© 2009 jbjd
(UPDATED: 08.31.10: The link to the 2007 DNC notice that Chairman Dean appointed Nancy Pelosi to Chair the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention has been scrubbed. Instead, I substituted the announcement of her appointment which appeared in the Denver Post.)
So, to continue, who is responsible for enabling BO to occupy the office of POTUS notwithstanding no evidence that was proffered could prove he is Constitutionally eligible for the job? Here’s a list of the people eliminated thus far, in the order in which they were eliminated. (Note: After digesting the first half of this article, http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/never-less-than-a-treason-1-of-2/, a few readers objected to the scope of my exoneration. That is, they thought I was too generous in letting people off the hook. Let me reassure everyone, I had already factored into consideration all of their stated objections. Hopefully, these excerpts from my replies will allay any other concerns.)
1. Barack Obama
Let me remind you, i) he did not force anyone to vote for him in the general election. ii) He never Certified to state elections officials he was the Official Nominee for POTUS of the DNC and met all Constitutional requirements of the job, to get them to print his name on the general election ballot. iii) Three months before he obtained the D nomination, he took out an ad on the internet called “Fight the Smears” – he spelled out quite plainly, this ad was “Paid for by Barack Obama” – proclaiming for everyone to see, he was only a “native citizen,” thus ‘outing’ himself as being Constitutionally ineligible for the job.
This includes VP Cheney, acting in his role as President of the Senate. Even assuming upon asking for a vote on Ratification, he failed to extend to the members an opportunity discernible to us, to register their objections, if any, to the EC process; any one of these 500+ legislators could have raised a “Point of Order” at any time, to get an objection heard. As I said previously, Congress is off the hook because the Constitution does not require that they investigate whether the person who obtained the requisite votes for POTUS from members of the EC, is Constitutionally eligible for the job.
3. The Electoral College
For as long as general elections have provided the mechanism to appoint the state Electors; even in those states that require the Elector to vote for the nominee of the national party, no faithless Elector has ever faced legal retribution. The reason I left the EC off the hook is simple: the Constitution does not require the EC must determine whether the nominee of their political party is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS even if they decided to elect him for the job.http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/
We have reached the point where the responsibility for electing an ineligible POTUS must be found somewhere in a process directly related to his nomination. But before we ferret out the source of that responsibility, memorize this fact: The raison d’etre for awarding BO the national D party nomination was to get elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot notwithstanding getting his name on the ballot would have nothing to do with his winning the election.
In July of 2007, Howard Dean, then Chair of the DNC, appointed Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Chair the 2008 DNC Convention. This put her in charge of the nomination. http://www.denverpost.com/dnc/ci_6283384
Now, what do you think it means to “win” the “election”? Remember, voters who went to the polls on November 4, only cast votes to appoint the (slate of) Electors who would then cast votes for President on December 15. The person who gets the most votes at that time, wins the election. And there is no provision in the Constitution, or any Federal law that requires Electors to vote for the person whose name, attached to theirs, received the most popular votes in the general election. In fact, the only Constitutional significance to receiving the most votes cast in a general election is this. The names of the winning slate of electors thus appointed by the voters, once their appointment by means of this general election is Certified by the Governor of the state in a Certificate of Ascertainment, are then sent to the Archivist of the United States at the Office of the Federal Register, as directed by the Constitution.
“Winning” the election simply means, receiving the most votes from the appointed Electors voting in the Electoral College. (Even if a ‘candidate’ concedes the race after November’s general election, this has no bearing on whether the Electors can elect that loser on December 15.)
So, why did the EC cast their votes for BO on December 15? Neither federal law nor any provision of the Constitution says they had to vote for the person who holds the party nomination. NONE. Oh, sure, some states have enacted laws that require the Electors to vote for the party nominee. However, as I previously pointed out, even in those states that have enacted laws requiring Electors to vote for the nominee of the party, no faithless Elector has even been sanctioned for disobeying that law. In fact, the party demands that its Electors swear an oath to support the nominee, before the party informs the state to print his or her name onto the general election ballot. In other words, those Electors listed on the general election ballot as “for Barack Obama” are really for Barack Obama. And, ultimately, that’s the reason these D Electors – the party activists, the movers and shakers, the fund raisers who are chosen as party Electors – cast their votes for him. Because they said they would. In fact, that’s the only reason they got to be Electors in the first place.
There. We have established there is no correlation between the votes cast for BO by the Electors in the Electoral College; and the appearance of his name on the general election ballot.
Now, let’s examine the flip side of this process, that is, the primary/caucus campaign that led up to BO’s nomination at the DNC Convention to determine what correlation, if any, there is between the results of that process and his eventual nomination.
First, understand, the way the nomination is supposed to work. Whichever candidate wins the most delegates from votes cast in the Democratic primary/caucus process will win the party’s nomination at the national Convention. Well, sort of. The candidate wins ONLY IF the number of those delegates reaches the threshold required by the party. If not then, the nominee is chosen based on BOTH the number of votes cast by his or her delegates on the call of the roll on the floor of the Convention PLUS the number of votes of what are called the “super delegates.”
So, who are these ‘super’ delegates? Well, they are high profile members of the party, including federal legislators, chosen in advance by members of the DNC. (Here is a pretty good history of SD’s; ignore the part of the article that refers to whether “pledged” delegates are actually “pledged.” The authors, one a Democratic strategist and the other, an attorney, obviously never heard of vote binding states.) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18908855
Take a look at how Ms. Pelosi tried to steer the votes of those Democratically appointed SD’s. On March 16, when BO had just come off his lopsided caucus ‘wins,’ http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/ she told Politico the SD’s “should reflect the will of the voters.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9063.html (She never specified whether she meant, the will of the voters as expressed by the final delegate count in their districts; or by the total delegate count; or by the overall popular vote.) But bombarded by cries of ‘foul’ at appearing to take sides in the battle for the nomination, by April 1, Ms. Pelosi had changed her mind. Now she decided, these SD’s had the “right to vote their conscience.” http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/pelosi_superdelegates_can_vote.php And it’s a good thing she did. Because according to the DNC Call, which contains the rules that governed the 2008 Convention she Chaired, even delegates “pledged” to their candidates as the result of votes cast in the primary/caucus election are not actually ‘pledged’ but only, “shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/c313170ef991f2ce12_iqm6iyofq.pdf (It’s about time they added a line reminding pledged delegates from vote binding states, “If you are from one of the 13 vote binding states then, in your state, voting for someone other than the candidate you pledged to the voters you would represent, is against the law.”)
Okay, back to the scenario facing both BO and HRC at the start of the Convention. Recall that, neither of them had a sufficient number of delegates pledged to win the nomination at the time they entered the Convention. So, whoever won more total delegate votes, combining both pledged and super, as the result of the floor vote than the opposition, would be the party nominee. At least, this has been the tradition within the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember. But not this time. Nope; this time, BO was somehow able to take the nomination even though there was never a roll call vote on the floor! How do you suppose that happened? Of course, without this vote, we can never know what would have been the actual count of delegate votes for either candidate. Furthermore, without a record, we will never know whether pledged delegates from the 13 (thirteen) vote binding states lived up to their obligation to vote for the candidate the voters from back home elected them to support at the Convention.
In fact, nothing in the record BEFORE the Convention indicated that in a full open vote at the Convention, his nomination rather than hers, was a foregone conclusion. Not a thing.
For example, HRC won the popular vote. (Did you already know that?) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html (Not at all surprising, since even on election day, polls taken of people who had just cast their votes showed she would have beaten John McCain by 11 percentage points, as opposed to BO’s 7.) http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/12/politics/horserace/entry4596620.shtml Plus, even with all of the documented caucus fraud and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee bait and switch with MI votes; best guesses, BO still only managed to ‘find’ less than 35 more pledged delegates as the result of votes cast for him, than for her. http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html. (A federal court ruling in TX has allowed a lawsuit to proceed based on the under-allocation of delegates in heavily Hispanic districts, which could signal the beginning of the end to the D’s ‘complicated’ delegate allocation process in that state.) http://www.star-telegram.com/texas/story/1558681.html
Okay. We previously established there is no correlation between the votes cast for BO by the Electors in the Electoral College; and the appearance of his name on the general election ballot. And we have just established there is NO correlation between winning the Democratic primary contest and garnering the Democratic nomination. Then why do you suppose Chairwoman Pelosi imposed measures that were guaranteed to gag the ‘fair reflection’ of the millions of voters who had dispatched delegates to the Convention, in order to guarantee BO the nomination? Repeat after me: The raison d’etre for awarding BO the national D party nomination was to get elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot. And, according to state elections laws, only the candidate duly nominated by the national D party at the party Convention, as Certified to by the party, is entitled to have his or her name printed on state ballots for the general election. But didn’t we just say, the actual election occurs within the EC, and not at the general election? Then, why were Nancy Pelosi (and Howard Dean and Harry Reid) determined to get BO’s name on the ballot in the general election? Because they could never have gotten away with stealing the election at the point of the EC vote, when most people think they are actually casting their votes for President in the general election.
As we’ve already said, in order to get the state to print the name of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party, onto the state’s general election ballot; appropriate party officials must Certify to state elections officials, the name of the nominee of the party. But in some states, for example, TX and GA, just Certifying the name of the candidate is not enough to get his or name printed onto the ballot. The law in those states says to get onto the ballot, the party nominee must also satisfy all of the qualifications of the job. But, even in those states that mandate the nominee must be eligible, there’s no law that says, the party must Certify the nominee’s qualifications. Of course, since DNC rules require the nominee must be eligible under the Constitution, http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (p.14, K.1 and 2), Certifying BO is the nominee is tantamount to verifying, he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Anyway, there’s no law in any state that says any state official has to check.
However, 1 (one) state in the union enacted a law that specifically says, the party must Certify the nominee for POTUS is eligible for the job: HI.*
*(Correction: After I posted this article, I learned that SC law also requires specific wording of eligibility to accompany the submission of candidate names that will appear on the ballot. See http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/up-to-here-in-fraud-from-the-chair-of-the-2008-convention-to-the-chair-of-the-dnc/)
So, in her civilian role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, Nancy Pelosi, possessing all of the gravitas of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives signed the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination relied upon by state elections officials to print the name of Barack Obama on the state general election ballots. And on the Certification issued to the state of HI, Ms. Pelosi added this line: he is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/
But as we now know, there is no evidence she determined beforehand whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/; http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/
Which leads us to the final question: In July of 2007, why do you suppose Howard Dean picked Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in the line of Presidential succession, to Chair the 2008 DNC Convention? Answer: Perhaps to guarantee no matter the success achieved by other candidates seeking the D nomination, BO would still win the 2008 election. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000019—-000-.html
(Editorial Assistance Provided by d2i)