A RESPONSE TO ALABAMA’S INDECISION ON PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY
by Chris Robertson, ©2014, blogging at LawStudy
(Apr. 10, 2014) — Last month, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed that their Secretary of State was under no legal obligation to verify Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the 2012 presidential ballot.[1]
Having read the concurring and dissenting opinions of the Justices, I would like to bring up several points relating to the matter.
OUR COUNTRY’S OFFICIALS ARE WELL AWARE OF THIS ISSUE
Numerous cases such as this one have been bought forward around the country, and many people have been following the matter closely and writing letters. Our representatives have certainly been informed.
Alabama’s Secretary of State, Beth Chapman, was one of many officials I myself had written to, pointing out the obvious: that determining presidential eligibility is a necessary and unavoidable requirement.
A copy of this letter is available at:
http://www.ThePostEmail.com/2012/10/25/the-question-of-obamas-legitimacy-will-not-go-away
http://lawstudy.exnomad.com/Presidential-Eligibility-Cannot-be-Ignored.html
PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY CANNOT BE SWEPT UNDER A RUG
It is impossible for the eligibility issue to simply fade away when the presidency next changes hands, as many of our elected officials seem to be counting on.
Attempting to pretend the matter of Mr. Obama’s eligibility away will result in a perpetual sham. No state official will afterwards be able to verify presidential candidates without potentially declaring the Obama administration to have been a farce.
Even under a new administration, governors and state officials will continually be in the position of enforcing legislation which is not actual law, if in fact such legislation has not been presented to or signed by an actual president.
PRESERVING OUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IS ESSENTIAL
Justice Bolin, in concurring with the Alabama court, opined that while a standard procedure for verifying the eligibility of presidential candidates is needed, had Mr. Obama actually been investigated and removed from the ballot it would have been a financial burden to the state to have them reprinted.[2]
Indeed, reprinting the ballots would have been an inconvenience, but a much greater inconvenience is the failure of the executive office, one-third of our federal government.
It is absurd to suppose that some technicality exists which would permit an elected official to operate within the federal government without the executive branch intact. What would be the purpose of writing legislation if is not presented to one whose presidential eligibility has been substantiated? Likewise, there is no point in overseeing an efficient election process if it results in the office being left vacant or undetermined.
Too many of our officials must have deluded themselves into thinking that by distorting and magnifying certain technicalities of the law, they will be able to avoid the responsibility of supporting their own Constitution and the very government in which they serve. This could never have been the intention of those sections of our Constitution which say that:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President” and “This Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land. All Senators, Representatives, executive Officers, and judicial Officers, both federal and state, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” (Articles 2 and 6, Summarized)
THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFENSE FOR THOSE WHO WOULD CAST ASIDE THIS DUTY
In Alabama’s 2012 Voter Guide, Beth Chapman wrote:
“I have pledged to the people of Alabama that there is no more important duty of my office of Secretary of State than ensuring honest elections.”[3]
Supporting our Constitution is the natural duty of every citizen, and it is a duty recognized by special oath by our elected officials whom we place in office for the very purpose of carrying it out.
Who better to look into a candidate whose eligibility is in question than the Chief Elections Official of a State?[4] What better time to look into the matter than whenever such a matter presents itself? Those who have taken the oath recognize that they cannot absolve themselves of their duty to support the Constitution.
It should not be presumed that justice will not return to America. Those who reaffirm their support of our government, our laws, and our constitution by amending their behavior stand to gain much for their country and for themselves.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
[1] To be precise, the Alabama Court simply affirmed without opinion the Secretary of State’s motion for case dismissal. Justices Bolin and Bryan independently expressed the opinion that Alabama state code does not impose an affirmative obligation on the Secretary of State to verify the eligibility of candidates before placing them on the presidential ballot. Chief Justice Moore and Justice Parker dissented.
Beth Chapman resigned while this case was pending on appeal, and Jim Bennett, who took office as the new Secretary of State on Aug 1, 2013, was automatically substituted as the defendant.
This case is now filed under Hugh McInnish and Virgil H. Goode, Jr. v. Jim Bennett, Alabama Secretary of State: https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=565288&event=40Y0LG67K
For an overview of this case see Justice Bryan’s concurring opinion, page 26, and Justice Parker’s dissenting opinion, pages 81 thru 83. For a comprehensive timeline see the first several pages of Chief Justice Moore’s dissenting opinion starting at page 27.
[2] Justice Bolin, concurring, says, “…reprinting and distribution of general-election ballots would have come, at that late date, at great financial cost to the State”. See pages 5 and 6 of the court document referenced.
[3] The 2012 Alabama Voter Guide is available through the Secretary of State’s website under election resources: http://www.sos.state.al.us/
[4] Justice Bolin affirms that the Alabama Secretary of State, being the Chief Elections Official, would be the appropriate office to verify the eligibility of potential candidates. Yet he does not apply to the Secretary of State the constitutional mandate that only qualified candidates shall be eligible to the presidency. See pages 7, 16, and 17 of the court document referenced.
A “Natural-Born [American] Citizen” is a person born in the United States of America of Parents who are both themselves citizens at the time of said person’s birth.
I was one of the plaintiffs in this case and at no time did I retain an ounce of hope that justice or the truth would see the light of day in ANY court within the United States, including this one.
As far as the 3 branches of government goes, it has been reduced to a children’s bedtime story:
Once upon a time there were 3 branches of government, now there is only one.
My advice is to buy guns and become a good shot.
We’ll get no “justice” from the DOJ, of this you can be sure of.
OPOVV
Re: This case and many of the others;
The “legal basis” of MOST of these cases should be the “Supremacy of the Constitutional provision” ITS-SELF;
……i.e., as construed under the rules of statutory construction and interpretation A2S1C5 is an “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision”
…. and that IT MUST preempt any and all Federal and or State Election or other laws, rules, regulations, policies and or procedures that would hamper or defeat the INTENT of the Constitutional provision.
Every State, as a condition of admittance to the Federal Union, consented to and pledged fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and reserved to their selves and their peoples ONLY those things NOT reserved to the Constitution.
A2S1C5 is EXPLICITE in its words and NO STATE has a right or legal basis to hamper or defeat the intent of the Constitutional provision.
NO Federal or State Law, rule, regulation, policy and or procedure has a legal basis to hamper or defeat the intent of the provision of A2S1C5.
There is NO “natural right of citizenship” ……
There IS “an established uniform Rule” that guides the laws of U.S. Citizenship.
Under THAT “uniform Rule” NO person that is NOT born of at least one (1) U.S. Citizen parent does NOT have a “natural right” to U.S. Citizenship.
The FACT that ONLY aliens who were “free white men” were ELIGIBLE for U.S. Citizenship under the 1790 Act should make it plan that there is NO “natural right” to U.S. Citizenship.
The Presidential eligibility provision was / is race & gender neutral by its words; ” No PERSON except ….”; and therefore the ONLY reconciliation necessary is determine by what circumstances a person can be a U.S. Citizen at birth.
The ONLY circumstance contemplated for a person to be a U.S. Citizen at birth is found in the Act of the 1st Congress, being to be born to a U.S. Citizen father, which constituted being born to two Citizen parents given that women were considered as the same political characters as their husbands, whatever that may be and regardless of the woman’s previous political character.(see the 1790 Act & the Cable Act of 1922)
Notwithstanding the federal POLICY of granting U.S. Citizenship to children of aliens when born within the territorial limits of a State THAT POLICY is NOT Law under the “declaratory collective naturalization born citizen provision” of the 14th Amendment.
However, the effect of the application of that POLICY on a child born to alien parents then PROVES that the “uniform Rule” of U.S. Citizenship is “birthright Citizenship” being a primary aspect & benefit of U.S. Citizenship, least “Anchor Baby” considerations would have NO basis.
That the 1st Acts of the Congress on the subject of U.S. Citizenship conforms to the ancient principles deemed to be “natural rights” should NOT be confused with a “deferral of obligation” by the Congress to “establish an uniform Rule …” by which U.S. Citizenship would perpetuate, by births and additions, UNDER the Rule of Law and Supremacy of the Constitution.