US Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Presidential Eligibility, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 50 times


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:43 AM by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Fletcher33



I was wrong. There is no Federal law, but some states are bound by law and pledge.

Source


Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.


A list of states can be accessed there.
24 states are NOT bound by law or pledge.
27 are... (DC makes 51)

California, Ohio and Florida are bound by state law.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:45 AM by Maxmars
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



I think your instincts are correct. There is no LAW stating that the electoral college MUST vote according to their constituencies. It is an 'honor' system. AND it has been violated in the past.

The electoral college MUST go!

EDIT TO ADD:

BH - I guess I was wrong. But not ALL states have this requirement. I wonder if it represents enough votes to be meaningful?

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Maxmars]



reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:46 AM by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



In 2004, JFK's daughter Caroline gave an incitefull glimpse of the electoral college and according to her they are under no constraints to vote in any manner other than their own belief. I found this amazing. Her first statement to the group on C-span was what clinched it. Her quote was " The electoral college is there to curtail the tyranny of the masses"! I understood right there and then that our vote meant nothing, it was all smoke and mirrors!

Zindo


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 11:51 AM by Fletcher33
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



So to a degree his win was assuming that all "players" vote as they did in November, this recent activity regarding his birth status could change the minds of some elector votes. This is wild!!! And thanks for looking that up I was researching as well!!

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Fletcher33]

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Fletcher33]


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:07 PM by skeptic1
reply to post by Bunch



I would think that the Justices would ask to see the vault copy BC and if it checks out, that would be the end of it.

It is getting old, but with all of these lawsuits (17 at last count), people think there is something to this, they feel that there is a problem, and they want their questions answered and Obama's qualification of "natural born" verified.

I would think that if the vault copy BC is verified by SCOTUS, then that will end the quesitons.


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:09 PM by jam321
reply to post by Bunch



What up Bunch.

If in Obama favor than most people will move on just like when the courts ruled in Bush favor over Gore. However, you will still have those who will believe that the Court was bought. Go figure. Like I said before, I hope Congress addresses this so it doesn't happen in the future. They need some agency to be responsible for verifying candidate's eligibility.


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:09 PM by MikeboydUS
reply to post by ZindoDoone



A much as I hate to say it the Masses can be just as tyrannical and psychotic at times as Hitler or Stalin. There are plenty of examples in history, e. g. The French Revolution, and even Plato wrote in his book The Republic that he had little faith in democracy cause a mob can be just as bad as a tyrant, hence the whole idea about philosopher rule.

[edit on 20/11/08 by MikeboydUS]


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:11 PM by dooper
reply to post by ZindoDoone



You have it correct, that the citizens have no right to vote for President.

Our forefathers in their infinite wisdom realized that a significant portion of the population were ignorant, and thus their voting for a President could be manipulated to the detriment of the nation.

A recent poll showed that the bulk of Obama voters, taken post-polling, didn't know who the Vice President was, who Nancy Pelosi was, who Harry Reid was, not which party controlled Congress.

We may have a Constitutional problem, but we have a stupidity problem in this country far worse. Voting by race, slick talking ability, and a good presentation. No idea of the political process, the most basic knowledge of politics, nor the effects of their votes. Couldn't tell you the first thing he's accomplished, how he was elected to his first State office --NOTHING!

Thus, the wisdom of our forefathers, and the electoral college.

As far as buttoning down the hatches, you'll note that when the natives go on the warpath, they usually burn and destroy their own neighborhoods first. It's a real bright group. Reckless, a bit dangerous to be sure, but about five beers short of a six-pack.

Man, this will be interesting to watch.

There's hope for America yet.


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:13 PM by Bunch
reply to post by skeptic1



But hasn't his birth certificate been analyzed already and found to be legit? I think that was done sometime ago and people still want to beat this dead horse.

I mean more power to them, thats what the courts are for but at some point you got to let go.



reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:17 PM by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Bunch
So what happens if this matter is resolved in Obama's favor? Would this be the end of it? Or they just going to come back changing the language of previous litigation until they get some kind of favorable results?


OMS and I were just talking about this. IF Obama was born in Hawaii, it's VERY likely his lawyers advised him to wait for it to go to the SCOTUS because once they rule, it will be finalized.

If he had responded to the first case (Berg?) at the lower level, then these other lawsuits would still have happen and he'd have to end up "proving" himself over and over again, to every state and disgruntled former political opponent who got the itch to get in his way.

So for the question, "Why doesn't he just SHOW it"??? That could VERY well be the answer.

Obama doesn't strike me as a person who would either lie about this or try to sneak in under the radar, hoping he didn't get caught. He covers all the bases.

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
will they decide collectively or individualy on the eligibility issue?


If you mean will the justices rule as one, I imagine they will do it just as any other case. Majority rules. So 5 of them would have to determine him "eligible" or "ineligible".

Originally posted by skeptic1
I would think that the Justices would ask to see the vault copy BC and if it checks out, that would be the end of it.


That's what's interesting. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, the SCOTUS COULD rule him "natural-born".
See John McCain's SCOTUS Ruling


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:18 PM by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Bunch



As far as I know, no Court or Judge has seen at it, only some officials in Hawaii have looked at it.


As much as I had to go through for my security clearance I am really amazed there is this kind of issue over someone who is supposed to be commander in chief. There should be some kind of national security qualifications to be president amended to the constitution. Being popular and charismatic shouldn't be all you need to be president. There should be checks to make sure the person is not a threat to national security.


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:19 PM by Jenna
reply to post by Bunch



His certificate of live birth was analyzed by those who are arguably biased in his favor, and Hawaii said they hold it. No one has actually analyzed his vault birth certificate that I am aware of. And though this is the issue that keeps getting brought up here, it is not the only issue in these lawsuits.


reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 12:19 PM by Alexander_Supertramp
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 4 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 5 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 4 days ago with 49 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Greetings from a Dying Man
  Introductions, Posted 10 hours ago, 89 replies
Alien Grey caught in photo ?
  Aliens and UFOs, Posted 12 hours ago, 70 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 16 hours ago, 58 replies
Iran sent pink drone to Obama
  World War Three, Posted 17 hours ago, 40 replies