Via WND and Ballot Access; - Judges: Court could review eligibility after Congress - State ruling suggests intervention, if any, after 'processes have run their course' - by Bob Unruh
They also suggest that state officials can remove someone from a presidential ballot for being ineligible when they want to, but they don't really have to do that.
The results are found in an opinion that upholds a state district court's dismissal[ruling embedded below] of a challenge to the procedures under which California's electors helped install Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
The case was pursued on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake Sr. and Markham Robinson. It alleged that both the California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state's electors for the Electoral College in the 2008 election failed to verify that Obama is eligible.
Keyes, Drake and Robinson also remain plaintiffs in a similar complaint in the federal court system. The case is now is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the federal case, the plaintiffs are represented by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation and California attorney Orly Taitz.
The state court says the plaintiffs relied on a 1968 case in which the California secretary of state refused to have activist Eldridge Cleaver's name on the ballot "because he was only 34 years old, a year short of the requisite 35 years of age needed to be a presidential candidate."
"In appellants' view, this shows the secretary of state has the duty to investigate a candidate's qualifications and remove the person from the ballot if their qualifications are found lacking. No so," the judges said.
"The fact that former Secretary of State Jordan excluded a candidate, who indisputably did not meet the eligibility requirements, does not demonstrate that the secretary of state has a clear and present ministerial duty to investigate and determine if candidates are qualified before following the statutory mandate to place their names on the general election ballot," the judges said.
The judges did not reference evidence in the case for their conclusion that the 1968 candidate "indisputably did not meet the eligibility requirements."
The case, and dozens of others, including some now working their way into the U.S. Supreme Court, contend Obama has not proven his eligibility and the available evidence shows he might not meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen."
The judges advised that the "investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check."
The court took note of the Constitution's provisions for handling a case in which a "president-elect shall have failed to qualify" but said the responsibility is left to Congress.
But the opinion also suggested a line of responsibility that would include the courts. It warned that should Congress fail to act "in the first instance" – and during the 2008 election there was no action on the part of Congress regarding the issue – "Judicial review – if any – should occur only after the electoral and congressional processes have run their course." ...continued here; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=220441
Via Ballot Access; - California Court of Appeals Issues Important Ruling About Presidential Candidate Ballot Access - by Richard Winger
ruling in Keyes v Bowen, C062321, holding that state elections officials are not supposed to keep presidential candidates off the general election ballot because they may not meet the constitutional qualifications to hold the office. The lawsuit had been filed in 2008 by Alan Keyes, who had sued the California Secretary of State because she allegedly did not investigate whether Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be President. See this story.
The Court said, “An investigation of eligibility is best left to each political party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes…The Secretary of State has no such discretion for the general election ballot. With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must (“must” is in italics in the opinion) place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates…
“In any event, the truly absurd result would be to require each state’s election official to investigate and determine whether the proffered candidate met eligibility criteria of the United States Constitution, giving each the power to override a party’s selection of a presidential candidate. The presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results.” ...continued here; http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/10/26/california-court-of-appeals-issues-i,mportant-ruling-about-presidential-candidate-ballot-access
Previous reports on Alan Keyes can be found here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Obama & the Hawaii Department of Health and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Alan Keyes v Debra Bowen - Appeal Ruling - Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate Distr...
Kerchner v Obama Petition for Writ of Cert Docketed with Supreme Court-25Oct10 issue Wash Times Wkly