Posted on 03/21/2014 10:25:55 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
Today the Alabama Supreme Court issued its 7-2 decision in the case of McInnish v. Chapman, and the decision goes against plaintiffs Hugh Chapman and Virgil Goode, who were trying to force the Alabama Secretary of State to verify Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2102 Alabama presidential ballot. Larry Klayman was the attorney for the Appellants.
The Court’s Majority issued no written opinion, only affirming the lower court decision dismissing the case.
Majority decision to affirm, no opinion (Stuart, Murdock, Shaw, Main, Wise) Concurring opinion (Bolin) Concurring opinion (Bryan) Dissenting Opinion (Moore) Dissenting Opinion (Parker) Chief Justice Roy Moore issued the major dissenting opinion, and Justice Bolin issued a concurring opinion specifically addressed to Moore’s dissent. Chief Justice Moore states that under Alabama Law, Secretary of State Chapman has an affirmative duty to verify candidate eligibility. Justice Bolin agrees that candidate eligibility is an important public interest, but that Alabama statutes do not place a duty on the Secretary of State to verify it. Further Justice Bolin points out that Secretary of State Chapman is a nonjudicial officer with no subpoena power or investigative authority. Justice Bolin concludes:
Under our current structure, however, the burden of investigating a presidential candidate’s qualifications is best left – unfortunately or not – to the candidate’s political party….
As I understand his position, Justice Bolin is saying that a state statute requiring verification of eligibility for candidates for president is a desirable thing, given his belief that the federal courts are prohibited from adjudicating eligibility because of the Political Question Doctrine.
Justice Bryan also issued a concurring opinion, briefly stating his belief that legislation could be passed to allow verification of candidate eligibility.
Chief Justice Moore’s dissenting opinion goes to the details of the Alabama statutes involved and at a brief reading has no particular high points. It is an analysis on the merits.
Chief Justice Parker also dissents from the majority opinion, supporting the analysis of Chief Justice Moore, but disagreeing on the Secretary of State’s affirmative duty to investigate candidate eligibility.
A text search of all of the opinions affirms my opinion that the Affidavit of Mike Zullo is irrelevant, being cited not onc
Please put me on your Eligibility ping.
The date for sheriff joe and zullo was 3-19-14. Then it was changed to late March. Then it was changed to a “rolling date issue”. Nothing gonna happen. No reason to withhold anything they already have. They claim to be getting “paperwork” in order.
I wish something would break but it seems very unlikely.
Wow, what a brilliant and concise synopsis! Well done.
It should be noted that the Secretaries of State in Arizona and Kansas DID verify Obama’s birth certificate via the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics.
http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604
Lets hope this is the pathetic end of Birther litigation. Although their incompetent clowning before a judge always made me smile, their failure to learn from hundreds of failures is getting to be sad.
Not exactly. The current Alabama law says that the Alabama SOS must put on the ballot any Presidential candidate nominated by a "national party." So a more accurate formulation of your point is that the Dems or Repubs can put Putin on the ballot and neither the Alabama SOS nor the citizens of Alabama can do anything about it (except vote against him).
I don’t keep the ping list. I was just pinging some other folks who, I think, keep the list.
You are bucking one of the strongest motivators in human nature. The search for truth. There is too much unknown, lied about, covered up, and avoided. It is my hope that someday all of the questions will be answered, may not happen, but it’s worse to not try.
Suit yourself.
Bennett wanted out and needed a fig leaf. He pronounced Obama eligible based on an email which he hadn’t even read. http://www.azfamily.com/news/politics/Latest-on-bennett-152793135.html
Kobach seized upon the complaints withdrawal to end the hearing. The fact that the complaint was withdrawn under duress - claims of being threatened - was completely ignored. Those claims where later withdrawn... gee imagine that.
Yeah, any day now.
Yeah I know...The Dem Commie or the 'national' Rem and Stimpy party could put a thinly disguised Fidel C. or Stalin on the ballot, and they would vote for them. I also figured you would point out that little detail.
So what's your point? If you fail in an attempt to uphold The Constitution when the deck is stacked against you, just tuck tail and run? Pathetic!
Accuracy is a bad thing?
I didn’t say that. Just keeping the post short. The Stalinist Martian still gets on the state ballot.
Eggs Ackley. But the kneepad obamaroids will cite this as yet another confirmation of little barry bastard boy’s eligibility.
The "decision" was Per Curiam with no written opinion for the majority. So the decision didn't say anything beyond that the lower court's dismissal of the Complaint is affirmed.
At most one can say is that a minority of the Justices (those writing concurring and dissenting opinions) were in favor of the SoS having some amount of investigatory authority, with the concurring Justices believing that authority first needs to come from the Legislature.
My point is not whether or not a legal action regarding Chapman’s inactivity is moot. My point is that the legislature should heed the words of the opining justices that as matters stand, Alabamians were and now remain exposed to the risk of voting with ballots prone to be marred by unqualified candidates.
Given that exposure, and given that there was a small but not negligible group of voters who fought to obtain a thorough review of a candidate they felt potentially unqualified represented on ballots in the 2012 election, new legislation to protect future ballots should also include a mandate and provisions for an authoritative probe to be conducted into whether or not the state of Alabama was effectively defrauded by the Democrat party when they advanced Obama as their candidate in 2012 and 2008.
But go ahead and enjoy the contention that the matter is moot, I guess, since ripeness technicalities have served as crucial aids in the fight to prevent anyone from finally getting definitive answers on whether or not Obama is legally qualified for the office he currently holds. After all, the ultimate good for some people on this issue is to make sure questions remain forever unanswered.
And to think and accept that there is some heavenly sanctifying opinions by such laws and men rules for a societal order is gross sophistry..
A better-reasoned view is that the legislature of Alabama (or any state) should recognize that, as to a national election for the Presidency, it would invite chaos for eligibility to be made on a state-by-state basis. A candidate can't be ineligible in Alabama yet eligible in the other states. But that sort of inconsistency is what a legislature would be inviting were the suggestion of the minority justices to be followed.
One might rightly conclude the Alabama legislature has already taken this into account when it enacted the statute (§ 17-14-31(a)) that says the Ala. SoS "shall" certify a candidate nominated by a national convention.
The certification mechanism needs to occur at the federal level, where it is already vested (i.e., the duty and power of Congress to certify the Electoral College votes and to debate properly laid challenges lodged to those votes).
I’m reading Zullo will be on the air today with Gallups’ Freedom Friday WEBY.
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.