|
|
Post by Abdiel on Nov 23, 2008 18:52:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Abdiel on Nov 26, 2008 14:54:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Abdiel on Nov 26, 2008 14:56:40 GMT -5
Correction is not taken down, but now you see a warning page. Before entering. thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/Funny, blogspot sometimes hosts porn sites, and they take eons to censor them. Abdiel. |
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Nov 26, 2008 16:00:59 GMT -5
I've been reading thru the top of the donofrio blog - the arguements there don't impress me.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 27, 2008 12:25:43 GMT -5
I've been reading thru the top of the donofrio blog - the arguements there don't impress me. The way I read it, Donofrio is suing the Secretary of State for breach of oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States in that she "certified" for the ballot candidates which were ineligible according to the Constitution she took an oath to uphold. I think the key word here is "certified". I am not sure Donofrio has missed this point or if there simply no clarification in New Jersey law which sets forth criteria that certification requires strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States which Donofrio's case assumes. So Donofrio's case hinges on the assumption that "certification" does require constitutional eligibility qualification review. The case was dismissed because Judge Sabatino said Donofrio misreads NJ law which says the Secretary of State must "certify" candidates for the ballot to which "voters" are "by law entitled" to vote for, not "candidates" which by law voters are "entitled by law" to vote for. I think that Judge Sabatino was justified on that basis to dismiss the case on its merit alone but not when you consider that Donofrio's case brings up the breach of oath issue...a point which Sabatino, whether intentional or unintentionally, failed to address in his arguments for dismissal. It is this failure to address the "breach of oath" aspect which the Supreme Court has to consider when reviewing his case for review of his request for emergency stay of the 2008 election. Donofrio's case hinges upon the oath. His arguments for the ineligibility of the candidates is a strong one siting case law and the 14th amendment. But this only comes up before the Supreme Cort if they see merit in the argument that the Secretary of State failed to uphold her oath as a requirement for her authority to "certify" candidates for the ballot and that they must be convinced that it falls under her duties to do her due diligence with regard to investigation of the qualifications of a candidate as a part of the certification process rather than as Judge Sabatino put it...simply a "clerical" function only. It is important to note that Justice Thomas has distributed this for conference instead of dismissing it outright...something he could have easily done. I would speculate he sees the "oath" aspect of the case and realizes the Supreme Court must give due consideration to the Constitutional ramifications (Donofrio's good arguments for ineligibility of 3 candidates on the ballot) of the "breach of oath" argument. Donofrio's case for getting it to the Supreme Court is a very weak one but if accepted has huge ramifications based on a very strong argument for ineligibility of 3 candidates. On the surface, it appears Justice Thomas sees it this way by distribution the case to the other justices and calling for a conference of all the justices on December 5th...just 10 days before the Electoral College casts their votes. With no clear Constitutional precedent or provision the Supreme Court will have to establish precedent as to what follows if the candidates are disqualified. Will Joe Biden be sworn in or considered "fruit of the poisonous tree"? Will the Electoral College have to cast a vote for one of the remaining candidates on the ballot? Will the Election be declared void? Will George W. Bush remain in office (beyond a constitutionally mandated 2 terms) until a new election can be held? It will be interesting to see how this plays out. |
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Nov 27, 2008 14:14:20 GMT -5
Thanks, now I understand the issues. It's generally accepted that all politicians lie and their oaths of office which usually end with 'so help me God', are meaningless. I view this as perjury which happens to be a high crime and/or misdemeanor and also a crime against God - blasphemy. On these points alone, Congress could be incarcerated en masse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerseyboy on Nov 27, 2008 14:59:03 GMT -5
In this article found on World Net Daily, an ex vp candidate from the Constitution party, and a Director of Criminal Justice programs both offer evidence regarding who is responsible to hold candidates accountable. It is a very comprehensive presentation that refers to the constitution and federalist papers. "Proofin the Prez, who's in charge?" worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81944The jist seems to be that the people have the responsibility and thus the civilians approaching SCOTUS are doing their diligence, especially since some approached before the election. Also, the electoral college has a responsibility to research, and that if they discover fraud, they must not elect, and if they do, the only recouse left to the people they fail is impeachment. And they also speak of who would get the nod if the fraud is uncovered and prosecuted POST inauguration and PRE inauguration. Personally, I find that the high degree of reactivity as opposed to proactive pre-emption to this situation by such a small minority of concerned citizens is a sign of the times that is disconcerting. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 27, 2008 16:25:33 GMT -5
In this article found on World Net Daily, an ex vp candidate from the Constitution party, and a Director of Criminal Justice programs both offer evidence regarding who is responsible to hold candidates accountable. It is a very comprehensive presentation that refers to the constitution and federalist papers. "Proofin the Prez, who's in charge?" worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81944The jist seems to be that the people have the responsibility and thus the civilians approaching SCOTUS are doing their diligence, especially since some approached before the election. Also, the electoral college has a responsibility to research, and that if they discover fraud, they must not elect, and if they do, the only recouse left to the people they fail is impeachment. And they also speak of who would get the nod if the fraud is uncovered and prosecuted POST inauguration and PRE inauguration. Personally, I find that the high degree of reactivity as opposed to proactive pre-emption to this situation by such a small minority of concerned citizens is a sign of the times that is disconcerting. If, as suggested by the link you provided, the electors are responsible for determining the eligibility of the candidates they elect, then the question is...are they legally liable for casting a vote for a candidate which is shown to be ineligible? In short can a voter legally sue an elector who casts a vote for Obama or McCain on the basis of "Natural Born Citizen" status on the basis of the fact that the elector did not do their due diligence (again, their oath to uphold the Constitution) in determining the eligibility of the candidate? If so, I can see a flurry of potentially hundreds of lawsuits in dozens of states after the 15th should the Supreme Court dismiss the Donofrio v. Wells case. Supreme Court clerk Danny Bickell did the country a great disservice by illegally preventing a request for stay from getting to Justice Souter before November 4th. In my opinion Bickell should be charged with treason. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 28, 2008 10:09:56 GMT -5
If responsibility falls upon the electors and the Secretary of State, due to their respective oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, then they are therefore liable under the law for failure to determine the constitutional eligibility of the candidate for which they cast their vote. Prevailing in such a lawsuit would void their vote. Any voter in the State would have 'standing' in such a suit. One voter prevailing in a multiple suit could void an entire State's electoral college votes. which could tip the scale in the 2008 election results after Dec 15th.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caligastia Lanonandek on Nov 28, 2008 15:48:17 GMT -5
Stephen
They may be liable but who is going to prosecute them - Obama?
I don't think so
We are a nation of laws only when its convenient for one side or the other.
|
|
