You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Gary Kreeps’ tag.

from the Right Side of Life:

First, “significant political overtunes” must be irrelevant for the Judiciary, else no decision could ever be made on any constitutional question. Therefore, to me, this is a moot point.

Yet, let’s get back to the bigger issue of eligibility and the Courts.

This political question with respect to the Judiciary can be broken down into a number of legitimate points:

  1. Can the Judiciary determine whether or not a candidate is eligible for a sought-after office?
  2. Can the Judiciary issue an opinion that would subsequently cause a candidate to be ineligible for such office?
  3. To what extent is the Judiciary tasked with enforcing the constitutional question of eligibility?

In this citizen reporter’s non-attorney opinion, the answer is that the Judiciary does have a role in making sure that the law is enforced, particularly by those other branches that are tasked with such a duty.

Remember, I have repeatedly stated that since there currently exists no law that enforces presidential or vice presidential constitutional eligibility nor to what degree it ought to be enforced, it would be practically impossible for the Court to issue an order against a non-existent law. Therefore, if the Judiciary is to be petitioned regarding eligibility, another route must be used instead; this posting could be such an opening.

On the one hand, we are told by many a Defendant in various eligibility cases that the Secretary of State has, effectively, no discretion in determining whether or not a candidate could be placed on the ballot. As this posting shows, the Defendants have either been lying or ignorant (then the question becomes whether such ignorance is willful or not) when there is already such existing precedent.

Further, it is also a contention that “only” (”the exclusive means”) the Congress and/or the Electoral College is tasked by the Constitution and/or federal law for vetting a candidate. Again, precedent clearly shows that this is not the case. Furthermore, any Defendant would be hard-pressed to find any verbiage (outside of their albeit learned opinions) that specifically states that the Joint Session of Congress and/or the Electoral College are “only,” “solely,” or “exclusively” the routes for answering eligibility questions. Incidentally, no opposition commenter on this site can find such exclusive verbiage either, outside of their own worthy opinions.

Lastly, there is the issue of removal. As I’ve stated numerous times on my site — and as the singular point upon which the opposition and I agree — the Judiciary cannot lawfully remove a sitting President, and it’s just as unlikely that the branch could remove a lower chief executive. Nevertheless, making a determination as to the eligibility of a President is something that can be quintessentially within its jurisdiction, where the Legislative branch would subsequently be tasked with such official removal.

In my view, what Mr. Kreep must show the Court is how deficient the Secretary of State for California was in making a determination for whether or not Mr. Obama should have been placed on the ballot; he might even ask her upon what basis did she make her determination. Did she use the Internet to vet Mr. Obama? Did she even vet Obama at all?

Either way, clear precedent exists that her very office had previously vetted candidates. Based on what we know today, it’s a shame that such vetting — whether it resulted positively or negatively — did not occur.

It’s also exceedingly obvious that her office’s finger-pointing back to the Democrat party is a complete ruse.

For full article: