Main Menu

Adjudication in South Carolina?

Is the “First in the South Primary” and an eligibility statute the perfect storm for a Ted Cruz legal challenge?

SCI think that any presidential election challenge brought after the US general election is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. By then it’s a political question, and the Electoral College and Congress are the branches of government assigned the responsibility for choosing of the next president under the Constitution.

The US Constitution and statutes grant considerable control over the conduct of elections to the states, and they may impose rules on potential candidates, including oaths affirming eligibility, viability, fees, and forms. States have excluded potential presidential candidates for eligibility, recently Peta Lindsay in California on account of age, but I don’t recall that the Supreme Court has ever ruled on a case where a presidential candidate was refused ballot position by a state for eligibility reasons. Should a state refuse a candidate’s place on its presidential primary ballot, there is a ready-made scenario for that challenger to sue, but it seems very unlikely that any state would do that based on the birther “two citizen parent and born in the country” theory, given the extreme minority opinion status of that opinion.

Some state courts have ruled (e.g. Florida and Georgia) that presidential primaries are party elections and that the state has no say in who goes on the ballot, once certified by the party, so suing the state is no good. The party itself has discretion, for example, the South Carolina Democratic Party refused to register Stephen Colbert in 2012 because they said he was not a viable national candidate–there was no lawsuit.

So it seems to me that IF there is any chance for a successful lawsuit to adjudicate candidate eligibility, a state party or a national party would have to be the defendant, and the challenger would most likely have to be a credible opposition candidate in order to have standing. The case could either be brought before a primary election in the case of a state party defendant, or between the primaries and the national convention in the case of a national party defendant. In any case, the challenge must be brought early to have an effect. An adverse ruling to a candidate would have tremendous influence, generating precedent and national attention, and what better venue than South Carolina’s “First in the South Primary” to be held February 20, 2016, for that challenge?

Candidates that have filed (and not yet withdrawn) in South Carolina:

  • Marco Rubio
  • Jeb Bush
  • John Kasich
  • Ben Carson
  • Ted Cruz
  • Lindsey Graham
  • Rick Santorum
  • Bobby Jindal
  • Mike Huckabee
  • Carly Fiorina
  • Donald Trump
  • Rand Paul
  • Jim Gilmore
  • Chris Christie
  • George Pataki

The law in South Carolina on presidential preference primaries requires that the state parties certify to the SC Election Commission that the candidates are eligible under the Constitution. In particular Section 7-11-20(B)(2) includes:

Political parties must verify the qualifications of candidates prior to certifying to the State Election Commission the names of candidates to be placed on primary ballots. The written certification required by this section must contain a statement that each certified candidate meets, or will meet by the time of the general election, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules to participate in the presidential preference primary for which he has filed. Political parties must not certify any candidate who does not or will not by the time of the general election meet the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules for the presidential preference primary for which the candidate desires to file, and such candidate’s name must not be placed on a primary ballot.

So maybe candidate Donald Trump (or some have suggested John Kasich) could sue the South Carolina Republican Party to prevent the party from certifying Ted Cruz (or Rubio, Santorum or Jindal) to the Election Commission for the February 2016 presidential preference primary on the grounds that he is not eligible. If they do, they need to get busy. February is right around the corner.

image

, , , , ,

44 Responses to Adjudication in South Carolina?

  1. avatar
    Joey November 28, 2015 at 1:36 pm #

    “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 the Congress, not the Courts.–Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al. Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 10/29/09:

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed Judge Carter’s ruling and they denied a Writ of Mandamus sought by the plaintiffs.

    The U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

  2. avatar
    gorefan November 28, 2015 at 2:02 pm #

    Joe Biden was 29 years old when he was elected to the senate (he turned thirty before he was sworn in). He would have been ineligible under S.C. law.

  3. avatar
    Smirk 4 Food November 28, 2015 at 2:28 pm #

    gorefan:
    Joe Biden was 29 years old when he was elected to the senate (he turned thirty before he was sworn in).He would have been ineligible under S.C. law.

    However, the eligibility clause regarding Senators in the Constitution reads:

    No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. (emphasis mine)

    Since only residency applies to eligibility at the time of election, age would only apply at the time Congress convenes (January 3rd, per the 20th amendment). Therefore, SC couldn’t block a 29-year-old from appearing on the ballot provided said candidate turns 30 before January 3rd.

  4. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 28, 2015 at 2:28 pm #

    Bobby Jindal has quit the race as well.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 28, 2015 at 2:35 pm #

    Scott Walker filed in South Carolina and then withdrew. I thought Jindal had just “suspended” his campaign.

    dunstvangeet: Bobby Jindal has quit the race as well.

  6. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 28, 2015 at 4:46 pm #

    Washington Post uses the term “withdraws” from race. Other places I’ve seen used the term “Suspended”, so who knows whether or not he’ll officially end up on the ballot. But he’s definitely no longer running.

  7. avatar
    CRJ November 29, 2015 at 1:26 am #

    @Doc [I think that any presidential election challenge brought after the US general election is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.]

    That’s kind of interesting.. Considering USC AMEND XX Sect 3 [ ..or if the President elect shall failed to qualify ]

    Do you believe that the Courts are Prohibited from this late stage election problem?

    What Government Branch would be most likely qualified as expert on the Constitution in such a disqualifying charge brought no doubt by the “minority party”?

    The political doctrine question I don’t think is a rubber-Stamp to prohibit the Courts from maintaining election integrity and Candidates can lie all the way through with little stop measures.

    It might take the Powers of the Courts in Discovery -Rules of Evidence- and Subpoena as well as prosecutorial powers to extract the evidence. .also why an Independent Council or Special Prosecutor must be assigned by the Courts in investigation which takes for instance the Attorney General out of play. (?)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Jaworski

    [Aware that an important constitutional issue was at stake, and unwilling to wait any longer, Jaworski asked the Supreme Court to take the case directly, bypassing the Court of Appeals.

    On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that the Special Prosecutor did have the right to sue the President; and that the “generalized assertion of [executive] privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial”]

  8. avatar
    Keith November 29, 2015 at 2:02 am #

    CRJ: That’s kind of interesting.. Considering USC AMEND XX Sect 3 [ ..or if the President elect shall failed to qualify ]

    Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    (Congress has never enacted a law to deal with the mentioned problem – thus the incoming Congress would have to deal with the situation when it occurs.)

    Please enlighten us as to which part of that Section are you confused about? Where in that paragraph is the Supreme Court – or any Court – given a role in finding a solution to a qualification problem?

    Do you believe that the Courts are Prohibited from this late stage election problem?

    Not to speak for the Doc, but yes I do. The Constitution is quite clear. It is the Congress that has that task; and once inaugurated it is the Senate – and ONLY the Senate that has the authority to remove the President from office (via an impeachment trial). The only role for the Courts in any of this is the supply of a Presiding Officer for an impeachment trial.

    What Government Branch would be most likely qualified as expert on the Constitution in such a disqualifying charge brought no doubt by the “minority party”?

    Have you ever attempted to ready the “Constitution of the United States of America”? Perhaps you could start with the 20th Amendment in order to directly answer this specific question.

  9. avatar
    Keith November 29, 2015 at 2:10 am #

    CRJ: It might take the Powers of the Courts in Discovery -Rules of Evidence- and Subpoena as well as prosecutorial powers to extract the evidence.

    Congressional Inquiries have just as much if not more power than the Courts in that regard.

  10. avatar
    Keith November 29, 2015 at 2:11 am #

    CRJ: [Aware that an important constitutional issue was at stake, and unwilling to wait any longer, Jaworski asked the Supreme Court to take the case directly, bypassing the Court of Appeals

    Strawman argument.

    The sited anecdote has absolutely nothing to do with Presidential Eligibility.

  11. avatar
    Notorial Dissent November 29, 2015 at 5:18 am #

    Kieth, I really doubt that Judy has ever read the constitution, way too many big scary words, used properly and grammatically would just be more than his third grade reading ability is up to. I think this is also true of a good proportion of the birfer community as well as some alleged lawyers I can think of.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2015 at 7:30 am #

    What I am saying is that the Courts have no authority to decide the question once the general election is over. Several courts said this in Obama eligibility cases, the most recent Judge Wingate in Mississippi in Taitz v. Mississippi Democrat Party, who said:

    “…this court can find no authority in the Constitution which would permit it to determine that a sitting president is unqualified for office or a president-elect is unqualified to take office.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Taitz-v-Mississippi-Democrat_117-Dismissal.pdf

    See also, Grinols v. Electoral College

    Wingate’s remark does not cover the time between the general election and the meeting of the Electoral College, but I think that the same principles apply there as well.

    CRJ: Do you believe that the Courts are Prohibited from this late stage election problem?

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2015 at 8:39 am #

    But we are not talking about executive privilege here (a concept which is only derivative from the Constitution), but Congressional privilege which is explicitly granted by the Constitution in the situation where the President has failed to qualify.

    The Congress has ample powers to investigate anything it chooses relative to its legislative powers (in this case the eligibility of the president), and it has far more flexibility than a court would. The bar for Congressional action is remarkably low, only one member of the House + one member of the Senate.

    What is your objection to letting the government operate as the Constitution has specified in the area of presidential eligibility, and why do you want to go outside what the Constitution authorizes to set up some special prosecutor or to give the courts powers that they don’t have? I am reminded of Leo Donofrio’s memorable comment: “you can’t save the Constitution by destroying it.”

    CRJ: On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that the Special Prosecutor did have the right to sue the President; and that the “generalized assertion of [executive] privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial”]

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2015 at 8:51 am #

    I think you are confusing the integrity of the election with the assumption of office. You were discussing what happens AFTER the election, not before. It also seems to me beyond the powers granted under the Constitution for any branch of government to interfere with the meeting and voting of the electoral college. Perhaps there might be a state court court challenge on some aspect of electing one those members, but nothing that could enjoin them from voting for a particular candidate. To do otherwise impugns the integrity of the election.

    It remains an open question as to whether any court at any time may adjudicate the eligibility of a candidate for president. Some states have rejected obviously ineligible candidates, but this has never been reviewed by the Supreme Court.

    CRJ: The political doctrine question I don’t think is a rubber-Stamp to prohibit the Courts from maintaining election integrity and Candidates can lie all the way through with little stop measures.

  15. avatar
    CRJ November 29, 2015 at 3:28 pm #

    Well I thank you for your considered answers.

    Now, bear with me here, under these circumstances:
    1) The Office of the President has been Usurped

    2) The Election was won

    3) CONGRESS was fooled but doesn’t know it, so the circumstances are as if Congress certified what they thought was Legal, but it was in fact a sham.

    Congress doesn’t have particular Standing , not it’s members, the Courts have ruled only Presidential Candidates or competitors in the Presidential Race at the Time do.

    4) With Nixon ( of course the circumstance unrelated to eligibility KEITH-The TeethRex – who knows if you had an imagination or an ounce of originality you wouldn’t be stuck where your at 😂 ), it was WATERGATE or an initiation of a Criminal Investigation where a Crime had been committed that started the EXIT stage Left for Nixon.

    It wasn’t in the beginning exactly focused on the Office of the President, and self incrimination be damned, Nixon had those rabbit ears put in himself.

    So, it was his own dang fault when the evidence piled up and the call came to extract from him what he felt was Private&Personal based on others testimonies under Criminal Investigation.

    Remember, Hillary Rodham Clinton, had Personal Emails mixed in with her Professional Emails and she sorted them out for Investigators originally?

    This in affect was what Nixon wanted to do with having the tapes written out and then him culling through them in the “Stenness Compromise” that was rejected by Cox which led to the Saturday Night Massacre.

    If NIXON had been allowed to do what HILLARY did, (I guess we don’t know where the FBI Investigation is on the compromise of National Security even Obama seems nervous about) it’s quite likely he throws out what ends up implicating him.

    That’s the reason [we find out later] the Stenness Agreement was propositioned.

    So., a Criminal Investigation opens up on Obama’s doing something stupid, like handing out his own long form birth certificate 3 years after occupying the Office, or I don’t know, arming ISIS through Qutar or Trained Syrian Moderates who switch sides after the training classes are over and they receive their merit badges and U.S. Weapons- maybe it’s just something as mundane as Fast & Furious where the first ever attorney General is found in contempt of the same Congress Keith said had so much lighter threshholds,
    Whatever –

    But through that criminal investigation by the Court of Law, it is found out The Usurper had lied, got away with it, and Congress had been deceived.

    Do we now suspect the Court knowing such took place, throws away the intelligence, because… So many people in office would be embarrassed?

    Well., the Judge is FREAKING OUT because he’s seeing the writing on the wall that implicates him as an accessory of he doesn’t do everything in his power to prosecute the alleged crime.

    This revelation of a misdemeanor leads to finding out it’s not the President but a Usurper in the Office. Now, The Usurper thought to be the President is no such thing to the Judge.

    Does Congress have to conduct a new Trial because only the Legislative Branch can conduct an eligibility investigation?

    It just seems the Judicial Branch just about made a Sheriff say ” Gobble-Gobble” and the Sheriff is if you want to see it the President in his own County.

    Seen a lot of folk here hooping and hollering over Lemons stories. In fact isn’t that what got so interesting?

    When the Judge started digging into the CCP which at first glance you’d have to stretch your imagination to see the arrow from Melendes pointing that way.

    Now, who knows what’s on HRC EMAIL SERVER they may have retracted from the Clouds?

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2015 at 3:47 pm #

    Standing affects who can bring a lawsuit in federal court. Congress has powers outside the judiciary. They can investigate government malfeasance, and they can investigate accusations of high crimes and misdemeanors of the president–it’s called impeachment.

    You say that the Congress has been fooled, but I think that is rather silly thing to say. You are not fooled, but Congress (535 of them) is? Your view of your own competence is irrational.

    Invoking Nixon is not much different from invoking Hitler as a way to distract and derail a discussion. I’ll ignore it.

    There is simply no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, and I have been exposing the stupidity of people with that view for coming up on 7 years now. Don’t even begin to think that any informed person is going to do anything but laugh at anything that relies on the premise of a bad birth certificate.

    If you think that Obama has done something else wrong that is a crime, then your sole avenue for relief is to petition Congress for impeachment. The prevailing legal opinion is that a sitting president cannot be arrested or indicted. To allow otherwise would put crippling power to disrupt the Administration into the hands of every tin-pot law enforcement type in the country. The framers of our Constitution wisely limited the power to remove a President to Congress.

    CRJ: Congress doesn’t have particular Standing , not it’s members, the Courts have ruled only Presidential Candidates or competitors in the Presidential Race at the Time do.

  17. avatar
    Arthur B. November 29, 2015 at 3:56 pm #

    CRJ: Does Congress have to conduct a new Trial because only the Legislative Branch can conduct an eligibility investigation?

    Think about it, Cody. There have been innumerable hearings on Benghazi but not a single one on the President’s eligibility. All the Sheriff’s Kits in circulation have not succeeded in persuading a single congressional committee to open an investigation. The “evidence” touted by the birthers has convinced no one.

    So, in your convoluted hypothetical, you are weaving a fantasy of new evidence suddenly being uncovered, some smoking gun that’s managed to evade discovery for seven years. I can feel your excitement.

    Bottom line, the answer to your question is yes. Only Congress can deal with questions of the eligibility of a sitting President.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2015 at 3:58 pm #

    Only in your imagination. The only evidence before him of a possible crime is Arpaio’s contempt of court. All the witnesses have testified that the Montgomery deliveries were junk.

    Well, “junk” pretty much characterizes everything on the birther side.

    CRJ: Well., the Judge is FREAKING OUT

  19. avatar
    CRJ November 29, 2015 at 6:10 pm #

    @Doc Thanks .. Bearing in mind the whole Senate did in fact bring 2008 U.S. Sen Res 511 up for a vote..co sponsored by 3 of the Leading CANDIDATES in the last 3 elections And it passed based on [two parents]

    The WHOLE U.S. SENATE was BIRTHER back then huh… Because if they weren’t what non-sense would that Vote have stood for?

    @Arthur B. Thanks, I liked your bottom line.

    [Political parties must not certify any candidate who does not or will not by the time of the general election meet the qualifications in the United States Constitution, statutory law, and party rules for the presidential preference primary for which the candidate desires to file, and such candidate’s name must not be placed on a primary ballot.]

    Or What.. They get a spanking? What is it a Class E-Z misdeameanor?

    Like Hawaii did anything about noticing Rep. Nancy Pelosi sent them a different certification on Obama then she did the other 49 because theirs didn’t demand a qualification by the Standards of the Constitution and 1 count of fraud is better then 50?

    I guess I can see the logic in that on an E-Z misdeameanor.
    Yes.. Its one of the MOST shared post I’ve had #Trending #CRUZ2016 FreaksOut! BLOODDRUNK #Birther Bullsht! U.S. Constitution CONCOURS ALL BORDERS! #SCOTUS #Obama is my living Precedent! @realdonaldtrump
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/28/breaking-report-natural-born-citizen/

    Go figure? Lol

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

    Earth to Judy:

    You don’t understand SR 511.

    CRJ: Bearing in mind the whole Senate did in fact bring 2008 U.S. Sen Res 511 up for a vote..co sponsored by 3 of the Leading CANDIDATES in the last 3 elections And it passed based on [two parents]

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2015 at 7:03 pm #

    First, this is a claim which has never been proven. The original version said that there was no eligibility language in any of the letters. Then when Hawaii’s was pointed out, the claim changed to 49.

    In South Carolina, as you have seen, the law requires the STATE PARTY to certify eligibility, not the national party, and they did.

    I came across a folder on the Internet where it appears a birther had going to great effort to collect all the letters. They didn’t have all that many, and some states had replied that they had no requirements for any such letter, so there was none with any wording at all.

    It’s just one more in a long line of examples of birthers basing their beliefs on just plain false information. It’s why nobody else believes them.

    CRJ: Like Hawaii did anything about noticing Rep. Nancy Pelosi sent them a different certification on Obama then she did the other 49 because theirs didn’t demand a qualification by the Standards of the Constitution and 1 count of fraud is better then 50?

  22. avatar
    CRJ November 29, 2015 at 7:11 pm #

    @Doc I understood it very well to be a quid pro quo between three committing conspiracy against the Constitution in there bidding for foreigners in the Office of the President.

    I mean that gobelty-gook ain’t no American Apple Pie Doc. That was pure Monday morning garbage worse then any song I ever sung!

    Why? Why? Why? Do people make me howl such songs? 7 Years I’ve been singing this song.. Maybe it’s Time America learned it? #songoftheday Freedom & Liberty aren’t Free..come for a visit.. …stay for the AMERICAN PIE! http://www.codyjudy.us

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLLBPYMWei1g5qg8aQZmyw3qP73wCkpRAK&params=EAEYATgBSAFYMmILVjh1RWRzSEgwRXdoMA%253D%253D&v=Vz65pBZvWDg&mode=NORMAL

    @Doc [They didn’t have all that many, and some states had replied that they had no requirements for any such letter, so there was none with any wording at all.]

    Well, is that suppose to make us feel better? I’m literally most States don’t care who the Parties put up for President?

    What a difference tying Federal Tax Dollars to something makes huh?

    Hey, you put up an unconstitutional Candidate on your Ballot lose yr FED TAX RETURNS might be better?

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2015 at 7:37 pm #

    It blows apart your Pelosi 49-state conspiracy theory, in case you hadn’t noticed. You are supposed to be concerned when you discover that your beliefs are built on a pile of lies, but I know better than to think you will ever “get it.”

    Obama is eligible. That fact points out the central flaw in everything you’ve said here. You are a nut-case conspiracy theorist who cannot tell reality from fantasy. You believe proven lies. You’ve just lost it (for at least the 2nd time).

    CRJ: Well, is that suppose to make us feel better? I’m literally most States don’t care who the Parties put up for President?

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2015 at 7:38 pm #

    There is a quid pro nutcase between the birthers. That’s all that’s going on.

    CRJ: I understood it very well to be a quid pro quo between

  25. avatar
    CRJ November 29, 2015 at 7:39 pm #

    Sorry couldn’t edit that last comment fast enough .. I’m slow and 📢dim-witted compared to most everyone here.
    I remember you said you couldn’t get past the first couple of pages on my Cert before you have up the Ghost. And it was a Ghost in the a court to.. I couldn’t get past the Forma Pauperis Motion. lol
    Page 11
    Was wear the two Forms come up for Rep. Nancy Pelosi
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/262436958/2015-U-S-Supreme-Court-Judy-v-Obama-Writ-Certiorari

    Maybe the guy, you say you saw collecting a Diary of them didn’t have that many hadn’t traveled to all 50 States to ask for it.

    The Candidate Certification is definitely the mechanism which gets the Parties Candidate on the Ballot .. There’s no other way and a phone call ☎ won’t cut it. Its usually a FAX, BUT believe me you do not want that left up to a chain message delivery system which is why Rep. Pelosi personally handled it.
    http://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

  26. avatar
    CRJ November 29, 2015 at 8:06 pm #

    I just recalled with the constraints on the writ to 20 pages a lot of info had to be included in the Appendix which also gets 20 pages.

    Sorry that was Page 40 #10 on the Cert
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/262436958/2015-U-S-Supreme-Court-Judy-v-Obama-Writ-Certiorari
    Included this link [
    http://canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm ]

    Now as far as nuts, I like peanuts, almonds, can’t go for walnuts much. And of course 🔊anything covered in chocolate with clusters is great!

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 29, 2015 at 8:22 pm #

    One thing that surprises me is the lack of birther lawsuits in South Carolina. As best I can tell, the ONLY one was Keith Judd’s suit that was filed all over. It was dismissed for “lack of prosecution.” The complaint had this memorable plea for relief:

    “Barack Obama must be removed and replaced with Keith Judd, Democratic Candidate for President of the United States.”

    It could hardly be called an election challenge, as it was filed in February of 2013 and I don’t see what the SC Election Commission or the Democratic Party plaintiffs could to for him after the election was over, nor why he calls himself a candidate at that point.

    Here’s the complaint:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/313-cv-00636-Judd-1-main.pdf

  28. avatar
    CRJ November 29, 2015 at 8:46 pm #

    You know what I have been thinking Doc?
    I’ve been thinking about taking your advice!😀

    I’ve been thinking of doing two things. I’ve been thinking about FILING a COMPLAINT with the United States Congress for a Special Prosecutor on getting Presidential Candidates vetted.

    I don’t think Party Politics is cutting it, and that should begin with Obama to prevent a Cruz or Rubio missile.

    The second is I have been thinking of Filling against U.S. Sen. Red Cruz myself because he is just soaking up the Moms & Pops contributions to my Campaign.

    They think he’s FOR the Constitution over a couple of Stand Up COmedian Acts in the Senate you call filibusters.

    But his nuts don’t crack close to upsetting Obama, and he knows it. Filibusters didn’t win an end to Obamacare.

    I’m wondering if a Case in FEDERAL Court in a law suit strictly over the ability to occupy the Office IF elected based on damages in Campaign contributions would be respected or could be managed?

    Obama hasn’t left any future to the Democratic Party. The whole world is hating him now. . when Democrats are coming out in droves on his Climate Gate fiasco saying, ” HEY! Climate change without taking Americans out of work. . has to include clean coal and clean fossil fuels or the Worlds going to beat us up like no bodies business.

    We’ll be breathing China’s India’s and Russia’s fresh air while we cook each other for food to eat.

    You gotta admit it- IF I won that Mr Trump takes a nose dive!

    I DON’T think I could win a Ballot Challenge 😀 being in the Democratic Party and all.. But a Federal Law Suit? Maybe? What do you all think?

    And HEY.. Cruz isn’t an Incumbent

  29. avatar
    bob November 29, 2015 at 8:56 pm #

    CRJ:
    I’ve been thinking of doing two things. I’ve been thinking about FILING a COMPLAINT with the United States Congress for a Special Prosecutor on getting Presidential Candidates vetted.

    More meaningless paper for staffers to round file.

    The second is I have been thinking of Filling against U.S. Sen. Red Cruz myself because he is just soaking up the Moms & Pops contributions to my Campaign.

    Abusing the legal system for political purposes? How novel.

    And what contributions?

    I’m wondering if a Case in FEDERAL Court in a law suit strictly over the ability to occupy the Office IF elected based on damages in Campaign contributions would be respected or could be managed?

    Like the one Judy filed and was declared frivolous?

  30. avatar
    Keith November 29, 2015 at 8:57 pm #

    CRJ: Now, bear with me here, under these circumstances:
    1) The Office of the President has been Usurped

    2) The Election was won

    3) CONGRESS was fooled but doesn’t know it, so the circumstances are as if Congress certified what they thought was Legal, but it was in fact a sham.

    Fine. Hypothetical. I will go along with that for the moment.

    The hypothetical is that Congress has been ‘fooled’ into certifying the Electoral College vote and he has been sworn into office.

    This means that at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate could not be convinced that the president was unqualified – therefor no objection was raised, or that they were convinced, raised an objection, and their objection was studied and found unconvincing to the rest of Congress.

    And then after the vote to accept the Electoral College results, undeniable proof of the qualification came to light.

    And you know what else? That is a hypothetical beyond necessity of consideration – the chance of it happening is so far below the realms of reasonable experience that it is absolutely safe to ignore the possibility until it actually presents itself (and I can safely assert that it never will). Never-the-less, for arguments sake we can look at the solutions that are available.

    Congress doesn’t have particular Standing , not it’s members, the Courts have ruled only Presidential Candidates or competitors in the Presidential Race at the Time do.

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Period. Absolutely false. Wrong.

    Standing is not the issue.

    The Constitutional concept of the “Separation of Powers” is the issue.

    If the voters are fooled into voting for an unqualified candidate, but solid proof comes out before the Electoral College votes, the Electors would be capable of sorting it out. The Courts have absolutely ZERO role to play under any circumstances (though there may have to be some emergency rulings about their duty with respect to the laws some states have enacted to prevent ‘unfaithful electors’ in this case).

    If solid proof emerges after the Electoral College votes, then Congress and only Congress has the authority to validate or reject the Electoral College vote. Its in the Constitution – you can look it up. Probably the candidate would withdraw.

    If solid proof emerges after Congress has certified the Electoral College vote but before the inauguration we could indeed have a Constitutional dilemma. I wonder, can Congress meet again and ‘annul’ the Electoral College results after it has already validated them? I dunno – but I assume they would try and if the candidate wanted to be a real bummer he may take the question to the Supremes (and Congress would win). If the proof was solid, the candidate would probably withdraw and the VP elect would assume office (if qualified). That would be the ONLY possibility of stopping the inauguration if the candidate did not withdraw.

    If solid proof emerges after the inauguration, then Congress and only Congress is given the authority and the exact procedure (impeachment) to go about removing the hypothetically unqualified President – again its true and you can look it up in the Constitution.

    The Courts do not have the authority to tell the Electoral College who it can vote for. The Courts do not have the authority to tell Congress how to validate the Electoral College vote.
    The Courts do not have the authority to tell Congress whether or not to validate the Electoral College vote.
    The Courts do not have the authority to tell Congress to impeach the President.
    The Courts do not have the authority to tell the President to resign.

    The Courts do not have the authority to involve themselves in any aspect of the Presidential Succession Process. NONE.

    ‘Standing’ is a concept that applies to the Courts. If the Courts are not involved, the entire concept is irrelevant.

  31. avatar
    Keith November 29, 2015 at 9:31 pm #

    CRJ: 4) With Nixon ( of course the circumstance unrelated to eligibility KEITH-The TeethRex – who knows if you had an imagination or an ounce of originality you wouldn’t be stuck where your at 😂 ), it was WATERGATE or an initiation of a Criminal Investigation where a Crime had been committed that started the EXIT stage Left for Nixon.

    Nixon and Watergate is a Strawman – an argument that has no relation to the subject being discussed. The discussion is about Presidential Elections and unqualified candidates that get elected. Watergate had nothing to do with elections or unqualified candidates.

    I lived through Watergate and am intimately familiar with it. Watergate was about petty crimes authorized by the Committee to Re-elect the President and the subsequent criminal cover up of the involvement of CREEP by the President and his closest advisors in the White House.

    Lawsuits against Nixon had nothing to do with removing him from office, it had to do with getting access to evidence that could prove his innocence or guilt. Winning or losing a lawsuit is not going to remove a sitting President from office – only impeachment (or resignation or death) can do that.

    CRJ: If NIXON had been allowed to do what HILLARY did,

    Anything to do with Hillary is also a strawman – the discussion has nothing to do with anything related to Hillary in anyway what-so-ever – or are you building up to accusing her of not being an NBC?

    You need to stay on topic in order to have anything resembling a coherent discussion.

    it’s quite likely he throws out what ends up implicating him.

    Well, he did manage to erase 18.5 minutes worth of incriminating who knows what?

  32. avatar
    Pete November 29, 2015 at 9:35 pm #

    CRJ: You know what I have been thinking Doc?
    I’ve been thinking about taking your advice!

    Good.

    It will be good to establish a clear record in court rulings and precedent that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are eligible.

    Thanks for taking that on.

  33. avatar
    Rickey November 30, 2015 at 1:24 am #

    CRJ:
    .
    The second is I have been thinking of Filling against U.S. Sen. Red Cruz myself because he is just soaking up the Moms & Pops contributions to my Campaign.

    Except that Cruz is a Republican and you are running as a Democrat. Any chance you had to file a viable lawsuit against Cruz and/or Rubio went out the window when you decided to pretend that you are a Democrat.

    I’m wondering if a Case in FEDERAL Court in a law suit strictly over the ability to occupy the Office IF elected based on damages in Campaign contributions would be respected or could be managed?

    Your lawsuit would fail for many reasons, but for the purposes of this discussion it would fail because your damages would be purely speculative. For one thing, if I donate $1 to Cruz, I am not prevented from also donating $1 to you. How would you prove that you lost out on donations because people donated to Cruz?

    We’ll be breathing China’s India’s and Russia’s fresh air while we cook each other for food to eat.

    Are you really that ignorant? China has the worst air quality in the world.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/28/beijing-residents-told-to-stay-inside-as-smog-levels-soar

  34. avatar
    CRJ November 30, 2015 at 2:29 am #

    @Rickey [Are you really that ignorant? China has the worst air quality in the world.]

    That was my point, we could clean ours up losing all the jobs and then we would still be breathing THEIR pollution we have know control over.. Beat a dead 🐎 lol

    Lost on Ballot Challenge for sure., FEDERAL Law Suit.. Not so sure a D still couldn’t throw a wrench in the frauds conservative waterhole., that’s where EVERY CANDIDATE for President is fighting for Campaign Dollars, Campaign Support, as well as the Votes. Spending money, time, and effort into something the BULLY BULLDOZES when he is not Qualified for the Office. That hurts.. It’s Damaging.. Hell you guys have said I’m barreling Independents and tea party people with him.. Yes, it’s speculative.. I can see that.

    He’s making Conservatives out to be anti- Birthers..that’s for sure. Maybe you guys really like him? Lol

    @Keith Nice Review. . the question then on [standing] ruled on as singular to Candidates that ultimately satisfied really all 3 Points of Standing Doctrine in Damages to a Campaign, relates to what specifically in your opinion?

  35. avatar
    CRJ November 30, 2015 at 3:06 am #

    @Keith Anything to do with Hillary is also a strawman – the discussion has nothing to do with anything related to Hillary in anyway what-so-ever – or are you building up to accusing her of not being an NBC?
    You need to stay on topic in order to have anything resembling a coherent discussion.]

    We were discussing ways in which Obama’s own inelligibility story could be made manifest in an indirect investigation. .the same as Nixon’s was.

    Do I really have to spell it out exactly? If you read my Cert you’d probably get the idea the U.S. SUPREME Court didn’t want to SEE my Cert because they didn’t want the Responsibility of the intelligence.
    WITNESS – B.V.
    1- Heard Pres. Clinton say they have proof Obama is NOT Eligible. But, he said it would be released at the right time.
    This was day or two before the 2008 Dem Convention. How, or Who., or WHY we don’t know
    But we do know
    Hillary made a bee-line visit to England to visit genealogy sites. What pray-tell could be on the Server of hers the FBI has?

    Just hearing those witnesses in Court is probably cause for a conspiracy against the Constitution and American Election charges to be investigated by a Special Prosecutor who knows the Ropes far better than I do.

    The FBI has her server.. That Trip of hers and communications even a file folder could be interesting.

    Like I said, NIXON put the tape system in that recorded him. OBAMA handed out a long form birth certificate after 3 years with his own hands to the white house press core.

    I know a little bit about what I’d be doing if I had the authority of the Court as Prosecutor and Sheriff Joe would look like wimp dock weed compared to what I’d be doing.

    It’s probably better some Special Prosecutor be called up to assist me. .because when I got through there wouldn’t be conspiracy or ignorance.. There would be hard facts, and Obama would actually be TRANSPARENT.

  36. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) November 30, 2015 at 4:29 am #

    CRJ: WITNESS – B.V.
    1- Heard Pres. Clinton say they have proof Obama is NOT Eligible.

    Objection, hearsay.

    CRJ: OBAMA handed out a long form birth certificate after 3 years with his own hands to the white house press core.

    Not true.

  37. avatar
    Keith November 30, 2015 at 4:56 am #

    CRJ:.. relates to what specifically in your opinion?

    I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about so I have absolutely no idea what comment might be a coherent reply.

  38. avatar
    Keith November 30, 2015 at 5:01 am #

    CRJ: We were discussing ways in which Obama’s own inelligibility story could be made manifest in an indirect investigation. .the same as Nixon’s was.

    Nixon was never even rumored to be ineligible, even as a joke – psychologically unfit maybe, but not ineligible.

    Nixon and Hillary have no place in a discussion about some hypothetical Presidential eligibility.

    And Obama does not have an ” inelligibility story”.

    What the *f* are you getting at?

  39. avatar
    RanTalbott November 30, 2015 at 9:11 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: One thing that surprises me is the lack of birther lawsuits in South Carolina.

    Well, I’m sure that, Laity having informed Trump’s lawyer that it’s his Holy Duty to God, Country, and Party™, Trump will get right on it.

    btw, I got another shock last week, much like the one about Zullo: after years of thinking that Trump’s birfering was all a cynical ploy, one of the reporters who covered him in 2011 wrote an article says that he got extremely loud and adamant when spouting his conspiracy bushwa in private, and appeared to really believe it.

    I’m not sure which is worse: Trump as cynical demagogue, or Trump as flaming conspiracy nut.

    Maybe we’ll get lucky, and find out that he’s also a Vattelist, and will go after Cruz. That would be a meltdown they could sell on pay-per-view 😉

  40. avatar
    Rickey November 30, 2015 at 12:04 pm #

    CRJ:

    That was my point, we could clean ours up losing all the jobs and then we would still be breathing THEIR pollution we have know control over.

    Nonsense. Cleaning up our air is vital for the future of the human race. “Clean coal” is an oxymoron.

    Lost on Ballot Challenge for sure., FEDERAL Law Suit.. Not so sure a D still couldn’t throw a wrench in the frauds conservative waterhole., that’s where EVERY CANDIDATE for President is fighting for Campaign Dollars, Campaign Support, as well as the Votes. Spending money, time, and effort into something the BULLY BULLDOZES when he is not Qualified for the Office. That hurts.. It’s Damaging.. Hell you guys have said I’m barreling Independents and tea party people with him.. Yes, it’s speculative.. I can see that.

    When your damages are speculative, you have no case. How would you prove that the millions of dollars being raised by Cruz would have gone to you if he were not in the race? Would you call the Koch brothers as witnesses? As if they would testify, “If we had known that Cruz was ineligible, we would have given our money to Cody Robert Judy.”

    If you wanted to challenge Cruz, you should have declared as a Republican. What were you thinking when you decided to declare as a Democrat?

  41. avatar
    bob November 30, 2015 at 3:12 pm #

    Rickey: When your damages are speculative, you have no case.

    Exactly; and Judy knows this because he filed this exact lawsuit and the court deemed it frivolous.

  42. avatar
    CRJ November 30, 2015 at 3:29 pm #

    @Rickey [you wanted to challenge Cruz, you should have declared as a Republican. What were you thinking when you decided to declare as a Democrat?]

    1-That I care about People not being put in prison for Free Speech
    2- That I’ve advocated Equal Rights to all on the privilege of Marriage long before Obama or Hillary
    3-That the #waronpoor is real, long before Sanders
    4- That our Civil Rights were under great jeopardy
    5- That my concern and love was not predicated on a short term gain for Office
    6- That our Constitution was indeed the Greatest Mercy afforded to us by the blood of our fellow Patriots and every word was worth not spilling blood that had already been spilt.
    7- That I admired Jimmy Carter for not firing one shot or dropping one bomb
    8-That I loved Pres JFK for the terrific Dream he let America date adventure in
    9-That I loved Pres. Clinton for his reduction of so much debt (barring refunding glass Steagall
    10- That America was fooled in a drug war and a Prison Empire Building System
    11- That our responsibility to care for our Elderly -Disability- Veterans could easily be met with what we had also been given
    12- That we didn’t have to be burdened unnessarily by being the Police force of the World at Tax Payers expense with no compensation
    13- The Americans in general want to work, but the importation of slave labor for the pockets of Corporate Elites was sacking our Unions, driving our repopulation quotas down, and tearing our Families ability to support a quality life apart.
    14- That a woman’s choice should be defended against her being imprisoned and I did support accusations of murder as a False Witness according to Law.

    I could go on.. but I wouldn’t have to if you had been on http://www.codyjudy.us

    So.. No takers on the Definition of Standing for Presidential Candidates and what damages the Courts may have alluded to I see. (?)

  43. avatar
    CRJ November 30, 2015 at 4:25 pm #

    @Bob [Exactly; and Judy knows this because he filed this exact lawsuit and the court deemed it frivolous.]

    Yea., In a staunch Republican [STATE] Court .. that despises me probably more than you do @Bob.. maybe you just gave your Voting Record away?

    Wonder bout those South Carolina Democrats though and their sense of Justice. You don’t understand .. Carolina’s been to me like a second home in my heart. ❤

    Love , I mean love the People there, because I feel their compass towards God in my heart.

    My step-mom a Charleston Carolina-Girl. Her ways made deep impressions on manners, respect, honor, elegance, and good cooking. She was different and my Dad knew it. She was Church of Christ religion and that’s the way she stayed.

    Honoring Your Parents is a BIG thing there. They understand that like a Flag of Glory waving in the wind.

    Believe the [natural born Citizen] clause is about honoring your mother and your father and the place you were born. You do not forget one for the other as Obama has lest you want a trip to the wood-shed.

    I truly do not believe any place in God’s creations has set such an imprint on the folks hearts regarding those 3 things as South Carolina.

    My affinity for the State for these reasons is Romantic and carried high on the Clouds.
    I confess some time ago, months now, I recall a Dream.

    That I should not twitch or worry myself sick over Iowa and New Hampshire, but things would really begin in the South. I recognising my own frailty and counting the stompings aplenty over the last few months have held this one to myself.. As if a southern bell God has given me to smell .

    Lord knows I needed something that smelled nice

  44. avatar
    bob November 30, 2015 at 9:42 pm #

    CRJ:
    Yea., In a staunch Republican [STATE] Court

    Judy had filed his latest suit in federal court, and the judge — the one who originally found Judy’s suit to be frivolous — was appointed by … President Clinton.

    Judy’s perfect record of failure with reality continues.

    So.. No takers on the Definition of Standing for Presidential Candidates and what damages the Courts may have alluded to I see.

    Judy already knows the answer but he refuses to acknowledge it: The question itself is frivolous.

    Believe the [natural born Citizen] clause is about honoring your mother and your father and the place you were born.

    Judy can choose to believe whatever he likes, but judges, professors, and other experts have all explained that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship; no “honoring” of parents required by the U.S. Constitution.

    That I care about People not being put in prison for Free Speech

    And no one is being put in prison for free speech.

    Judy, however, was imprisoned because his actions terrorized thousands.