On May 23, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England issued a 23-page opinion in Grinols v Electoral College, eastern district, California, 2:12cv-2997. The subject is presidential qualifications. The lead plaintiff, James Grinols, was a Republican presidential elector candidate in 2012. The plaintiffs had filed the case last year, to stop the California presidential electors from voting for President Obama.
The decision carries a comprehensive list of all the lawsuits on this subject filed in the last five years; there appear to be twelve such cases. The opinion also has a comprehensive survey of decisions that wrestle with the subject of whether a presidential candidate, or a candidate for presidential elector, has standing to challenge the qualifications (and hence ballot placement) for a competing candidate. The decision concludes by saying that plaintiffs’ only remedy is to either work for the impeachment of the President, or to persuade Congress to appoint a special prosecutor concerning forged birth documents, or to work for a Constitutional Amendment to more clearly define “natural-born citizen.”
Pingback: Ballot Access News – U.S. District Court Issues Fascinating Opinion … | US News Tweets
It appears the court got it right. This falls under the political question doctrine, and is not fit for judicial determination.
This decision ignores the Constitution, CA and U.S. statutes,as well as Supreme Court precedents.
This is a Constitutional question not a “political” one, although the left has done a superb job in politicizing and marginalizing the Constitution.
I hope that Ms Taitz works on the appeals process and pray that SCOTUS will eventually give it a fair hearing.
ref: http://art2superpac.com
This group is questioning candidacies of ineligible people in multiple political parties.
finally, the USCA-DCC, apparently the only constitutional court left in the land, will now lead the congressional sheep to the promised land (quo warranto) and expose the systemic POTUS identity fraud that many obots in the MSM encouraged — and not one US congress person has so far requested an investigation. anyone out there have the $455 filing fee?
Richard: above article link to “opinion” is bad.
Article II, Section I, and over 120 years of federal precedent rulings disagree with you Mark and the poor excuse for a judge.
Here’s a few:
McPherson v. Blacker. 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 519 (1969)
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995);
States control the ballot to included access according to Constitutional qualifications.
Article I I , Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state’s electors are selected “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct” and wrote that these words “operat[e] as a limitation upon the state in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power.”
England is at tyrant liar stalling for illegal criminal obama until he is gone from office by the end of his illegal term.
Pingback: U.S. District Court Issues Fascinating Opinion on Presidential Qualifications Grinols v Electoral College “Obama” Case
1. Who rules on the qualifications for governor, mayor, dog catcher, etc. in a sovereign State of the Union ???
2. Does ANY sovereign State of the Union have *standing* regarding ANY/ALL UN-constitutional acts/omissions of the USA regime and its officers ???
See Art. VII as to how the USA Const took effect.
3. NO constitutional injury if a Prez is NOT qualfied to be in the office ???
MADNESS — the Const is nearly DEAD — due to the perversions of it since 1937 by SCOTUS after the FDR election in 1936 — part of the statist madness in 1919-1939 between the 2 world wars.
Have any of you read the gibberish that this moron of a Federal Judge wrote? IT IS PURE BABBLE! Please read, say page 7 and tell me if even ONE SENTENCE MAKES SENSE?! For instance, line 18-19 says, “When a party makes a facial attack on a complaint, the attack is unaccompanied by supporting evidence, and it challenges jurisdiction based solely on the pleadings.”
PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS NOT PURE GIBBERISH! What the hell was this judge smoking?! Can I get some?
ISN’T IS IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO ISN’T A LEGAL PRESIDENT?
ISN’T IT IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPEACH AN ILLEGAL PRESIDENT?
The cases you cite support the judge’s decision. Powell, for example, holds that the Congress cannot add qualifications. It recognizes that as far as the existing constitutional qualifications, age, citizenship and residence, Congress gets the call. Thornton says the same thing about states. They cannot add qualifications, and Congress is the judge of the constitutional requirements. McPherson is off point completely.
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-5005 Docketed: 01/07/2013
In re: Christopher Strunk
Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Fee Status: IFP Pending USCA
Case Type Information:
1) Orig. Proceeding US
2) Mandamus
3)
Originating Court Information:
District: 0090-1 :
01/07/2013
MODIFIED EVENT FROM FILED TO LODGED–PETITION filed [1413882] by Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk for writ of mandamus. [Service Date: 01/07/2013 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: Exceeds Limits. [13-5005]
01/07/2013
MOTION filed [1413883] by Christopher Earl Strunk to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [Case Number 13-5005: IFP Pending USCA] [Service Date: 01/07/2013 ] Pages: 1-10. [13-5005]
01/07/2013
DOCKETING STATEMENT FILED [1413884] by [Service Date: 01/07/2013 ] [13-5005]
01/14/2013
MOTION filed [1415954] by Christopher Earl Strunk to exceed page limits in petition (Response to Motion served by mail due on 01/25/2013) [Service Date: 01/09/2013 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [13-5005]
01/14/2013
MOTION filed [1415964] by Christopher Earl Strunk to waive mandatory fee reduction (Response to Motion served by mail due on 01/25/2013) [Service Date: 01/09/2013 by US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [13-5005]
04/18/2013
PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1431563] denying motion to exceed page limits [1415954-2]. If petitioner does not file, within 30 days of the date of this order, a new petition for writ of mandamus that conforms with the rules of this court and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Clerk will be directed to terminate this case. Deferring consideration of motion ifp [1413883-2] and the motion for waiver of fees [1415964-2] pending further order of the Court. The Clerk is directed to mail this order to petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested and by 1st class mail. Before Judges: Garland, Henderson and Griffith. [13-5005]
04/18/2013 FIRST CLASS MAIL SENT [1431564] of order [1431563-2] to petitioner [13-5005]
04/18/2013 CERTIFIED MAIL SENT [1431565] with return receipt requested [Receipt No.7006 0810 0002 3722 4462] of order [1431563-2]. Certified Mail Receipt due 05/20/2013 from Christopher Earl Strunk. [13-5005]
05/20/2013
AMENDED PETITION filed [1437618] by Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk for writ of mandamus. [Service Date: 05/15/2013 by US Mail] Pages: 21-30. [13-5005]
05/23/2013 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT [1437623] RECEIVED from Christopher Early Strunk [signed for on 04/23/2013] for order [1431565-2] sent to Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk [13-5005]
G Miller, thank you. The link is fixed now.
Mark re-read the case again.. In Powell Congress wanted to add an additional qualification to the Constitution. That’s why SCOTUS stepped in – because enforcement is not political.
Several quo warranto attempts were denied hearings at the D.C. court.
Supreme Court in Roudebush v. Hartke (1972) interpreted Powell to mean that “Which candidate is entitled to be seated in the Senate is, to be sure, a nonjusticiable political question … that would not have been the business of this Court.” It is relatively clear today that the elections, returns and qualifications of federal candidates is nonjusticiable. Bush v. Gore cast a measure of doubt on this, but it has never been relied on by the Supreme Court, nor any other court to my knowledge, to support the proposition that federal courts can judge the qualifications of federal candidates–be they presidential, senatorial, or House.