Begin with the December 1, 2008, posting.
Excerpt from that date's posting:
...64 million Americans voted to elect Barack Obama. Do you want to disenfranchise them? Do you think it's possible to disenfranchise 64 million Americans and keep the country? And please don't write me about the Constitution. The first principle of the Constitution is that the people are sovereign. What the people say, goes. If you think about it, I think you will agree that a two-year billion dollar election through all 50 states is as authoritative a verdict on anything as we are likely to get....Huh?
48 comments:
Such degenerates believe it's in their best interest to disenfranchise all those who believe in and uphold the sovereignty of our Constitution as the law of the land. When elections for Presidential office reflect the standards of an American Idol poll . . I shake my head in utter disgust and buy more ammunition.
Count me as a degenerate
I agree with Horowitz
Where was this suit in January and Feb?
Absolute chaos awaits
That's why SCOTUS refused to delay the meeting of the college of electors on the 15th.
REPUBLIC OF ROME 120 BC ..CHAOS
I am one who almost always believes that may the heavens fall, but let justice be done... but in this case we will be setting ourselves up for COURT NULLIFICATION of the people's sovereign decision.
In fact, better to bring this AFTER Obama is sworn in.
We have a VP elect who, though a moron WILL BE the result of the sovereigns' decision.
That MUST be above all other considerations.
That's why SCOTUS refused to delay the meeting of the college of electors on the 15th.
-------
I read the decision would be Fri.
5 Dec.
I agree they won't change the election no matter what.
In a perfect world should they? Absolutely.
Our imperfect world will not survive the riots if they overturn the election. On a side note, I wouldn't necessarily want McCain instead of Obama.
@ SamenoKami ..yes, the 5th. But the motion was to delay the College until the court rendered a decision which was refused.
It would take 2-4 generations to recover from SCOTUS NULLIFYING an american election. Everyone alive now might have to be dead before it was possible.
I do think that IF Obama is ineligible, then if that was proven conclusively AFTER Jan 21, it would be easier to swallow as the democrats would still hold the national result of the election - PROPERLY.
Even after 1945 Churchill always maintained that we must trust the people.
We MUST.
Yah, while McCain was better than Obama, there was not much joy in the choice
Epa,
You're wrong.
You would support the intervention of the Supreme Court against the will of the people in the case of the civil rights movement, and rightly so. The Constitution does trump the will of the people there, and it does here too.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. and, so is Horowitz. I've lost a lot of respect for him.
Related:
OT . . .Electoral College Scam: Where Dead People Vote
Lawyer challenging eligibility seeks investigation of process
A lawyer playing a major part in a California lawsuit urging officials to prevent the state’s 55 Electoral College votes from being recorded for Barack Obama until questions about his citizenship are resolved has written to county clerks around the state, seeking an investigation into a process that has allowed a dead woman to be listed as an official elector.
According to Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, the clerks have been advised about the “irregularity” in the list of electors provided by the Democratic Party in California.
“In the 28th Congressional District (Congressman Howard Berman), situated in Los Angeles County, Ilene Huber is listed as the presidential elector designated in that district. However, as shown in the attached certified statement of Dean C. Logan, registrar-recorder/county clerk of the county of Los Angeles, state of California, there is no Ilene Huber listed as a registered voter in the County of Los Angeles. A statewide search of public records has revealed only one Ilene Huber in the state of California, and she is deceased-a copy of her certificate of death is attached hereto as well,” the advisory said.
@pasto..we are going to have to agree to disagree
We cannot compare SCOTUS in 1954 deciding that the constitutional provision for equal protection trumped a law in a state which mandated segregation ESCPECIALLY since this was a reverse of Plessy vs Ferguson which VALIDATED MANDATED segregation to them REVERSING and INVALIDATING a national election
Lincoln IGNORED THEM
Jackson IGNORED THEM
Supreme court decision making is not isolated
If the court will REVERSE a national election, we will have crossed a boundary that a democracy simply cannot afford to cross.
If SCOTUS decides on Dec 5th to hold a hearing and Obama is invalidated, it's MY opinion that the election will, according to the constitution, be in the hands of the electors, but the nation will be screaming for a new election. Something NOT provided for.
Do you even KNOW who the electors are? Do you even know how the electors are chosen state by state?
I don't. I think it's regarded as a reward for loyalty and contributions and it's an appointment (by party decision) in many places. In others others I think it's an appointment by governor or state legislature.
We will put the nation into the hands of people NOT CHOSEN by us or we will have a constitutional crisis. Whoever comes out will NEVER be looked upon as a legitimate president.
I give you the words of Arthur Goldberg, and the great Robert Jackson ..
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact"
If this is a valid suit, then it should be heard and decided AFTER swearing in, and Mr. Biden will be president as the constitution provides Mr, Obama is UNABLE to serve.
The election mandate will be secure, the people will have spoken, the law will be upheld.
Chaos will be avoided
per EPA . . ."Mr. Biden will be president as the constitution provides Mr, Obama is UNABLE to serve. . . Chaos will be avoided"
Pffffft. . .fffffffft
"Pffffft. . .fffffffft"
What the heck does that mean?
Epa,
YOu make a good case, but the Constitution is the Constitution. It says what it says. If the man is not a natural born citizen, he can not be President. Simple as that.
Interesting, you would use the Constitution to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority, thus subverting the will of the people. But, you will not protect all the citizens (as their rights are granted to them by the Constitution) against the whim of an election.
The Constitution is a document made up of foundational principles UPON WHICH THE DEMOCRACY IS BASED.
The Constitution is not at the whim of the Democracy.
The rights we have are granted by God, not by man.
That's the point.
It's the same point that Bush missed in his policy of regime change in Iraq. All his talk of founding an "Islamic Democracy." There can be no such thing. In Japan, we had to outlaw tenets of their religion, because they went against the foundational principles of a Democracy. We had to do the same thing in Iraq, but we didn't, and that's why it has failed.
America too will become a failed state if it cavalierly ignores its Constitution.
And what Constitutional principal, granted by God, is involved in this issue of whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen?
The answer is, PROPERTY.
The United States of America is a property OWNED BY ITS CITIZENS. It is not owned by the world at large. We can not have people from other countries governing our property, or else it is no longer our property.
There's no room for compromise on the Constitution, my friend. And, this one is a very big issue in this modern day when people are moving to and fro around the world to the extent we are. Anyone is likely to be born anywhere at this point.
Please don't write him about the constitution?
Okeedokee, then, tovarich
Epa,
Watch the video BabbaZee posted. Do you want guys with hairstyles like that invading America?
For God's sake, that guy could be President of the United States if Horowitz had his way.
LOL
Always On Watch,
I am an admirer of David Horrowitz. I have idolized him, and I even met him once, but I have to disagree with him, here. This is one of the most moronic statements I have ever heard. I mean based on this logic, if a majority of Americans wanted to legalize rape, there would be nothing wrong with that, regardless of what the constitution says. The constitution is more important than the will of the people, this is a republic, not a pure democracy. The only way to keep the government in line and to effectively protect individual rights is to do all you can to make sure they strictly follow the constitution.
If Barrack Obama is not eligible under the constitution, the court should tell the people to go pound sand.
Oh well, no one's perfect.
No one's perfect, but sometimes people express their imperfection by getting the biggest of all possible things wrong.
Like, for instance, the good Christian man, loving father, responsible employee, who also helped the German cause by killing Jews.
Horowitz ain't quite that bad, but he's very, very far off on this one.
In my not so humble opinion.
By the way, this is a point that I have tried to make to those who support Ethnic Nationalism. The idea that reasonable people can disagree is a valid idea. But, when reasonable people are disagreeing over whether or not an object is a bomb, then the consequences of being wrong are enormous.
The consequences of what would happen if David Horowitz got his way on this one would be enormous.
I think some people are taking a logic pill and walking right off the cliff with it
By arguing that the republic in TOTO is placed in danger if the result of an election otherwise valid in negated by 5 men, that is not to say a majority could legalize rape. But we could do it constitutionally via amendment by 2/3 of the elected congress and 38 state legislatures. So what?
"Interesting, you would use the Constitution to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority, thus subverting the will of the people. But, you will not protect all the citizens (as their rights are granted to them by the Constitution) against the whim of an election."
No, the Supremes in that case overturned the will of the majority of the legislature of KANSAS (and then by extension, Arkansas). We cannot know what the will of the majority of the people of those states would be if they had to vote in a contested election on THAT subject at that time. Note that NO ONE attempted to do that. There was PLENTY of time to have done so
Plessy vs Ferguson which the Topeka laws followed - which 1954 overturned was from the court of 1896.
The rule of men IS supreme. We are the sovereign. That is the challenge ..to manage that. That is the exact and precise difference between us and what the islamozoids say ..God is sovereign.
"The rights we have are granted by God, not by man."
Anyway, never mind because unless this is a clear cut case, do you think for a second, that even if this was after swearing in, that 5 justices in a 5-4 decision would do this? This baby would have to be 8-1 or 9-0.
All I am saying is that the INTELLIGENT, AND CONSTITUTIONAL WAY to handle this is WAIT. Validate the national election via electoral college. Hear the case in Feb. If they can get a supermajority of Scotus to say Obama ain't a born Yanqui ..the election result is honored and so is the law.
We have to make a visible attempt to sail as close to the wind of common sense in this as is possible.
The democrats won this election. After Lehman Bros failed, and McCain suspended his campaign, nothing on this earth could have changed that result short of an Al Qaeda nuke. They won with a greater % than Bush did in 2004.
That MUST be honored.
COMPULSORY.
If that case has to be heard do it after January.
It is NOT a suicide pact, and it IS the result of compromise and change itself. (3/5 rule? Bill of rights?)
Pastorius,
I agree. World Net Daily has an article on people who don't like the natural born requirement. If the American people don't like what the constitution says on the matter, than they can change the constitution through the amendment process. Its very difficult to do, but its difficult for a good reason. What good is a constitution at protecting the people from government abuse if it can be just changed on a whim?
Epa,
You said: The rule of men IS supreme. We are the sovereign.
I say: No.
I think you don't understand the Constitution.
That's my opinion. It surprises me that you are so off. In fact, I am so shocked that you are so off that I think maybe I am off.
Therefore, I will write to my friend Publius2000 (the guy I started CUANAS with). He is a professor of American Government. Let's see what he has to say.
Anyone else want to chime in here and back me up?
Pastorius,
Even if no one else does, I'll continue to back you up here. The constitution is more important than the will of the people.
The Constitution of the United States is the highest law in the land.
Those who chose to ignore it are called Outlaws.
Just ask him:
Who is the sovereign here?
I'll ask some folks who teach history and poly sci at U Maine...
Epa,
the people are not sovereign over the Constitution, unless they vote to amend the Constitution.
You know that's true, don't you?
I am simply amazed.
I am amazed at you in the same way I am amazed at George Bush and his whole administration for not knowing that by Democracy we mean a Democratic Republic protected by a Constitution which stipulates rights.
The rights come before the people, because the rights are established by God.
The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
"the people are not sovereign over the Constitution, unless they vote to amend the Constitution."
Agree
No one is talking about that
I am saying that using the constitution as a TECHNICAL LEGAL MEANS to overthrow the result of an election is unwise, dangerous, and an HORRIFIC PRECEDENT when a fully constitutional, less dangerous, and legal means is present.
We have the warnings of several supreme court judges about using the constitution as the ne plus ultra criterion as we head over an avoidable cliff. We have some decisions of the court which have been THROUGHOUT our history the result of partisan divides, ignorance and racism. They are not a perfect answer and we endanger the credibility of every major institution we have in this no matter what happens or how it turns out. I guarantee this. Our faith in congress, SCOTUS and the executive will all be shaken b4 it is done, nd we will ALL come out the other side highly suspicious of the goodness, loyalty and motive of our opponents.
If we got rid of Obama, even IF he was clearly NOT born an american, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would STILL be dangerous to the republic, even if Biden took over in the spring. But that is a way the we all RELUCTANTLY could get behind. There are probably 15-20% of ALL AMERICANS who would believe we would never have crucified a white man this way.
I am talking not about the world of legal mandatory behaviors. I am talking of the messy, biased, politicized, white hot American world of what is possible and real.
I have warned many times here of the fact each each cycle of the sine wave of inter party and progressive-conservative enmity has increasing amplitude. We WILL ABSOLUTELY go past a point of no return in all this unless we can draw back.
Invalidating an election is good way to cover that ground.
If it has to be done, hear the case in the spring.
.............................
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President [Modified by Amendment XII].
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
.........................
I see nothing to restrict the electors from exercising all the power of all 110 million voters in choosing any damn person they want.
Wait until the spring to hear this case if it has merit.
You said: am saying that using the constitution as a TECHNICAL LEGAL MEANS to overthrow the result of an election is unwise, dangerous, and an HORRIFIC PRECEDENT ...
I say: Well then, you are arguing the practicality of the issue, not the right or wrong.
It would make sense to me that, if Obama was not eligible, then Biden would be President. I don't see how that violates the Constitution.
So, what's the argument.
You said: I have warned many times here of the fact each each cycle of the sine wave of inter party and progressive-conservative enmity has increasing amplitude. We WILL ABSOLUTELY go past a point of no return in all this unless we can draw back.
I say: I'm in agreement with you on this.
"Well then, you are arguing the practicality of the issue, not the right or wrong."
If the republic is put in a situation where we cannot keep it, we will have failed, in both principle and in practicality.
Arguments that Obama was guilty of a monstrous fraud will have no weight against this failure.
If our self righteous and righteous indignation cannot be subject to self control, we will have shown that humans cannot manage to be sovereign and govern themselves.
If we, with our heritage can fail at this, then what do you think will happen in Iraq? Brazil? Venezuela?
What will the Zia ul Haq's of the world have to say, and what will they do? The Zawalhiris?
If we fail there will be a huge party out there among people who disliked us for more reasons than that we could govern ourselves.
I am far more concerned with the republic than Obama's birthplace, or a single election result.
The argument from practicality carries much more weight with me than the argument that the will of the people in an election trumps the Constitution.
Damien,
I, too, have been an admirer of Horowitz.
In fact, last fall, on a weeknight, Mr. AOW and I drove two hours down to Charlottesville and two hours back to hear Horowitz speak. I wrote a couple of reviews about that speech, and you can find those reviews in this list at my site.
As for Obama's qualifications for the office of SCOTUS...
1. Why weren't those qualifications checked by the DNC? If I recall correctly, the questions came up back in July.
2. Why won't BHO just present his COLB and settle this issue?
3. If BHO takes office with the issue unsettled and is challenged later, why won't that also result in chaos?
Originally, when the issue of BHO's COLB came up, I thought, "This mystery is being used to drum up interest in the candidate and and discredit those asking questions so as to marginalize their voices later."
But time has dragged on, and still there is no proof of BHO's qualifications, and there are only three of those, Constitutionally speaking.
What the hell is on that certificate? Or, conversely, is the law suit just sour grapes over the election results? If the latter, that should be slammed too.
If considerations of practicality trump the Constitution, what other parts of our document of governing can be tossed out in the name of pragmatism?
In my view, SCOTUS certainly has jurisdiction on this matter. If BHO is truly unqualified for the office of POTUS, that disqualification is not the fault of the republic -- unless he takes office, that is.
Always On Watch,
Personally I still kind of admire Horowitz even after this, but not as much as I did before.
Pastorius
I maybe more of a pragmatist than some people, since to a large degree, being a pragmatist comes with being a genuine realist. However, the argument from practicality for ignoring Obama's constitutional qualifications for the presidency isn't that convincing, for one thing if Obama has so little respect for the constitution when its this clear, they why should we expect him to obey it while in office? How could any reasonably expect him to keep his vow to protect and defend the constitution?
Well, maybe he'll defend Sharia then.
Pastorius,
I don't want him to defend Sharia, most certainly. If Obama is not eligible, if is not a natural born citizen, than I hope the supreme court tells the voters to go pound sand. It will be worth the constitutional crisis it will create. The nation has survived constitutional crisis before and it would survive this one. If on the other hand, there is nothing to the allegations, than by all means let him take on his new role as president of the united states.
Legally it is the responsibility of the Secretary of EACH state to ensure that anyone who is on a ballot is qualified.
As I've said before, I believe Obama is, indeed, a citizen of the United States.
This is worth reading:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/04/the-sadly-obligatory-scotus-birth-certificate-post/
Damien,
I still admire Horowitz. But I don't admire his willingness to discard the Constitution.
Pastorius,
Its not so much, if he is a citizen of the United States, its if he is a natural born citizen of the United states. There is a difference.
Always On Watch,
you said,
--------------------------------------------------
I still admire Horowitz. But I don't admire his willingness to discard the Constitution.
--------------------------------------------------
Same here.
Damien,
I don't understand. Did you read the Hot Air piece I linked to?
Does not a COLB from the state of Hawaii prove that Obama is a natural-born citizen?
Pastorius,
Yes it does sate that it proves he was a natural born citizen and unless evidence shows up, show otherwise, I think the court will rule in favor of Obama. but the way you stated it needed a correction, "As I've said before, I believe Obama is, indeed, a citizen of the United States."
At this point I'm pretty skeptical myself of the idea that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
But I don't know for sure.
Pastorius,
From that post at Hot Air:
Thomas may have been interested in the technical aspects of the suit rather than the merits, or perhaps it was a slow week.
If the latter, that's ludicrous.
Epa,
How can State secretaries do that, if the following is true?
Fukino, however, repeated the Health Department’s position that state law prohibits her or any other officials from actually releasing the birth certificate, which Obama’s campaign says shows he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” Fukino said in the statement. “State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes ¤338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. …
Damien,
It seems to me that it's a simple matter for BHO to settle this matter.
AoW..
Catch 22
States have their own laws, however, federal law would rule in this case.
There probably is no case law to establish precedent since I bet this has never been a serious consideration.
We'll see TMW
Post a Comment