If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
“THEY WANT THE SYSTEM TO FAIL FIRST”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Mar. 1, 2016) — On Tuesday, The Post & Email received a tip that an eligibility challenge was filed with the Supreme Court of Texas claiming that the constitutional process by which delegates are awarded to presidential candidates is broken.
Two individuals worked on the filing, with one having done the writing and the other the proofreading. In an exclusive interview, the writer told The Post & Email that the document is 113 pages long, is divided into three sections, contains a number of attachments, and was a year in the making.
“This is a federal constitutional crisis that bleeds over into the state,” she told The Post & Email, stating that ineligible candidates are violating Texas state law. The documents were filed with the Texas Supreme Court, she said, as a result of the defendants’ positions within the state executive branch of government.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born Citizen,” a resident within the U.S. for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.
Of her approach in making the case for the authority to bring the challenge, the writer told us:
I believe we have successfully argued for standing. We’re challenging the candidates, but we’re challenging the process. The candidates are secondary. The process failure allows ineligible candidates – who are illegal by the U.S. Code – which in this case, is “natural born Citizen” and so many years a resident. The reason that’s significant in Texas is that we’ve already had a state senator be illegally elected to office because he didn’t meet the requirements for residency. He got a judge to rule against the law that residency, for him, was accumulative. It wasn’t immediate and consecutive the way it’s assumed to be in the Texas law,” the filer said.
The assignment of an attorney to the plaintiff, who filed pro se, is reportedly “at the discretion” of the court. The plaintiff told us that she approached a number of attorneys who have submitted presidential eligibility cases over the last eight years to represent her but that they declined to do so.
The challenge asks the court for judicial review of the system, a declarative judgment, and an emergency injunction on the awarding of delegates and the certification of the election. The case names all presidential candidates of both major parties who filed a Texas candidate ballot for president in December and January; the Texas secretary of state, Texas attorney general, and the state party chairmen.
“The system is broken. We’ve given the secretary of state and attorney general and both of the state party chairs enough warning to tell them over and over again, ‘You’re violating the intent of the law,’ and the answer we get is, ‘It’s a federal issue.’ But if you file in the federal courts, it’s a local issue, depending on what is convenient,” the plaintiff told us.
She also believes that it is the “duty” of all eligible presidential candidates to challenge any candidate(s) who is/are ineligible to serve as the “chief constitutional officer” of the nation.
Congress, the two major political parties, and the courts have refused to address the question of who qualifies as a “natural born Citizen.” Beginning last year, as individuals began announcing their presidential candidacies, the definition of the term has been stretched to include foreign-born individuals and those born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.
Many who have researched the background of the inclusion of the “natural born Citizen” qualification believe that it applies only to a person born in the U.S. to two citizen parents.
The writer explained that the filing was done after primary voting began in Texas because of “the way the courts view these cases. They want the system to fail first. Most of the lawsuits and verification challenges that have gone on before have all had the idea that if we’re proactive, the courts will stop the election, and that’s not the way the courts look at it. They won’t pick it up until you let the system fail.”
The Post & Email will publish the filing as soon as it is available. As of press time, it is pending a response from the court.