Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sibre Fan
Are you aware of who is authoring the briefs according to the document properties filed with the court (and, with some, according to the author's statements made on talk radio)? Not lawyers.

So you know for a fact that Taitz consults with no lawyers - ever? That would not pass the smell test.

The idea that Cheney is kowtowed by Obots is a rather striking idea.

No not Cheney. Cheney failed to call for objections to Obama's presidency as prescribed by law. Society in general, to include Congress, has cowed in the face of being painted as "racist" or some other nonsense where none really exist - which is used as a political tactic by the left and Obama. You see it everyday from Jimmy Carter to Eric Holder who have playing the BS race card. Furthermore, Obama like clockwork, used the race card on or about every two weeks during his campaign from Spring to Fall of last year. Yeah, I can see why Congress critters who may have had objections to Obama may have ate their words when it was time to speak up.

If they didn't file a written objection, they didn't properly object. You can't say I objected, but I failed to follow the required procedure to make the objection, but my objection should have been heard anyway.

Cheney failed in his duties to follow the statute to "call" on Congress no matter if there were any objections or not. First, Cheney should have called for objections, then the written objections would follow - if any.

How do we know that he was about to object? If he was, where's he BEEN for the past nine months? He was identified (on Orly's blog) on January 31. If he was trying to object, and if he had followed the rules regarding his objection, then HE has a potential claim. Others cannot assert the claim on his behalf, but he has a claim. Where is he? If he is "kowtowing" to PC-ness, then he should be challenged on this.

We don't for sure, He possibly changed his mind because of the withering leftist BS for objecting he would have faced for doing so. Many FReepers here who saw his hand raised thought he raised his hand in objection, Cheney didn't give him a chance at the time now did he? Again, the point is Cheney did not follow the law, therefore, it's an opening for the plaintiff to point this out to the judge no matter what Cheney's reason for not doing so.

177 posted on 09/22/2009 10:06:32 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]


To: Red Steel
Cheney failed to call for objections to Obama's presidency as prescribed by law. 

In its motion to dismiss, the  defense argued that the "The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the President includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office because the examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process."

We know, though, in practice, the electors are political hacks appointed as electors by their party in reward for their support. Theirs has become, in practice, a ceremonial role (and some of  them might not even be alive, as was the case with one in California).

If you look at Kreef's argument in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss,  Cheney's oversight becomes insignificant.

...the Electoral College is not empowered with the authority to determine the eligibility of any candidate. As discussed above, in twenty-six States and the District of Columbia, Presidential Electors are prohibited by statute from voting in variance with their pledges, or, if they do, they face civil or criminal penalties and fines. The act of determining eligibility is one that requires discretionary authority, so that a candidate found to be ineligible may be removed. However, any discretionary authority of the majority of the State’s Presidential Electors has been removed by statute, and the Presidential Electors, instead, perform a ministerial function of casting their votes in accordance with the popular vote of the State that each Elector represents. The assertion of Defendants that the Electoral College has the authority to make any determination of a Presidential candidate’s qualifications is unpersuasive because, while the historical intent of the of the Electoral College was to make such determinations, the modern majority trend of the States is to limit the duties of the Electors to the ministerial role of casting a vote for the candidate chosen by the popular vote of their respective States.

Further, other than a Concurring Opinion, Defendants offer no modern precedent for the claimed power of the Electoral College. Thus, the Electoral College lacks the authority to make a determination of a candidates eligibility, and the Court should deny these grounds for dismissal.


183 posted on 09/23/2009 8:58:42 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies ]

To: Red Steel
Cheney failed to call for objections to Obama's presidency as prescribed by law.

Well, I guess that makes the 2004 Election of President Bush invalid, since Vice President Cheney "failed" to call for objections during the Joint Session counting the electoral college vote for the 2004 Election.

Jan. 6, 2005 Joint Session: "The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the tellers will dispense with reading formal portions of the certificates. ..." (151 Cong. Rec. H84-06).

Jan. 8, 2009 Joint Session: "The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the tellers will dispense with reading formal portions of the certificates. ..." (155 Cong. Rec. H75-07).

Perhaps there is another reasonable reading of the requirement, "Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any."

Given that objections must be submitted in writing and therefore are known before the actual session, perhaps Cheney interpreted the requirement to provide that he must call for objections ONLY IF there were any (which he would already know about, because they'd been submitted in writing, with signatures from at least on Senator and one HRep.)

I'm not saying that that is the "right" interpretation (although I suspect that it is). But consider whether that is a reasonable interpretation. If so, you can expect Cheney (and other Reps/Senators) to object to any discovery as irrelevant, because Plaintiff's interpretation of the LAW is incorrect. That is a question of law, not of fact, and discovery would not be permitted until that issue of law was resolved.

Stated another way, in order to obtain discovery (deposing all the Senators/Reps), the Plaintiffs will have to demonstrate that the law requiring the VP to call for objections IF ANY means that the VP must call for objections even if no written objections have been filed.

Again, I'm not saying that your interpretation of the requirement is "wrong." I'm merely saying that the issue is not clear, because there is at least one other reasonable interpretation of the requirement -- and discovery likely won't be granted until that legal issue is resolved.
184 posted on 09/23/2009 9:00:11 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson