Posted on 09/22/2013 1:06:51 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Next Friday, at or before 11:30 a.m. CST, the decision on oral argument in the Barack Obama eligibility case now under deliberation in the Alabama Supreme Court could come down. You can call Clerk Julia Weller’s office at # 334-229-0700, but you must ask for this case or you will not receive an answer. Ask for status results in the “Hugh McInnish, Virgil Goode v. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State.” Every Friday morning before noon Clerk Weller receives her Friday document release in cases in front of the nine member Alabama Supreme Court. Additionally, you could also call new Alabama Secretary of State Jim Bennett at 1-800-274-8683 or # 334-242-7200. They may have something for you.
This case is being brought by high ranking, Alabama Republicans Hugh McInnish and Virgil Goode with the lead appellant L. Dean Johnson asking the court to determine if then Secretary of State Beth Chapman failed to properly verify that all candidates on the 2012 election ballots in Alabama were...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
According to whom?? The principle is in effect whether it’s stated or not. I showed the definition and how that fit the exact verbiage used in the denial.
That’s a trainwreck of a decision. The judge cites Minor to say that the Constitution does not say who shall be natural-born citizens and then he goes straight to the 14th amendment of the Constitution to define eligibility. IOW, it’s a direct contradiction of unanimous Supreme Court precedent. I don’t know what argument Voeltz made, but it’s easy to show this judge contradicted his own rationale.
The law is not the main criterion because the majority of the Judges in the US do not think the constitution *should* be applied, they prefer the more comfortable routine of citing bogus precedent built on multiple levels of miss-reading the law.
This applies x10 if the progressive judge thinks the decision is going to affect the political balance of power.
Is the US a Democracy, or a Constitutional Republic? the progressives infiltrate the Judiciary precisely to destroy the constitution.
There is also another CP USA trick of infiltrating their spawn into Law clerks offices and blackmailing Justices.
The Alabama Supreme court is about the last court in the USA that is dominated by constitionional conservative Justices.
Even they may decide there is nothing they can do and punt.
A request for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus is not an action where a court would rule based on Article Three standing.
“Failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested” and being adjudicated as not having standing to bring a lawsuit are two entirely different things.
I’m not sure which of the three Voeltz v. Obama eligibility lawsuits you are referring to as a “train wreck” but one judge’s ruling was appealed to the Florida Court of Appeals for the First District and upheld; another appeal is still pending at the Court of Appeals and the Florida Supreme Court denied the third appeal.
That’s what an appeal to a higher court is for, when a plaintiff or a defendant feels that a judge’s ruling is a “train wreck.” But unless and until it is overturned, the “train wreck” of a ruling stands.
Ok... there was no decision last Friday. Once again it is Friday. Is today the day we get a decision?
Looks like no, unless it is not published.
https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs2.cfm?no=3624&event=3W80LOJY7
Does Beth Chapman’s resignation affect the possibility of a Writ of Mandamus being granted?
Surely it makes the legal reasoning more difficult for a Mandamus: I would bet the odds of a punt are higher.
However, ff a civil case is brought against an office holder in the state of Alabama for a Mandamus to correct a failure to perform a professional duty of constitutional importance while that SOS was in office, a layperson might think that a Mandamus could be written to command the current officeholder to perform the duty, even after the resignation of Chapman.
But I am also sure a liberal court would find a technicality based on moldy precedent that could be claimed to invalidate the courts ruling for a Mandamus.
This is probably why they’re waiting so long. They can certainly point out the actual Constitutional precedent, but it doesn’t mean that they can enforce any kind of meaningful resolution other than to de-legitimize the 2012 election results in Alabama.
Sorry, but I already showed where it means the same thing.
I explained what I meant. What part did you truly not understand?? I was very specific about the cited legal principle and I’m pretty sure it was your link I used to cite it.
Judge Lewis’ ruling was upheld on appeal by the Florida First District Court of Appeals.
I believe that Obama, due to extraordinary circumstances, was *Never* a US citizen.
A Foreigner in possession of the Nuclear Launch codes is the ultimate National security issue due to the president being the apex of the chain of command under the US Constitution.
That kind of issue trumps all the moldy old off-point precedents that liberal and progressive judges like to cook up.
The Mandamus would in effect create new law in Alabama concerning the duties of the SOS.
The resolution of the National Security issue is simply Sunlight.
Show the ruling and what it said specifically about Lewis’ dicta on how NBC is defined. A procedural denial doesn’t make bad dicta good.
The Appeals Court ruling was delivered Per Curiam as a dismissal. There was no discussion of dicta in the lower court’s order.
Oh... {once again resumes playing Jeopardy’s time is counting down music}
The Alabama Secretary of State would then request and receive a Letter of Verification from the Hawaii state Registrar, like the Secretaries of State in Arizona and Kansas did and Mitt Romney would continue to be the winner of Alabama’s Electoral votes.
The 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that the person who receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “shall be the President.”
The 20th Amendment states that a President-Elect can “fail to qualify.”
Once Congress certifies a majority of the electoral votes and a President-Elect is administered the Oath of Office, the only ways to remove that person are impeachment, trial in the Senate and conviction, or resignation.
A federal judge laid that out clearly back in 2009 in a lawsuit that eventually ended up at the Supreme Court of the United States: “Keyes, Barnett et al v. Obama, et al”— U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
1/ Whats in the Mandamus order
2/ Does the Mandamus order the SOS to perform his duty after reporting to the court where the case was appealed from OR
Does the Mandamus order the SOS to perform his duty and report back to the Alabama supreme court.
There is a huge difference there, the lower court is likely to indulge the kind of confidence trickery of the non verifying verification from a person at Hawaii DOH claiming to act of behalf of the Registrar.
If the Mandamus orders the SOS to report back to the Supreme court, because of the National Security implications, then the whole sorry cover up of Obama’s ineligible past would likely be exposed.
IOW, you have nothing.
I don’t think that a STATE Supreme Court would be ruling on NATIONAL security concerns.
It would be surprising if a state Supreme Court would rule on any issue that wasn’t addressed in original jurisdiction (Alabama Superior) court and the issue that is before the Supreme Court is does Alabama law require the Secretary of State to verify the eligibility credentials of candidates for national office.
Obama is not a party in the Alabama suit, its McInnish v. Chapman and Romney won Alabama’s Electoral votes.
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.