| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Significance of McInnish V Chapman AL Supreme Court Decision, US Supreme Court ruling?, Justices Moore and Parker clarify state duties, Serious questions about Obama birth certificates
Significance of McInnish V Chapman AL Supreme Court Decision, US Supreme Court ruling?, Justices Moore and Parker clarify state duties, Serious questions about Obama birth certificates
“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells
“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison
Regardless of how this plays out, we have ensconced in writing, on the internet and available for other legal reference and quotation, a document with well researched dissenting opinions by the AL Chief Justice Moore and Justice Parker regarding the duties and responsibilities of state election officials. Perhaps just as important is the mention of documentation provided by the Arpaio Zullo investigation raising serious questions about Obama birth certificates.
Judge Parker wrote:
“(Case no. 1110665.) As I noted in my unpublished special concurrence to this Court’s order striking McInnish’s petition for a writ of mandamus: “McInnish
attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would
raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Obama that have been made
public.”
On March 6, 2012, the Secretary of State was served with McInnish’s petition for a writ of mandamus, including the attached documentation raising questions
about President Obama’s qualifications. That documentation served by McInnish on the Secretary of State was sufficient to put the Secretary of State on
notice and raise a duty to investigate the qualifications of President Obama before including him as a candidate on an Alabama election ballot.”
The McInnish V Chapman case should proceed to the US Supreme Court, the justices should rule and clarify the duties and roles of state election officials.
The poorly reasoned opinions of the consenting justices should be denigrated and the well reasoned, well written and constitutionally sound arguments of
Chief Justice Roy Moore should be upheld. This case, while highlighting eligibility deficiencies of Obama, focuses on the role of the AL Secretary of State,
and that is what the SCOTUS would focus on. The mootness aspect could also be addressed
Mootness could also be addressed by another case before the SCOTUS. Paige V State of Vermont. Central to this case is Obama’s natural born citizen status. If this case is selected for full court review, we would expect a clarification of the definition of natural born citizen. This is mandatory as even many constitutional scholars are divided on the definition.
We have in McInnish v Chapman, the most extensive and comprehensive delineation and definition of the duties of Alabama state election officials including the Secretary of State. Many of us, including Citizen Wells, have addressed this adequately beginning in 2008. Though not rocket science, nor requiring a legal degree to understand, it was beneficial to have a strong constitutional defender such as Chief Justice Moore to explain it with so much documentation.
To sum up the gist of Chief Justice Moore’s argument which is mine as well. Clearly the responsibility for presidential elections is that of the states up to
the certification of electoral college votes. The US Constitution requires that the president be a natural born citizen. The states are given some leeway in
procedural matters. The state laws and procedures vary considerably. There is no law stating that all presidential candidates must be preemptively
investigated to insure being qualified. However, since only a qualified candidate can legally be elected, it is imperative that the states take all
appropriate measures. The states in general have failed miserably at this. Some states have explicit laws and procedures to remedy a non qualified candidate.
Some have provisions for challenges. New Hampshire requires a natural born citizen certification.
From Justice Bolin:
“I concur with this Court’s no-opinion affirmance of this case. However, I write specially because I respectfully disagree with Chief Justice Moore’s dissent
to the extent that it concludes that the Secretary of State presently has an affirmative duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate for President
of the United States of America before printing that candidate’s name on the general-election ballot in this State. I fully agree with the desired result;
however, I do not agree that Alabama presently has a defined means to obtain it.”
I read this with a certain amount of incredulity. After pondering it for a while I am wondering if this was intentional. A set up?
There are 2 simple steps that could have been and should have been taken. Immediately contact the AL Attorney General and request guidance. Get clarification
on the definition of natural born citizen and request a certified copy of the birth certificate. You know, one like I have a copy of, a copy of the original
certified by the governing office.
After comparing the ludicrous concuring opinions with the well reasoned, constitutionally sound opinion of Chief Justice Moore, one has to wonder if this was
a set up for the SCOTUS.
On the topic of mootness, I somewhat disagree with Chief Justice Moore as well others on remedies for removal of Obama if he is not qualified. Mootness only applies in the context of state duties since they did end with the electoral college certification. However, the clarification of state duties in AL and the other states is just as if not more important. Impeachment in the general since would apply but not in the presidential removal through congress. If Obama is not qualified he is not president. No ceremony or adulation by brainwashed school children effects that.
If Obama is not qualified, he should immediately be arrested and tried for treason.
Few are willing to state this, but it is the truth.
Of course with the Obama controlled USDOJ this would be tricky.
However, Eric Holder and others in the USDOJ were selected by Obama and perhaps they could be removed first.
Other states and state election officials should take notice. If Obama is proven to be ineligible, many of those officials have committed treason as well. Not to mention enablers like Nancy Pelosi, et al.
I and others contacted NC and other state election officials in 2008 as well as 2012 to warn them of probable Obama eligibility deficiencies. They were warned and have no excuse.
It is on the record now. From a state supreme court.
State election official duties.
Probable Obama eligibility deficiencies.
The results of the Arpaio Zullo investigation now take on more significance.
Geir, you don’t understand how the US legal system works.
This was NOT a US Supreme Court ruling. This was a ruling from the STATE of Alabama, and birthers LOST that case.
What you are pointing out was the written dissent of the case. In other words, this was the opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court Justice whose opinion LOST. Additionally, this Justice did not threaten impeachment, he mentioned that as defined rights that they can try to pursue through Congressional representatives.
Additionally, even this dissenting judge did not say that his opinion was Obama was not eligible. He said his opinion was that the Secretary of State of the STATE of Alabama should have done more research on eligibility by law. THATS IT. Nothing more. Not threats of impeachment. Not birther victory. Nothing. Not even Orly Taitz, who brought this lawsuit, think this was a victory.
You are a sad, pathetic, uneducated, delusional man Geir.