and a teleprompter.

I am more sympathetic to anyone resisting and questioning the Statis Quo that those that support it.
I also welcome any wrenches thrown into the machine.

[Bradley in DC]

THE BOTTOM LINE IS

Even if we accept that the election procedures and practices were all above board, The people elected an empty suit with a smile and a teleprompter.

I am more sympathetic to anyone resisting and questioning the Statis Quo that those that support it.
I also welcome any wrenches thrown into the machine.

Not disagreeing, but making a different point: why aren't people unhappy with what happened either holding the responsible ones accountable or making sure their state processes are the best they could be?

[Njon]

You're not getting my point (and yours is off topic).

Yes, the process has everything to do with it: the constitution not only lists the qualifications but also who/how/when questions are addressed about those qualifications.

It's not off topic. You asked about the role of the courts, which I explained at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2245921&postcount=5 and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2246024&postcount=18 in addition to showing why what you're saying about electors is irrelevant. None of these challenges regarding Obama's eligibility have anything directly to do with how a state's electors are chosen.

As I pointed out, the Constitution clearly says that the judiciary has authority over all cases in law and equity under the Constitution. Thus filing a case in regard to the Constitutional eligibility of the presidency is valid.



We're not talking about making laws. That is separate. Similarly, there are different processes for treaties, etc., too, which would also be off point.

Affirming the Electoral College vote is not making a law, but it is an act of the legislative body. Treaties, laws and everything else the federal government done is bound by the limits of the Constitution. Even the U.S. Supreme Court said:

"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [...] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258, 133 U. S. 267, it declared: 'The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.'"
REFERENCE: Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 17-18 (1957). Cited at the U.S. Supreme Court Center. Justia & Oyez & Forms WorkFlow. Accessed August 5, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/354/1/case.html (Removed hyperlinks for formatting. See also 'Footnote 33' cited by the court after the sentence where I inserted an ellipsis.)

An unconstitutional action does not become constitutional simply because it follows a certain procedure. Just because the Electoral College elected Obama, does not mean he was eligible and therefore does not mean they had any authority to elect him.


Those concerned with constitutional qualifications should be equally concerned that the process to evaluate those questions are also constitutional.
I agree. And I pointed out how the courts analyzing this in a case is valid under Article III.

[Bradley in DC]

It's not off topic..

Try faming a response referencing the OP. ;)

[Njon]

Try faming a response referencing the OP. ;)


The constitution outlines rules and delegates powers. What role would the SCOTUS have for a power delegated to state legislatures (choosing electors to the electoral college) and the US Senate (ratifying the electoral college vote)? This goes to the point of the birther debate being laughable and ridiculous in my mind.

I'm beginning to think that you're trying to hide behind this false 'choosing the electors' shield you've created because you are incapable of answering the Constitutional and historical evidence regarding this issue. Perhaps that's why you didn't answer me at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2245218&postcount=155 when I asked you what basis you had for your conclusions.

You've edited your OP so I don't know what was there initially. If it is what it says now, then perhaps I misread your question. But in that case, your question itself would be irrelevant to the issues as raised by the 'birthers' at large, and thus certainly not valid for making the 'birther' issue
laughable and ridiculous

[pcosmar]

Not disagreeing, but making a different point: why aren't people unhappy with what happened either holding the responsible ones accountable or making sure their state processes are the best they could be?

That train wreck was debated, and the folks that were concerned with the current system (electronic voting/fraud) were widely ridiculed. Attempts at transparency were hindered, and delegated were screwed.
As I remember the Birth Question came up first during the Democratic Primary. Along with other questions about his total lack of any qualifications.
Folks in Michigan were not even given a choice in that.

And I am an Independent voter. Non- Partisan. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

That train wreck was debated, and the folks that were concerned with the current system (electronic voting/fraud) were widely ridiculed. Attempts at transparency were hindered, and delegated were screwed.
As I remember the Birth Question came up first during the Democratic Primary. Along with other questions about his total lack of any qualifications.
Folks in Michigan were not even given a choice in that.

And I am an Independent voter. Non- Partisan. ;)

Yes, but now, today, we could all find out who it is in our own counties who deals with voting machines and try to get them thrown out in each of our counties. Now, long before the next election comes up. If we wait until the month before, it's too late.

That's what I don't get about the folks who rightly get so up in arms about voting machines. They seem to do it right before elections. Where in hell are they when the elections are not going on? Isn't now the best time to get the voting machines thrown out?

[pcosmar]

Folks have been trying for years. You only HEAR about it at Election time.
Meanwhile "lawmakers" are pulling more shit.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting

[Bradley in DC]

Yes, but now, today, we could all find out who it is in our own counties who deals with voting machines and try to get them thrown out in each of our counties. Now, long before the next election comes up. If we wait until the month before, it's too late.

That's what I don't get about the folks who rightly get so up in arms about voting machines. They seem to do it right before elections. Where in hell are they when the elections are not going on? Isn't now the best time to get the voting machines thrown out?

+1