Posted on 11/22/2008 8:32:29 AM PST by BP2
Thanks for the link to the new Polarik report! Now have it ready to go out to anyone who questions me about it! :)
You are right that he slanted the question so as to force the ambassador into the affirmative.
However, if you’ll notice he used the same strategy on two different occasions and the ambassador gently brushed him off.
First, he tried to force the ambassador to sing the Kenyan national anthem. The ambassador referred him to the kenyan website.
Second he tried to push the ambassador into saying something about maybe Kenya becoming the 51st state. Again the ambassador said that Kenya was a sovereign country. ie No.
He used the same technique on the question of Obama’s birth place. This time the ambassador said yes.
Close. Americans, or their state legislatures, voted for a single slate of electors. The electors then voted for two cannidates, both for the President. The runner up became Vice President.
Doesn't anyone bother to go read the source documents? In this case: From Art. II Section 1, Constitution for the United States:
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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. 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 shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President [Modified by Amendment XII].
Note it was not an ordinary law that was changed, it was the Constitution Itself that was changed, via the 12th and later the 20th amendment.
"Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review — if any — should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300–02 (1998).
Judges simply don't want to get involved. But if they wait for the normal Electoral process to go it's normal course, it'll be too late to do anything before Inauguration Day. The Obama train will have already left the station and ALL of the American public may have been duped and the Constitution plundered.
That's why I'm hopeful, and optimistic, that the US Supreme Court will take this on -- all of the state and district courts have been to chicksh!t to intervene up to this point!
Sending the same email to ALL media and officials, as you’ve suggested, absolutely does work. In the past, when I’ve tried to get officials moving on an issue by individual email, it was to no avail. Finally, I hit on the same idea as your’s and received immediate responses from over half of the list. One issue was settled the same day.
Obama is a fraud. His election is fraudulent. I hold those as facts due to my own determinations about his actions in regards this "natural born" issue.
Neither Obama nor Biden, imo, are due any regard under the 20th, or the rest of the Constitution, except to be disqualifuied, and for criminal action to be taken against Obama and his accomplices.
It may be that McCain is found not to 'natural born', yet his election was not fraudulent, therefore if it is that if he is ruled ineligible by way of not being "natural born" I would hope that Sarah Palin would be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America.
Probably so. We don’t know what is going on. That shows how big this thing is; after all, the buck is going to stop at the final destination according to law, whether SC, Congress or Electors and the cards will be on the table.
I have not heard a peep out of Savage about Leo’s case. I listen to his show almost every night but no for the full 3 hours.
I just emiled everyone on Fox news programs. Will be sending to the other news networks in a few minutes. Lets all fill their email boxes!
Yeah God forbid the AM radio conservative talkers actually engage in their First Amnedment right to discuss a lawsuit sitting at SCOTUS. I think they and Drudge have been bought and paid for.
Savage and Levin’s occassional anger and rage looks more theatrical at this point. They are poodles now like Savage dog. I think Hannity wants to speak but they are all muzzled.
Thank goodness for the Internet radio people like Lan Lanphere, Plains Radio and a few others. These people like Leo have a lot of courage.
Anyone know if Leo will be on Plains Radio and Lan Lanphere radio show Monday night? Thank goodness for the Internet radio folks.
A web site with a mistaken interpretation is irrelevant.
That was in one state, was it not? And it upheld the "right to require electors to pledge," not the punishment for failing to vote for the pledged candidate.
The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court.
The laws have been affirmed - however, the PUNISHMENT has not since no Elector has EVER been punished ... so far.
If it comes down to electors being faced with the choice of voting for a pledged candidate who has been declared ineligible by virtue of a SCOTUS ruling, or the electors voting for an eligible alternative, I very much doubt the SCOTUS would uphold any law mandating punishment for said electors.
Yeah, those stupid government websites! What would a federal site know about law or rules! /s
Sit back and watch.
Since neither of us are major players, there is no alternative, is there? ;-)
All we can do is "stoke" the fire.
No, I don't see McCain becoming President under any scenario.
If Obama is ruled ineligible -- and that's a big "if" -- we would have one of the following: a) a set of Democratic electors voting on an alternate candidate; b) a Democratic Congress in charge of the Electoral Votes -- and capable of using either the 12th or 20th Amendment to string it out so that Biden becomes POTUS; or c) chaos.
Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.
That sidebar was in reference to punitive laws for "faithless electors." The SCOTUS has largely, as it should, deferred to the states in their regulation of electors, but the punitive measures -- fines, etc., for those not voting for the popular vote winner -- has never been challenged.
Agreed. But the scenario we've been discussing -- electors pledged to vote for a candidate who's been declared ineligible -- has never occurred before in our history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.