Some well-established principles of election law have been at work in the Obama case: Voter choice, ballot clarity and efficient administration of elections, to name three. Unfortunately, none of the interested bloggers have discussed these principles.
President-elect Obama was nominated in each of the fifty states (except Michigan), Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia in the manner mandated by the election law established in each of those jurisdictions. There are general principles of election law that underlie the process in each state and territory. A nomination is established, with a few exceptions, by a nominating petition filed by the legal deadline with the chief election law in the state or territory. There are a minimum number of signatures required, and qualifications for people who sign the nominating petition.
There are a number of ways that a petition can be deficient. If a petition is deficient, the appropriate election officer can refuse to permit the candidate on the ballot. If that does not happen, the petition is subject to legal challenge by opposing candidates. There is a very short window of opportunity for such a challenge. Bases for petition challenges fall into three basic categories: (1) Insufficient number of qualified nominating signatures; (2) technical deficiencies; and (3) the nominee lacks legal or constitutional qualifications or suffers from a constitutional or legal bar to serve in the particular office.
The reasons for the short time period for petition challenges are clear: The ballots must be prepared in a timely and orderly manner. Once they are prepared, the voters and the candidates then can rely on the ballot as prepared by the election official. In that time-honored manner, the voters know what their choices are and can be confident that their choice will be honored.
In the Obama case, not one of his opponents challenged any one of his petitions in any state or territory. Election litigation is one of the hallmarks of the Democratic Party. Indeed, President-elect Obama has benefitted from outstanding lawyering both in his initial State Senate election (in which his lawyers had the incumbent disqualified) and in his U.S. Senate election (in which his lawyers were able to push the incumbent out of the race). Sentator Clinton had dozens of outstanding election lawyers on her team. Some of her political allies served as chief election officers in the states and territories. She had the knowledge. She had the opportunity. She had the ambition. And Team Clinton is certainly capable of hardball politics.
Despite all that, Senator Clinton did not challenge any of the Obama petitions based on his legal or constitutional qualifications to hold office. Why? Lack of gumption? No. Lack of knowledge? No. Lack of resources? No. Perhaps Senator Clinton did not make such a challenge because her research indicated that BHO was legally and constitutionally qualified to hold the office.
Interested observers have asked: Well, why didn’t Obama produce his vault birth certificate to be examined in a court of law? The answer is easy: Because the legal issue was never properly framed in a petition challenge.
Now that the general election has taken place, it is too late to disqualify a candidate. The electorate in the states and territories had a very long period in which to consider their choices both in the primary and in the general. No court should now reverse those elections and the choices of one hundred and twenty million people. To do so would be to invite legal and civil chaos. To do so would create a power vacuum which could be a national security threat.
Citizenship will remain as a political issue for many, and it may return as a legal issue once the future President Obama begins to file nominating petitions for his re-election. But for now, the citizenship is moot as a legal issue where the 2008 election and 2009 inauguration is concerned.
Charles W. Fairbanks is the nom de plum for one of Men For Palin’s founders. He is an experienced election lawyer. MFP will be happy to provide a link to show his bonafides as an election lawyer in response to a bona fide request for information submitted by email to fairbanks@menforpalin.com
No court should now reverse those elections and the choices of one hundred and twenty million people. To do so would be to invite legal and civil chaos. To do so would create a power vacuum which could be a national security threat. (posted by Chuck and duck.)
Ok Chuck, let me get this straight; so regardless of how the Illegal Alien POTUS Elect pulled off this hoax, we the people should roll over because a bunch of Marxist idiots could threaten violence through civil chaos? Don’t they do that already? You know, shooting up RNC HQ’s, hitting old ladies in the head with wooden posts, following GOP supporters home and beating the hell out of them!!
Yep, time to move on, nothing to see here!
Chuck, you are a total tool and probably part of the Obamatron’s misinformation squad!
That's just not going to work for the rest of us.
this issue needs to be engaged as if our lives depended on it.
For indeed our lives do depend on it.
Three years form the time the fraud was known or should have known of the fraud.
Um, you forgot to take off your Obama kneepads when you signed up at FR, n00b. Your constitution must be a bit differently written than the one we revere at FR. Scurry back to your hidey hole, agitprop. We are not going to stop working to show the truth about your little Marxist squirrel. NAd the tagline isn’t much help to hide behind, fool. Your post proves what you actually are.
LOL! So that makes him legit! That is the worst damn logic I have ever heard regardless of the issue.
You mean Howes?
Do you think they are in the same class as a constitutional (Harvard) scholar like Alan Keyes?
“No court should now reverse those elections and the choices of one hundred and twenty million people. To do so would be to invite legal and civil chaos. To do so would create a power vacuum which could be a national security threat.”
Charlie, recommend you consider coming clean with your handlers and telling them you didn’t make it to first base on this site.
Let me add, there are no elections to reverse at the moment, despite your attempt to cower us into doing so.
Further, as others have pointed out, there is clear language in the 20th amendment that addresses this precise factual setting.
Finally, any legal and civil chaos that occurs will be caused by those who do not want to follow that clear language. You may have also noticed the general tone here is “Bring it on!”
Skipper18: “Removing him would now require a literal military coup.”
My response to both you and Charlie: I disagree but do believe there will be civil unrest by those who bought into the fraud.
“Courage is the price of freedom” (courtesy of Amelia Earhart).
Missnry: “Every red blooded conservative should be storming the capitol at this point until the alleged American produces what is REQUIRED of him.”
Actually, O, his handlers and his legal team have anticipated this scenario and are prepared to present all manner of misleading arguments and evidence in order to stall until after Jan 20.
I believe it would be far better that the Republicans prepare to demonstrate conclusively on Jan 8 that he is not natural born
STAND UP AMERICA! The presidential election is not over!
We voted for electors, not the individual candidates. The electors vote on or after December 15, 2009. The results are then presented to a joint session of Congress and objections may be heard on January 8, 2009 pursuant to the 20th amendment and Public Law 110-430. See the letter on my About page hand-delivered to the local offices of my Republican Senators and Representatives. I urge you to take similar action, even if it is simply faxing a one page letter to Washington, D.C.
Precedence is NOT this nation's friend.
The bottom line is that no court will - or should - now bar BHO from taking office in 2009.If I recall correctly, when U.S. Supreme Court Justices are sworn in, they swear an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. How can they, as a co-equal branch of our government, permit a violation to go forward of a constitutionally-mandated qualification for serving as president?
Berg may not have had standing and the lower courts might not have the power to do so, but I see the U.S. Supreme Court as the final arbiter as to whether or not a candidate can legitimately and constitutionally assume the office.
The Constitution specifically speaks to dealing with a President-elect who fails to qualify. Did you ever wonder why, or have you never read the darned thing?
There’s no reason to stop this train now that it’s moving. For $15, Obama could have made it all go away, but instead he has chosen to spend $800,000 and more. So the damage done to this socialist politician is totally out of proportion to the effort spent on it. Besides, we may just get the stars lined up and a Supreme Court that believes in the Constitution.
OK, if this is true, I have one question.
Some are saying that if Barack Obama is not qualified to be President of the United States, then every decision he makes, every agreement the USA makes with other countries, is null and voic and not valid because it could be proven at some point that he is NOT natural born, and a constitutional crisis will occur.
I liken this election lawyer’s argument to saying that the right to bear arms is taken care of within local, smaller laws, and if you haven’t bought your gun by (making up a local law here) January 12th of a given year, that was it; it’s too late to still acquire one in that calendar year.
Doesn’t the Constitution trump these local or state election laws that allow a small window of time to vet the opposing candidate?
Thus wouldn’t we still be in a huge crisis if someone came along in 2 years and sued that our President is not eligible and nothing he does is valid?
bkmk
We notice that you do not cite any case authority precedent and there would not seem to be any statutory authority for your position.
Please let us here on FR know if I am wrong and there is such precedent or authority.
Otherwise the situation would seem be one where a void act is void whenever someone with standing challenges it in court.
Hahaha. I can't believe someone is actually trying to use that ploy. Sorry, Charlie, but we have not begun to fight.
Why are you bringing Palin into this? She has nothing to do with the issue.
Are you hoping to gain credibility so you can sucker conservatives?
I don’t know if you are a leftist in disguise. But if you are, what’s it like knowing you can never advance your ideology on its own merits?