Circle of
Exclusion
It is a fact that Supreme Court holdings
have mandated that the ministerial duties of the Secretaries of State,
prescribed by the state legislatures must be with discretion to Article 2, for
presidential elections.
“In any
election but a Presidential election, the Florida Supreme Court can give as
little or as much deference to Florida executives as it chooses, so far as
Article 2 is concerned, and this court will have no cause to question the
court’s actions. But, with respect to a
Presidential election, the court must be both mindful of the legislature’s role
under Article 2 in choosing the manner of appointing electors, and deferential
to those bodies expressly empowered to carry out its constitutional mandate.”
Bush v. Gore 531 U.S 98, 114 (2000)
Certainly it is not the intention of
the court that the Supreme Court can mandate only some exclusions, and time
requirements of Article 2 be followed by the state legislatures, but not
others.
“Congress is empowered to determine the time of choosing the
electors and the day on which they are to give their votes, which is required
to be the same day throughout the United States; but otherwise the power and
jurisdiction of the state is exclusive, with the exception of the provisions as
to the number of electors and the ineligibility of certain persons, so framed
that congressional and federal influence might be excluded.” McPherson v.
Blacker, 146 US 1, 35 (1892)
There are two sets of people that
are deemed “ineligible” in Article 2. Members of the state and federal
governments are ineligible to be electors, and those persons who are not
natural born Citizens are ineligible to be President.
In a bold move that can only be
described as nakedly irresponsible, and possibly criminal, the Florida
legislature has excused Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates from
taking the “Federal Candidate Oath”, as
mandated by Fla. ss. 99.021(2). By performing the oath, the candidates claim
that they are “constitutionally eligible” for the office they seek. With the
signing of HB 1355, Gov. Rick Scott has enacted ss. 99.021 (3), excusing the
President and Vice President candidates from taking the oath. At that time (May
2011) I realized that the Usurpation of the Presidency by an illegal non
natural born Citizen was aided and abetted not only by both sides of the
political aisle, but also by the state governments.
99.021(3) is incompatible with Supreme
Court mandate that the states must do ministerial duty with discretion to Article
2, since without the performance of the Federal Candidate Oath, no ministerial
duty, with respect to eligibility requirements of Article 2 and the 12th
Amendment, is done at all. In essence, the Florida legislature has amended
Article 2 and Amendment 12, by requiring no eligibility standard at all. It is
also incompatible with Florida statute 102.168 (contest of election or
nomination), and the holding of Shevin v. Stone (1972).
“Once the candidate states his compliance,
under oath, the Secretary’s ministerial determination of eligibility for the
office is at an end. Any challenge to the correctness of the candidate’s
compliance is for appropriate judicial determination upon any challenge
properly made, as here.” Shevin v. Stone 279 So. 2d. 17, 22 (1972). See also
Cherry v. Stone 265 So. 2d 56, 58 (1972), Taylor v. Crawford 116 So. 41, 42.
By excluding the President and Vice
Presidential candidates from taking the oath, the state of Florida has simply
legislated away ministerial duty mandated by the Florida and Federal Supreme
court, and has taken away the point of contention supplied to voters contesting
the election by ss.102.168. By the law of statutory construction, 99.021(3) is
therefore illegal and invalid. New statute 99.021(3) also violates the mandate
contained in the Florida Statutes that the Secretary must “educate the voters”
(Fl. Ss. 97.021(6)). We the people are given no guidance whatsoever of the
Constitutional eligibility of any Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate,
and are thus hampered in fulfilling our Florida voter oath to “protect and
defend the US Constitution, and the Constitution of Florida” (Fla. ss.
92.021(2)), by the filing of “contests of election or nomination” suits. Likewise,
the Secretary of State is violating his oath to “support the US Constitution
and the Constitution of Florida”.( Fl. Ss. 876.05). The State of Florida is
also violating our 14th Amendment right of equal protection, since
all states are mandated by the Supreme Court to do ministerial duty with
discretion to Article 2, and the 12th Amendment in a Presidential
election. Once given the right of franchise by the state, 14th
Amendment rights must be protected.
“("[O]nce the franchise is granted
to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"). It must be remembered
that "the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of
the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the
free exercise of the franchise." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964), Bush v. Gore, 532 US
98, 105 (2000)
The ministerial duty prescribed by the
Florida legislature in 99.021(3) pays no discretion to Article 2 and the 12th
Amendment, and leaves the possibility that no candidate on the Presidential
ballot is constitutionally eligible, leading to a possible invalidation of
Florida votes upon later determination of ineligibility.
The oath, according to the Florida
Department of Florida Elections Advisory Opinion, is precisely performed to
discourage an ineligible candidate from running for office. It transfers legal
liability for the eligibility of the candidate to the candidate him/her self,
under penalty of fraud.
“Falsely swearing an oath arising from an
election is a felony in the third degree (Fl. Ss.104.011 (1)). The
responsibility, therefore, is on the candidate, not the qualifying officer, to
ensure that the candidate is qualified for the office the candidate is
seeking” (Fla. Department of Elections
Advisory Opinion 11-05 Qualifying- Role of Qualifying Officers.)
As it stands, no Florida Elections official, nor any Democrat
Party official, nor Barack Obama himself, has claimed that Barack H. Obama is a
natural born Citizen, eligible for President. Nor have they even made the
general claim that he is Constitutionally eligible. Anyone can get their name placed on the
Florida Presidential ballot, according to Florida statute, and the winner would
face no penalty at all for his ineligibility. Creative wordsmith is used at all levels to
blur our view that the emperor has no clothes. In fact the 2008 Nomination
Certificate for the state of Florida, from the DNC, signed by Nancy Pelosi,
claims that Obama was “duly nominated”. Of course that doesn’t mean
“constitutionally eligible”. Its meaning is much like the procedural meaning of
Fl. Statute 99.061 (6), where the Secretary of State of Florida has placed the
names of the “duly qualified” candidates on the ballot, with no claim made that
the candidate is actually eligible.
“(6) The Department of State shall certify
to the supervisor of elections, within 7 days after the closing date for
qualifying, the names of all duly qualified candidates for nomination or
election who have qualified with the Department of State. Fla. ss. 99.061(6)
While Florida Department of State
officials claim that the Federal Candidate Oath of 99.021 (2) was mooted by the
enactment of the Presidential Primary Selection Committee (PPSC) (Fl. Ss.
103.101), no constitutional qualifying is mandated to be done by statute, nor is
done in practice, by the PPSC. There is only one exclusion in ss. 99.012(2)
statute. It says that “ALL FEDERAL CANDIDATES SHALL TAKE” the oath, except for
Federal judge candidates, who take a different oath. All other Federal
Candidates were mandated by that statute to take the oath. The Secretary of State’s ministerial duty had
violated Florida statutes since the enactment of the PPSC, and when apprised of
that fact by Florida voters, the legislature simply changed the law to support
their criminal behavior. In further examining the law of statutory construction
on which the claim was made that the oath was mooted by the PPSC, both statutes
(99.021(2) and 103.101) could certainly exist side by side, and no duties done
in one are not compatible with the other. As a matter of fact the Secretary
sits non- voting chair of the PPSC. Therefore the statement that 99.021(2) is
mooted by 103.101 was false, since there was no exclusionary language, and the
two statutes could certainly exist side by side. The legislature then enacted
the exclusionary language of 99.021(3) to mask their criminal behavior.
Court holdings that say that the
Secretary cannot make the determination of eligibility have morphed into
“cannot do any ministerial duty relating to eligibility”. That is the reason
that Obama is allowed to run for the office of President, but it also gives me
unique standing by The Law of Equity Florida statutes, which are contained in
86.011- 86.101.
The Florida legislature has used its
power to make law to exclude and impinge the right, and duty of the Florida
Electors from concluding whether a Presidential candidate is eligible for the
office, in performance of our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States. The legislature has created a circle of exclusion, where one
party is vouched for by the other, and no one is vouching for anything, so
there is nothing to contest.
“The question of the most common and
undoubted jurisdiction of a court of equity, an agreement which the defendant
sets as conclusive to bar all relief, and the plaintiff asks to be declared
void, on grounds of the most clear and appropriate cognizance in equity, and
not cognizant in a court of law. A false representation by one party, confided
in by the other of the fact on which the whole cause depends, the execution of
the agreement, and all proceedings under it, founded on the mistaken belief of
the fact presented.” Rhode Is. V. Mass.
37 US 657, 735
The second part of the standing for
Declaratory Judgment is the question of whether Obama’s eligibility is a judicial
question, and not political. Obama’s lawyers in state eligibility contests so
far have claimed it is a political question, that Obama is “popular” and that
the voters have determined that he is eligible. The Florida case of Shevin v.
Stone (1972) has held that eligibility is a judicial question, as has the
Supreme Court.
“It is argued that the subject-matter of
the controversy is not of judicial cognizance, because it is said that all
questions connected with the election of a presidential elector are political
in their nature; that the court has no power finally to dispose of them; and
that its decision would be subject to review by political officers and
agencies, as the state board of canvassers, the legislature in joint
convention, and the governor, or, finally, the congress.
But the judicial power of the United States extends to all
cases in law or equity arising under the constitution and laws of the United
States, and this is a case so arising, since the validity of the state law was
drawn in question as repugnant to such constitution and laws, and its validity
was sustained”
McPherson
v. Blacker, 146 US 1, 23 (1892).
Barack Obama’s campaign website, paid for
by Obama for America has made the claim that Obama is an “American-born
Citizen”.
“President Obama is an
American-born citizen. The authenticity of his short-form birth certificate was
verified by the State of Hawaii as well as by FactCheck.org.”
Previously, at www.fightthesmears.com (now scrubbed), Obama’s campaign had claimed to be a “native-born
Citizen”, leaving one to wonder why the correct term of Presidential
eligibility is not used in reference to a supposed “Constitutional scholar”.
The creative wordsmith belies a desire to not outright lie, and the allowance
of the Florida Legislature for him not to take the candidate oath allows him to
continue that lie.
The oath of Florida electors to protect and
defend the US Constitution is a power given to them by the laws of Florida.
Where there is an oath, there is power to carry out the thing sworn to.
“It is a Universal axiom, that the grant
of a principle power, ipso facto, includes in it all the minor subsidiary power
necessary for the exercise of the main power, as incident to it.” 37 US 657,
705
All it takes to stop Obama is to
force just one major state Secretary of State to do his/her required
ministerial duty, with discretion to Article 2 of the US Constitution. In
Florida, that duty is the performance of the Federal Candidate Oath, and a
requirement, by the Florida legislature, that the DNC issue a Nomination
Certificate stating that their National Nominee is “constitutionally qualified”
for the office they seek. Marbury v. Madison (5 US 37), and more recently Bush
v. Gore (531 US 98), have held that ministerial duty may be imposed by mandate.
It is that simple. At this point the courts need not even define “natural born
Citizen”, or declare whether Obama is eligible or not. By mandamus, and allowed
by the Declaratory Judgment statutes of Florida, the courts can mandate, by Supreme Court precedent, that the Secretary
do ministerial duty with discretion to Article 2 (and the 12th
Amendment). If and when Obama, or the DNC makes that direct claim of
constitutional eligibility, then the courts can be enjoined to determine who is
a natural born Citizen, and whether Obama is one. If forced to state under
oath, under penalty of fraud, that he is “Constitutionally eligible”, Obama
probably will not run. It is my opinion
that cases have not been given standing because no claim of eligibility has
been officially made by election officials or Obama himself, thus there is no
point to contest and no relief to be granted. If forced by the Florida
legislature to provide a Nomination Certificate stating that Obama is
“Constitutionally eligible”, the DNC will probably not let him run for
President. I have been trying to shake the citizenry awake for the last three
years. Obama’s Kryptonite is making him state, under threat of fraud, that he
is constitutionally eligible for the office of President.
“In the Case of Olmstead,
this Court expressed its opinion that if state legislatures may annul the
judgments of the courts of the United States and the rights thereby acquired,
the Constitution becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the
means of enforcing its laws, by its own tribunal. So fatal a result must be
deprecated by all, and the people of every state must feel a deep interest in
resisting principles so destructive of the Union, and in averting consequences
so fatal to themselves. 30 U. S. 5 Pet. 115, 30 U. S. 135, 37 US 657, 751.
Are you
awake yet?
No comments:
Post a Comment