UPDATE FROM INDIANA - Ankeny v. Daniels

Thanks to http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3538

You miss out on lots of important stuff if you don't check in on Phil's blog regularly!
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/

Ankeny v. Daniels: Defendants Move to Dismiss; Plaintiff’s Preliminary Response
Submitted by Phil on Sun, Feb 8,

Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse, Plaintiffs in Ankeny v. Daniels, have received the following documents from the Defendants in their Indiana case against Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, the DNC, RNC, Sen. John McCain and Barack Obama:

Cover Letter from the Attorney General’s Office
Indiana Governor’s Motion to Dismiss
Indiana Governor’s Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Mr. Ankeny also had the following to say in response to the above…


It’s good to share [the above public documents] with a wider community, and it will be one week soon.

I will not share our response until AFTER it is filed, and I will only hint at our argument.

The Governor filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of subject-matter jurisdiction [court cannot hear], failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [relief cannot be granted] and mootness [process is complete].

The argument was based on the fact that the Governor had completed all he was statutorily required to do.

And, that’s true! He’s completed all he was statutorily required to do. In his memorandum, he laid out the law as enacted by State statute, and clearly stated those things required of him and how they were accomplished.

However, there is a flaw! He overlooks Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).

The form and substance of the general election is that the voters of each State elect the electors.

That means, whatever process a State has instituted for the electors to be chosen (such as by Party officials) violates the intent of both the Constitution [Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 & Amendment XII] and the Supreme Court.

The State of Indiana has chosen to list names of candidates on the ballot [IC 3-10-4-1], but a vote for a candidate is a vote for the slate of electors representing that candidate [IC 3-10-4-3 & 3-10-4-4], and the result is the same.

The names on the ballot represent the Office of Elector, and as such, a vote for a name on the ballot elects electors.

The fundamental issue is NOT Barack Obama’s birth certificate or even the “natural born citizen” issue. That has been the failure of all other cases that came before and will continue to be the failure when it’s made the focus of the suit.

As one poster at Right Side of Life suggested, “It’s not up to any of us to prove Mr. Obama is eligible or not.” [hat tip to "glacialhills" for that one! (from Phil)] It’s up to the candidate to prove their eligibility, and the Party ultimately responsible is the Governor of each State.

The fundamental issue is the “sitting Senator” issue or eligibility to be elected to the Office of Elector.

I will not speak more of the argument until we’ve filed our response. Then I will write freely. I will also not debate the issues presented by others as to their validity or success. I obviously believe there’ve been flaws in the other actions.

The biggest flaw in my opinion has been the concentrated hate of Obama and the focus on his birth certificate.