Presidential Eligibility: Sovereign Voters Should have Standing as Electors – PE

By L.L. Wilkinson
The Post & Email (site is under maintenance at time of publishing; see The Post & Email for further details on this and other Obama eligibility cases, documentation, and history)

Individual Voters are Presidential Electors;
a Political Question of Terry v Handel

(Jan. 27, 2012) – As a citizen of the United States and a registered Democratic voter franchise owner and thus a Presidential elector in the State of Texas when I vote in a Presidential election, I have followed the nationwide attempts to vet the politician occupying the Office of the Presidency since 2010 with increasing alarm. That was the year I discovered for myself the misprision of treason that seems to have infected the Democratic Party and their leadership like a cancer. I will not legitimize his presence in the Office by calling him President. I will refer to him with all due deference, based on civil courtesy, as Mr. Obama.

The hearing conducted by Judge Malihi has given me cause to hope that the Constitution will be honored and upheld and that justice will be served. The correct response by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp to what seemed suspiciously like a threat from a lawyer representing Mr. Obama in the state of Georgia has reinforced that hope.

However, a case brought before Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter has been cited by those who support the undermining of the Constitution and the installation of a usurper in the Office of the President in order to somehow argue that Judge Malihi and Georgia Secretary of State Kemp have had their hands tied with respect to the vetting of a Presidential Candidate on Constitutional criteria. This court ruling and its arguments should not be suffered to stand and should be appealed to a higher court in light of the evidence presented in Judge Malihi’s court on January 26, 2012. A review of the 2008 case is necessary, particularly in light of the behavior of Mr. Obama, his lawyer, the Georgia State Democratic Party and the Private Corporation that is the National Democratic Party. It is deeply offensive to me that an elected Attorney General would distort the mechanics of our election system with the intention of propagating the misrepresentation of Mr. Obama’s claim to be a natural-born citizen and is an affront to every registered voter in the State of Georgia. Moreover, it is an affront to every registered Democratic voter in the Nation, who should be asking questions of their State and National party.

What proof do you have as the private corporation who is backing Mr. Obama for the position of President that he is compliant with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution? If your support rests on the definition of natural-born citizen as found in Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.), you would do well to realize that this definition is that of a native citizen, not a natural-born citizen. The definition of natural-born citizen has not yet been interpreted on the merits and thus defined officially by the U.S. Supreme Court. The only definition of natural-born citizen is found in Minor v. Happersett and has been recognized by the Senate in U.S.  Senate Resolution 511 (signed by Mr. Obama) as a native citizen (born under the jurisdiction of the United States) who has been born of U.S. citizen parents. Does the Democratic Party place a law dictionary above the Constitution? Does the private corporation agree with the argument of former Georgia Attorney General Stefan Ritter in Terry v. Handel (2008) that no participating registered voter actually votes for the President of the United States but for the Corporate appointed electors to the Electoral College who then choose the President as dictated by the Corporation?

Reading the transcript of Terry v. Handel (2008) was a revelation and provided me with eye-opening insight into the absolute contempt with which the Democratic Party–and its party-installed politicians in all branches of Government–holds its registered members.

The following is an excerpt from the defense of then Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel against a lawsuit brought by Mr. Brian Terry, a Georgia citizen, to ask that she be made to answer his challenge that Mr. Obama did not meet the Constitutional Criteria of natural-born citizen as claimed by both the candidate and the Democratic State and National Parties. Former Attorney General Ritter addressed Judge Jerry W. Baxter:

“I want to start with more big picture issues and then move on to some specific things.

In the United States, as the court knows and as I think the plaintiff well knows, the President of the United States is not actually a candidate on the State’s Ballot. The Electors who will vote for the President of the United States are candidates. None of their citizenship or any of their other qualifications are in issue here. It is not the authority or the purview of our Secretary of State to make any sort of decisions about whether the Presidential candidate of a Particular Party, which is what this is, is qualified to run. That’s not what our Secretary of State does.

And, in fact, the qualifications provision which Mr. Terry cites in his somewhat lengthy complaint, which is as 21-2-132, plainly says in subsection (a) that the provisions relating to other qualifications do not apply to electors for President of the United States.

So this is fundamentally a case that is not within the purview of the Secretary of State. And I respect the power of this court, but, of course, this court does not have the authority, nor does the Secretary of State have the authority to engage in this, into a roving investigation of Mr. Obama to decide whether or not he is a citizen. The Secretary of State’s duty is not to go aside to try to investigate Hawaii records to see whether Mr. Obama is a citizen.

Don’t have to get in to the factual details about this. This is something he fails to state in his claim. What are the legal bases for that? There is no authority for the Secretary of State to do that. The Secretary of State isn’t given any authority in our Georgia code over candidates for President since those candidates are not candidates on our ballot. The Electors are on that ballot.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74563180/Georgia-Terry-v-Handel-2008cv158774-Transcript-of-Superior-Court-of-Fulton-County-Hearing

So there you have it. As a registered voter, you are not voting for the Presidential candidate of your choice, but for the politically-appointed electors to the Electoral College process who have no allegiance to the Constitution or to the voters, but rather, to the private corporation that appointed them. When Judge Jerry Baxter ruled against Mr. Terry, he was ruling that no voter in Georgia actually votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice. He ruled that the Georgia Secretary of State cannot investigate the citizenship claims of the members appointed by the private corporation known as the Democratic Party because they are not covered by Georgia Election code. In effect, since the Electors for both the Democratic and Republican parties are not elected directly by the voters of Georgia and are beholden to the State Parties alone, they cannot be vetted or challenged by any voting citizen. And in this regard, Judge Baxter was correct. The Party-appointed electors who vote in the political process known as the Electoral College are private corporate employees. They are not state actors. They exist on the federal side of the state/federal interface of our electoral system and are unaccountable to the State Elections Officers and State voters.

However, Judge Baxter completely ignored the main point of the lawsuit, as have so many others. Mr. Brian Terry was not questioning the citizenship or natural-born citizen qualifications of any of the appointed electors to the Electoral College from either Party from the state of Georgia. He was questioning the Constitutional qualifications of the candidate who was a suppliant to the State of Georgia for inclusion of his name on the Georgia State Presidential Ballot. One wonders why Mr. Obama bothered since, according to Ritter, no registered voter in the state was actually voting for him even though it was his name on the ballot along with Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates at the time. All he had to do was have the Georgia Democratic Party declare him the winner and dispense with the fiction that any citizen’s vote matters in a Presidential Election.

I would respectfully put it to Judge Baxter, Mr. Ritter and Ms. Handel that a President cannot be elected without the popular vote. That should tell you where the party-appointed electors stand in an indirect election. THEY cannot do a thing until the individual registered electors in the general population cast a vote to direct the members of the Electoral College for whom to cast their votes in a winner take all Primary Election. These appointed and corporate/party beholden members have no authority to operate independently of the popular vote. They do not select the President; they convey the choice of the popular vote at the National level.

Anyone thinking that Terry v. Handel in any way restricts Judge Malihi’s decisions or recommendations to current Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp would do well to actually read the transcript and understand what was being ruled on. Terry v Handel in no way directs the Georgia Secretary of State to put Mr. Obama’s name on the ballot without proof that he meets the qualifications under challenge by any registered Presidential elector in the state of Georgia.

If you hold a voter franchise and you choose to exercise it in a Presidential Election, you are a Presidential Elector. Period.

Judge Baxter, as so many Judges before him, refused to rule on the merits of the charge, that Mr. Obama was not vetted by the State and National Democratic Party and thus his claim to be compliant with the Constitutional requirement of natural-born citizen was not addressed.  The Judge ruled on an aspect never raised in the original complaint. The Judge ruled on a clear bias and a puzzling lack of comprehension of what was at stake in his court: the installation of a usurper by a corrupt private artificial person known as the Democratic Party.

Per Judge Baxter’s response to Mr. Terry:

The Court: All right. I’m not going to be able to help you, Mr. Terry. So I can give you a final order later this afternoon, and you have rights to appeal this. And, you know, you probably need to get on it if you are going to appeal it, and we can have a transcript for you, but I’m not going to be able to rule in your favor on this case.

Mr. Terry: Could you explain why, your Honor?

The Court: No. I don’t think you have standing to bring this suit. I think that the Attorney General has argued the Law. I think he is correct. I think you are not a lawyer. You really don’t know what you are doing, and you will receive an order this afternoon.

Mr. Terry: All right. I will agree with that.

The Court: You have rights to appeal it. So anyway, that’s it.

It is clear that Mr. Terry never claimed to be a lawyer, what is not clear is that he does not need to be in order to challenge the Constitutional Eligibility of ANY candidate who seeks the Office of the Presidency. Mr. Terry goes on to warn the Judge exactly what will happen if a usurper is elected to the Office of the President by a mislead population of voters. It should be sufficient for a registered elector to ask that the right thing be done and have it done. After all, it has been made more than clear that the Democratic Party has no interests in protecting the voting franchise of any registered voter in the country. Raising a legitimate challenge with the National Political Parties without the support of the Elections Officer and the Courts amounts to knee jerk ridicule and courtroom semantics and antics that purposefully misdirect attention away from the real issue: is Mr. Obama a natural born citizen or not?

It is my belief that Mr. Terry was ill-served by a court which had contempt for a citizen unmindful of his place and thus impertinently asking for redress from what is supposed to be an objective branch of State Government.  Had he been served by a lawyer, the outcome of this case would have been different. It is also my opinion that the majority of the judges and lawyers in this country are actively at war with the Constitutional Republic and the registered voters contrary to their oaths to the Constitution. It appears that they are seeking, as a group, to redefine the Constitution to suit a more global/corporate-friendly version that will allow a global citizen with no loyalty to this Nation or her People to be elected to the Office of the President for the purposes of diminishing the standing of the Nation as a sovereign entity in the growing Global Plutonomy.

An argument for this manipulation of the definition of natural-born citizen can be found in the article by J. Rebekka Susan Bonner:  Who may be President? Constitutional Reinterpretation of Article II’s “Natural-born” Presidential Eligibility Clause. Abstract.

Although facially clear, the natural-born citizen provision of Article II’s presidential eligibility clause has never been definitively interpreted by the courts. This paper considers whether the concept of natural-born is a self-defining concept, or whether instead it is a concept that is subject to a variety of interpretive theories. It does so by examining the traditional interpretive approach adopted by Constitutional scholars for examining the intended meaning of Article II’s presidential eligibility requirements. Such an analysis finds that the traditional approach is inadequate, particularly in light of neglected aspects of English common law, the lack of congruency of the English legacy with the American political experiment, the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the history of congressional regulation in this area. The paper responds to these problems within existing traditions of natural-born interpretation by proposing a new approach that includes a recognition of Congress’s constitutional power to extend natural-born citizenship to classes of citizens beyond those born within the territorial boundaries of the United States. Discussion concludes with an examination of how application of the new interpretative approach would expand the number of American citizens who may be considered natural-born for purposes of presidential eligibility; how Congress might operationalize these new understandings; and why reconceptualization of the meaning of the citizenship clause is preferable to previous interpretations of Article II.

http://philpapers.org/rec/BONWMB

Let’s get this straight. If you are a registered voter, you are an elector.  Your vote is in no way inferior to those cast by the Party-appointed members to the Electoral College. Per the 12^th Amendment, “the electors, all of them individual and appointed, shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President…. “

You are a Presidential elector if you hold a voter’s franchise granted to you by your State. That the election has two parts and is considered indirect as opposed to the direct elections of State Officials is irrelevant. It is considered an indirect election because the Nation is voting for Federal Officers and the voting results are a compilation of State vote results. There is no National voter franchise per Bush v Gore (2000). Thus, the Electoral College is the Federal component of the election for a President, while the popular vote remains the State component.

I am getting awfully tired of the nonsense that Mr. Obama is seeking to foist upon the citizens of the United States with his blatant contempt and disrespect for lawful challenges that he prove what he claims. It also looks as if, in addition to failing to meet the Constitutional criteria for natural-born citizen, Mr. Obama also clearly fails as a “Constitutional Law Professor.”  It is very clear, by his actions and arguments, that he has no respect for the Constitution if it gets in the way of his political ambitions. As a National leader who is supposed to represent the best interests of the citizens of the United States, his inconstancy with respect to adherence to transparency and overall respect for the governed, and his adherence to self-serving interpretations of electoral mechanics, is troubling indeed.

As a Nation we deserve a President with un-conflicted natural allegiance to the People he/she serves at a national level, not one who relies on a buffer of lawyers and judges seeking to overturn the Constitutional Republic on a technicality.