Home General Fourth Circuit Agrees with U.S. District Court, Says Perry Should Have Filed Lawsuit Sooner
formats

Fourth Circuit Agrees with U.S. District Court, Says Perry Should Have Filed Lawsuit Sooner

Published on January 17, 2012, by in General.

On January 17, the 4th circuit issued an order in Perry v Judd, 12-1067, agreeing with the U.S. District Court that Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman filed their lawsuit against the Virginia ballot access law for presidential primaries too late. Here is the 22-page order. The order says nothing about the constitutionality of the law, but merely says that the lawsuit should have been filed earlier.

The three judges who issued the order are J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee; G. Steven Agee, a Bush Jr. appointee; and Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee. The order does not show which judge is the author.

The judges had to stretch to find any U.S. Supreme Court authority to support the idea that the case was filed too late. The order mentions Williams v Rhodes, but that is a strange citation for this case. George Wallace did not file his 1968 ballot access lawsuit against the Ohio law until July 29, 1968. The petition deadline in Ohio was February 7, 1968. So Wallace waited almost six months after the legal deadline to file in the U.S. District Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court still put him on the ballot. The Perry order doesn’t mention that the U.S. Supreme Court put Wallace on the ballot; instead it points out that in that same case, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to put the Socialist Labor Party on the ballot. But the only reason the SLP didn’t get on the Ohio ballot in 1968 was that it had asked the U.S. Supreme Court for relief after the ballots were already being printed. By contrast, Perry did file his lawsuit before the Virginia ballots were printed.

The Virgina 4th circuit order also mentions Fulani v Hogsett, a 7th circuit opinion in which the 7th circuit felt that Lenora Fulani had filed her 1988 Indiana lawsuit too late. But Fulani v Hogsett was not a case in which a candidate was trying to get on the ballot. It was a case in which Fulani sued to remove George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis from the November 1988 ballot, on the grounds that they had failed to submit the names of their presidential elector candidates by the legal deadline. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

3 Responses

  1. Demo Rep

    Every word in every election law is, by definition, constitutional or UN-constitutional.

    Again – the MORON courts are SUPER EVIL stupid and unable to STOP un-constitutional elections from happening or to have actual UN-constitutional elections be redone, as the case may be — REGARDLESS of ANY costs and ANY fixed dates in constitutions and laws.

    i.e. to show how EVIL the robot party hack gerrymander regimes are — in their nonstop attempts to subvert Democracy.

    Gee – what percentage of the mighty GDP is for Democracy and constitutional elections ????

  2. borderraven

    The question is no longer about skin color, political party or a sitting president. The question now is about the candidates eligibility to hold office under the US Constitution. At least one candidate in the 2012 Presidential Election, Barack Hussein Obama, clearly fails to meet constitutional eligibility requirement of natural born citizen — native born in the USA to two US citizen parents. In the history of US Presidents, born in the USA after the adoption of the US Constitution, on September 17, 1787, only two persons fail to meet the natural born requirement of native birth in the USA to two US citizen parents, and they are Chester Allen Arthur who kept his secrets and Barack Hussein Obama, who outright admitted on his websites that he was born in the USA to a subject of the United Kingdom. As I said Obama Jr was born a dual citizen ((USA)+ (US) + (UK)), however the US Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 requires a natural born citizen ((USA) + (US) + (US)). Obama’s websites used propaganda and lies to mislead the public, because nothing that happens after the birth alters the citizenship defined by the circumstances at the moment of birth. Circumstances of birth are a constant which cannot be altered. Barack Hussein Obama II, was born a dual-national and therefore never was a natural born citizen, and cannot ever be blessed or converted into a natural born citizen. He is not constitutionally eligible to be a US President. He was erroneously put into the 2008 Presidential Election, and he must resign, because he should not be a US president. He qualifies as a US Citizen to vote, and be a Senator, but fails to reach eligibility of natural born citizen — native born of two citizens. For the US elections to knowingly proceed with an ineligible candidate will cause irreparable harm to the Executive Branch and with it the US Constitution.

  3. Demo Rep

    NO such thing as a dual citizen of any regime.

    See Art. III, Sec. 2, para. 1 — foreign citizen/subject stuff for jurisdiction of the Fed courts.

    i.e. Is Obama even a U.S.A. citizen, natural born or naturalized ???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>