[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
-- Title: we are waiting for the NJ results. We should have had the official results of the New Jersey Secretary Of State hearing on the Cruz eligibility case at 3:PM today but,nothing at 3, she said, maybe by 4. Evidently they case is getting hot and heave, a lot at stake and NJ seems to be taking their responsibility seriously. If we have nothing by five, maybe Drudge will, but the office I have for the New Jersey Secretary of State closes at 5PM. As I understand it the Judge has to rule by Wednesday. beginning or end of day I don't know. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4. We should have had the official results of the New Jersey Secretary Of State hearing on the Cruz eligibility case..... Hmmmmmm........it may hit the fan today. One thing for sure, it certainly will not be a settled issue.
#3. To: SOSO, sneakypete (#1) Hmmmmmm........it may hit the fan today. One thing for sure, it certainly will not be a settled issue. Well, if it works its way up through the NJ courts, Cruz could appeal. And Trump's sister Maryanne "Partial-Birth" (Trump) Barry just happens to be a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. So she could rule on Cruz's eligibility in much the same way as she ruled to protect the right of women to have their abortionist deliver a late-term baby just enough for the abortionist to stab the baby in the back of the skull with surgical scissors before delivering the dead baby whole. It's not impossible. Any ruling by NJ courts would quickly get appealed to federal courts. And her court would be along the way to the Supreme Court.
#4. To: TooConservative (#3) I certainly hope we get this birther business into the Federal courts on the merits, so that the issue itself can be clearly resolved for good.
Replies to Comment # 4. #5. To: Vicomte13 (#4) (Edited) The courts (and the Court) have always refused to take these cases or, if they do, they issue the narrowest possible ruling under the current statutes enacted by Congress. You have to consider the consequences in future elections (as the Court would). Ruling against Cruz would have consequences on the status of future possible nominees in both parties. The path of least resistance and greatest liberality in interpreting the current law by the Court would be to affirm Cruz narrowly as natural-born. Probably in a 10-word sentence in a unanimous opinion. Some things, the Court works hard to stay out of.
#11. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#4) I certainly hope we get this birther business into the Federal courts on the merits, so that the issue itself can be clearly resolved for good. There are no merits. It will be dismissed before any trial like the hundreds of frivolous cases before it. http://www.northjersey.com/news/ted-cruz-s-nationality-at-center-of-n-j-ballot-hearing-1.1542495
Ted Cruz's nationality at center of N.J. ballot hearing
Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen et al, CAND C 08-03836 WHA (2008), Doc 39, at 4:
It is clear that mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and that the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. 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). This circumstance also obviates any occasion to consider plaintiff’s standing-cure suggestion that the American Independent Party (affiliated with Alan Keyes) be allowed to intervene. ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Alsup denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 27 Motion to Dismiss (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2008)
- - - - - - - - - - KEYES, et al. v BOWEN, et al. (3rd Appellate District Court of Appeals - Sacramento) - Opinion Affirming Lower Court Decision At 1-2:
Plaintiffs’ contentions lack merit. Among other things, we conclude that the Secretary of State does not have a duty to investigate and determine whether a presidential candidate meets eligibility requirements of the United State Constitution. As we will explain, the presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly-elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes. At 6:
The trial court sustained both demurrers, ruling the Secretary of State was required to see that state election laws are enforced, but plaintiffs had not identified a state election law imposing a ministerial duty to demand documentary proof of birthplace from presidential candidates. At 7:
The court also found the petition was moot as to all parties with respect to the 2008 General Election because the Electoral College had voted and Mr. Obama had been inaugurated as President of the United States. It was not ripe as to future elections because the issues were not framed with sufficient concreteness and immediacy to allow the court to render a conclusive and definitive judgment rather than an advisory opinion based on hypothetical facts or speculative future events. - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#4) I certainly hope we get this birther business into the Federal courts on the merits, so that the issue itself can be clearly resolved for good. me too.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 4. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|