A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3)

August 17, 2010

(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH, (3 of 3), and EPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3) is the second installment in the 3-part series describing the fraud pulled off at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention in order to ensure Obama would receive the nomination so that his name would appear next to the D on the general election ballot .  (For the first installment, go to A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3))

Much of this article consists of comments I posted on blogs in August 2008, which provide historical and retrospective context for the conclusions at which I presently arrive.  PLEASE READ THESE COMMENTS, in order, while imagining you are a part of the Obama campaign’s team of dirty tricksters.  This will help you to understand the way in which events leading up to the convention unfolded, and how and why in the end, they had to pull off a coup in order to secure the nomination.

Part 2:  Lead-up to the Coup

Recall that the motive of the movers and shakers behind candidate Obama, was to get his name on the general election ballot by making him the nominee of the Democratic Party as far as possible in advance of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention.  But notwithstanding the nefarious means they had employed throughout the primary and caucus contests, they had nonetheless failed to secure the nomination.  No matter what they tried, they could not undermine Clinton into relinquishing her bid for the nomination.  Why, even now that the primary season was over, the candidate only suspended but did not end her campaign.  So, over the summer Obama’s minions, having failed to secure the nomination based on the number of delegates pledged to him, now set out to corral the hundreds of delegates pledged to her, determined to steal his nomination before the convention.

I only created the “jbjd” blog in late August, 2008, after the convention.  So, in June, after Clinton suspended her bid for the nomination, I continued commenting on other people’s blogs.  For the most part, my focus was fixed on ridding the blogosphere of its misconceptions about specific facts related to the Obama and Clinton narratives, and not on improving people’s understanding of the electoral process.  Because back then, I was as ignorant as to the nuts and bolts of our Constitutional republic as the average citizen 2 (two) years later, remains.  Especially with respect to the role played by our 2 (two) major political parties.

By the first week in August, any knowledge deficit I had suffered regarding the electoral process was rapidly melting away.  (Although as you will see, looking back, some of my comments sound so naive.)

Responding to rumors she might not be formally entered into nomination, Clinton supporters began pushing to ensure her name would appear on the ballot at the convention.  According to DNC rules – by August, I was studying those rules – this would require the signatures of at least 300 pledged delegates, as well as the candidate.  Her pledged delegates from all over the country had been demanding the opportunity to ‘represent’ the candidate the voters elected them to vote for at the convention. And, like the rest of us who had watched that May 31 meeting of the RBC, they were still smarting from the treatment their candidate had received at the hands of other members of her party.  As a result, gathering the 300 signatures would be easy.  But here was another problem.  The Chair could refuse to enter into nomination anyone who failed to demonstrate loyalty to the Democratic Party.   In light of the meme from party officials that Obama’s nomination was already a fait accompli, putting her signature on such a petition could be construed as evidence she was being disloyal to the party, which perceived disloyalty could become a bar to her formal nomination.

Yet, if her name was not formally entered and accepted into nomination then, any votes cast for her from the floor call of the roll would only be recorded as “Present.”

(Please note, from here on in, I will no longer cite to any rules of the DNC.  Because another epiphany that came to me in August was this: the DNC is a private club.  Thus, it can make and break its own rules.  And it set up volumes of rules and by-laws that govern operations, with auspicious sounding titles like “Charter,” “Constitution,” “Model Rules to Delegate Selection Process,” and “Call to the Convention.” But here’s the thing about all these club rules: they can be changed at any time. According to club rules.  Plus, “discretion” is written into everything.  In other words, even if officials of the party engage in conduct that looks like it violates the corporation charter, this might only result from the fact, one objects to the particular way this discretion was used.)

With strong grassroots efforts underway to secure her nomination, on August 10, AP’s Nedra Pickler offered up “Clinton to headline second night of convention,”  subsequently published by both MSNBC and RealClearPolitics, portraying the Clinton and Obama ‘camps’ were negotiating to determine whether her name would formally be entered into nomination.

Clinton told supporters she is seeking a way for her delegates to be heard at the convention and be united after the hard-fought nominating contest.

“Because I know from just what I’m hearing, that there’s incredible pent up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, ‘OK, it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.’ That is what most people believe is the best way to go,” she said, according to video of the remarks taken by an attendee and posted on YouTube last week.

Obama told reporters Thursday he thought the negotiations with Clinton aides had gone “seamlessly,” but he also rejected the notion that there might be a need for emotional release on the part of some Democrats.

“I don’t think we’re looking for catharsis,” said Obama. “I think what we’re looking for is energy and excitement.” Id.

Ms. Pickler’s account of the Obama and Clinton negotiations contained these lines:

Delegates are not formally pledged to any candidate so Clinton does not need to “release” them to Obama. The rules also say delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination. Id.

As my readers can attest, discussing these issues I struggle  to view the glass as half full rather than half empty.  With this optimistic life view in mind, I refuse to characterize that AP, MSNBC, and RCP reporters and editors intentionally withheld from millions of their readers the material fact, laws in 13 states do bind pledged delegates to the candidate of the voters’ choice. Instead, I will grant, they just didn’t know.

Because on August 10, I still didn’t know. But by August 13, hearing bits and pieces from here and there, I was beginning to put it together.

I heard news reports that a Clinton delegate in CO was being pressured by the state chair of the party to change her support to Obama and had hired a lawyer to deal with the situation!  Now, I looked up DNC model delegate selection rules to determine whether this Clinton pledged delegate could change her mind. DNC rules tell pledged delegates to use their “good conscience” to represent the will of the voters who elected them.  Viewed in this light, the state chair who was pressuring her to change her mind to Obama could be construed to be merely encouraging her to exercise her discretion in a manner consistent with how the voters feel now, and not when she was elected.

Then, I heard something about a Clinton pledged delegate from OR being pressured to change her mind notwithstanding the law in her state required her to stick to her candidate. The law? You mean, the citizens of some states have enacted laws requiring pledged delegates they elect to follow the party’s candidate into the convention?

And that’s when the stark nature of the politics hit me:  since Clinton for whatever reason had suspended her campaign, her delegates were now unprotected.  Obama’s people swooped into the void and were picking them off, like sheep, one by one, on their way to the convention.  I knew if she was to have any chance at the nomination; those of us who supported her candidacy would have to shepherd her pledged delegates through to the nomination.

I posted my thoughts throughout the blogosphere, especially on the PUMA PAC blog, which received hundreds of thousands of hits in the days leading up to the convention.

jbjd on 08.13.08 at 3:05 am

DELEGATE VOTES AT CONVENTION

Taffy,

This is fabulous! Nice work. I know of another state – either WA or OR – because I heard this last night on riverdaughter’s radio show. (I went to riverdaughter’s site to pull up the show but was unable to access her site, while she is away.) Anyway, PUMAs from GA can contact HRC delegates from that state, to make sure they know the law in their state and ask whether the state party has pressured them to switch to BO. If GA HRC delegates have been pressured, PUMAs can propose they could write a “Cease and Desist” letter to the head of the state party, copied to the S of S, advising them to stop extorting HRC pledged delegates to violate state law by committing to switching to BO before the convention or risk being replaced at the convention.

We need to have everyone’s back, not just HRC; because everyone’s back we cover, covers her.

And this, later that day, closer to realizing the full implication of delegate poaching and thinking out loud, what to do.  (You will notice that even way back then, I was eschewing the practice of turning to ‘saviors’ to rescue our cause, in this case, Clinton’s nomination.  Rather, I urged us, instead, to rely on ourselves.)

jbjd on 08.13.08 at 6:03 pm

GRIEVE; THEN RESUME THE MISSION

We need to have the backs of the state delegates so they can back HRC. These are ordinary people, like us. Many of them probably are here for the first time, and have been blindsided by all of this. All I want to do is empower them to stay the course. Otherwise, they will be replaced (in states where this is possible).

Unless we protect our delegates, both pledged and unpledged, that is, super, they cannot protect HRC. And if the national party wasn’t afraid she could still be the nominee, they wouldn’t be advising the state parties – I am certain this is coming from the top – to reign in HRC’s pledged delegates in their states.

The information I am providing for you is actually a step-by-step self-help manual. These are incidents of first impression. That is, nothing like this has ever happened before. So, I figured out a way to address the issue.

First, check to see whether you live in a state where state laws require pledged delegates to follow their candidates, at least through the first round of voting at the convention. (So far, we know that both GA and OR law require this.)

Then, call your state delegates pledged to HRC. These are ordinary people, just like us. Some of them are first-time office holders. They probably feel as blindsided as we do. After all, they are party members, too. The woman in CO hired a lawyer; but no one should have to hire a lawyer to protect herself from attacks by her own party.

Explain you are concerned as a Democrat, as a puma (generic), or as a citizen of the U.S.A. about what is happening to the Democratic party. If they have been pressured, take notes. Tell them you’ll get back to them. Then, come back here, and I will guide you where to go next.

(Please, keep your eyes on the prize.We don’t need a savior. Somebody mentioned Gloria Allred or Alan Dershowitz. These headline grabbers would do more to attract attention to themselves than they could ever provide help to us. Anyway, they cannot do anything for us that we cannot do for ourselves.)

 

Clinton supporters debate merits of roll call vote,” a USA Today report  (published on abcnews.com) on August 13 tells of a continuing divergence of views on both whether Clinton’s name will be called on the roll; and the reasons as to why.

One of those supporters is Allida Black, a George Washington University historian who said she cashed in her retirement savings to finance travel to 14 states for Clinton. Black, a Clinton delegate from Virginia, is helping circulate the nominating petition.

“This is not a spite Obama effort,” she said. “This is for Hillary to get the respect her campaign merits.”  Id.

(Within days, I would confirm Virginia was one of 13 states I identified and dubbed the “vote binding states.”)

Professor Heidi Li Feldman, Georgetown Law, maintained a blog called Heidi Li’s Potpouri, a must-read on the days leading up to the convention.  On August 13, she posted the copy of a nasty letter Obama’s agents had sent to Clinton pledged delegates in GA.  But there was no mention that GA was a vote binding state.  Now, for the first time, I looked up GA law.  And there it was. In fact, the GA law not only requires pledged delegates to support their candidates at the convention but also contains an advisory opinion from the GA AG, supporting the law and explaining its intent.

I posted this information on Heidi Li where, like all other comments, it went into Moderation. Then, I began wondering just how many other states had these vote binding laws.  And whether this same nasty letter that had gone out to Clinton pledged delegates in GA had gone out to her delegates in those other states, too.  Later, I went back to see whether Heidi Li had posted my comment; and whether anyone from GA had responded with a comment containing references to the vote binding law in that state. By now, several comments had come through Moderation.  Mine was the only comment about the binding law in GA; but in the comment posted just above me, someone identifying as a Clinton pledged delegate from NC claimed, that mean-spirited letter that had been sent to Clinton delegates in GA had also been sent to her!

I checked; party delegates are not bound by the results of the NC primary.  But now, I knew Obama was ‘pressuring’ Clinton pledged delegates to switch their votes to him in states throughout the country; and that in some of these states, delegates were bound to the candidate through the laws of their state.

In my mind, agents for Obama enticing Clinton pledged delegates in vote binding states to switch their votes to him before the convention, were breaking the law!

I decided to turn them all in.

On August 14, CNN reported, “Clinton’s name to be put in nomination.”   Pointing to the obvious, they let us know, “Many die-hard Clinton fans have been hoping that her name would appear on the ballot.” Id.

That same day, ABC News’ Kate Snow also reported, “Deal:  Clinton’s Name Will Be Placed in Nomination at Dems Convention.” “Some details are still being worked out, but Clinton’s name will be put into nomination at the Denver convention on Wednesday.” Id. “What also hasn’t been settled yet is who will nominate Clinton and whether she will stand up with the New York delegation when they are called on.” Id. “What has been settled, however, is that after both Clinton and Obama names are placed into nomination there will be a roll call vote.” Id. “What has also been hashed out is that at some point during the convention, Clinton will release her delegates officialy (sic) to Obama and that she will make it very clear that she is voting for Obama, the source said.” Id.

Jeff Zeleny, writing for the NYTimes on August 14, announced “Clinton’s Name Will be Put in Nomination.”

(In June 2005, Mr. Zeleny, then working for the Chicago Tribune, interviewed then newly-elected U.S. Senator Barack Obama.

Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.

If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

When it comes to race, Obama makes his point–with subtlety (emphasis added by jbjd)

Obama liked the 2005 article so much, he posted this on his now-defunct U.S. Senate web site.  http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/ )

Anyway, on August 14, Mr. Zeleny reported, “Clinton’s name will be placed into nomination at the Democratic National Convention, a symbolic move approved by the Obama campaign in an effort to soothe a lingering rift with Clinton supporters.” Id. “After the state-by-state roll is tallied, Mrs. Clinton is expected to turn over her cache of delegates to Senator Barack Obama.” Id.

Summing up all of these reports from ABC, CNN, and the NYTimes on August 14, the great news was, everyone has agreed, Clinton’s name will formally appear on the ballot for the nomination; there will be an open roll call vote of all state delegations from the floor of the convention; and then she will release her cache of delegates making (most of) them free to vote for Obama and endorse his nomination.

Okay. Now, I could focus entirely on maintaining her delegates up to this ‘open roll call vote of all states’ for the nomination.

That same day, I began to formulate an action plan to turn in Obama’s gang to the A’sG of the vote binding states.  This became the basic set-up of the project.  1)  Find all of those states where the law required pledged delegates to stick to their candidates on the floor of the convention.  2) Obtain the names and contact numbers for A’sG, S’s of S, and state party Chairs in each state.  3) Identify, if applicable, any examples of delegate harassment specific to the state.  4) Compose a letter to the state AG citing the law and the harassment, requesting intervention to stop the illegal conduct.  5) Find names and contact information for Clinton pledged delegates in the state.  6) Identify local and national media outlets.  7) Recruit citizens in the state to carry out the project.

Here’s how it eventually worked. Citizens in the state printed and signed the letters to the AG with their names and addresses.  These were faxed out to state officials, and copied (with or without identifying information) to party Chairs.   Then, we sent blind copies to Clinton pledged delegates – often the only contact information we could obtain was street addresses, so these copies were sent via snail mail – along with this handwritten note near the signature line: “We have your back. PUMA.”  Copies were then distributed to the press.

I launched the project on the PUMA PAC blog.  These are just a sample of the comments I posted on that well-read blog on one day, August 14, beginning in the wee small hours of the morning.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:56 am

BO’S BC ISSUE

The bc issue isn’t ripe until after the convention, in some states, 24 hours after the convention, if he is nominated, and files nomination papers with the individual S’s of S. Blogging on other sites, I explained all this, and directed people to look for filing deadlines in their states, because the challenge window is based on these filing deadlines. Anyway, since no one can do anything about this bc situation until after the convention, please, focus on what needs to be done to secure support for HRC at the convention. And this means supporting the delegates, pledged and unpledged, to support her. This is what I am trying to do right now.

And more explanation in the ongoing formulation of my plan.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 3:56 am

HARASSING STATE DELEGATES – PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE,

read this and then, help me do something about it! Fellow PUMAs, BO’s emissaries from Chicago are now pressuring state delegates, too; and Chairman Dean is doing nothing to stop them. Here is an example of what they are doing in GA.
http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Remember, GA is one of those states that requires their pledged delegates to stick by their candidates through the 2nd ballot at the convention. We have to help these pledged delegates from this not-too-subtle extortion! Who is from GA? I will check in before noon. Please, we need to contact GA pledged delegates. You can get their names from the GA S of S. Once we help delegates in one state, all of this harassment will stop. But that state has to have a state law requiring pledged delegates to stick by their candidate; and evidence of harassment.

I stressed the importance of carrying out this project (as opposed to other ‘PROWLs,’ the name for the ‘action projects’ posted daily at the top of the blog).

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 10:28 am

Texas Tigress,

Nothing sent to the head of the state party will accomplish the goal of protecting the pledged delegates inasmuch as 1) you are asking the oppressor to stop oppressing; and 2) the pledge delegate in jeopardy does not know you have her back. We have to get to the actual delegate; and she has to be willing to report the illegal conduct either through a “Cease and Desist” letter to the state party; or notice to the S of S. And everything needs to be copied to the press.

Coercing pledged delegates to violate state law is really big. (This is different from the scenario described in Heidi Li’s link, wherein Chicago is pressuring these delegates to disclose their votes in advance.) Like, if this is a DNC directed campaign to get the state parties to exert this pressure to switch allegiances, on pledged delegates who are required by law to support their candidates, we’re talking RICO-type conspiracy. This is FBI territory.

CALLING ALL GEORGIANS! (U.S.A., not former Soviet Union)

Throughout the day, I posted pointers, like this.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 10:50 am

HOW TO IDENTIFY PLEDGED DELEGATES IN YOUR STATE

The state party is required to provide the identities of party delegates to the S of S. Call their office; these people work for you. Do not bother calling the state party; this is not worth the runaround you might get, and your resulting frustration.

Note: Pledged delegates are not super delegates.

And this.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 12:18 pm

That’s why I want people in their states to contact their pledged delegates. We do not want HRC’s pledged delegates to feel they are hanging in the wind; and we have no idea how much support HRC is able to provide to them, given this present repressive situation.

If GA is getting these conference call calls then, other states must be, too. But what makes this worse in GA is that, by law, pledged delegates must support their candidates through at least the first round at the convention. That’s why I am so desperately looking for GA pumas.

I posted information on other potential vote binding states, including CA.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:18 pm

CALIFORNIA PUMAS

STOPPING DELEGATE HARASSMENT

*********************************************
6201. …
(e) The California primary election is a “binding” primary.
Accordingly, delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so
as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential or uncommitted status
of the primary voters in each district. Therefore, the national
convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated
in proportion to the percentage of the primary vote won in that
district by each preference…
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=64820815600+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
**********************************************

Before I can tell you what to do in CA, I need to know what that word “binding” means here. Call the S of S elections division (916) 657-2166.

I sought favors; can someone please contact Jeff Zeleny?

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 1:52 pm

CAN SOMEONE DO THIS FOR ME? I AM SO BUSY ON THIS BLOG TODAY I HAVEN’T EVEN … YET!

Re-visit the DNC Call to Convention and find the page about the difference between “nomination” and roll call. Then, contact Jeff Zeleny – I find him to be pretty fair – and make sure he understands the difference between being officially placed into nomination and having your name ‘nominated’ from the floor, through which process any votes cast for you would only be recorded as “present.”

And posted more pointers on the project.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 3:50 pm

STATE DELEGATE HARASSMENT,
Implications of Letters from BO Representatives to State Pledged Delegates

As most of you already know, the principle that state pledged delegates should support their candidates at the convention is embodied in a document called
DNC Delegate Selection Rules. http://www.coloradodems.org/docs/2008DSPFinal.pdf
However, in certain states, including OR and GA, pledged delegates must, as a matter of state law, follow their candidates into the convention. So, for example, urging a pledged delegate to change her support, before the convention, is not only encouraging her to violate the spirit of the DNC Rules but also to break state law.

Any questions?

As I continued my research, I alerted readers to other vote binding states.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 5:24 pm

PLEASE CALIFORNIA PUMAS I admire your spirit but after I looked up your laws for you, I came up with this question, which no one is answering for me: what does that word “binding” mean here? You can call the S of S elections division (916) 657-2166. This will determine how best to proceed in your state. (Each state is different, which is why I have been asking you to identify your state. ) Also, I need people in each state to SPEAK to a pledged delegate to confirm HRC pledged delegates in each state are being contacted by BO’s people in Chicago and asked – under various ploys – to identify their candidates.

http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

I cannot help you with the letter from your state until I have the information I asked for, from your state. As they say in the movies, “Help me help you.”

Still trying to confirm CA.

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 5:44 pm

STOPPING STATE PLEDGED DELEGATE HARASSMENT

CA PUMAS and others

I need you to do these 2 things. (I cannot tell you what to do next until I have these answers. Remember, I am trying to help out in all 50 states. I am swamped.)

1. Find out from the S of S – I gave you her # – what the word “pledged” means in the law I cited. Of course we would assume that, pledged means pledged. But I want to make sure what this means; ask specifically whether pledged delegates must vote for their candidate on the first vote at the convention. And take notes. (I have been asking for this since yesterday.)

2. Call some pledged delegates and find out whether they received a letter from BO’s people in Chicago, like the one on Heidi Li’s site.
http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Then come back here and tell me what you found out.

And at the end of that very long day, a plea for HELP!

jbjd on 08.14.08 at 11:54 pm

HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP

Turns out, there are states out there that require pledged delegates to support their candidates through the first vote at the convention. So far, there’s OR; and GA; and IN. I need PUMAs organized by state. Now. But I cannot organize you – I am too busy researching your laws and writing state-specific letter. GA will go out, first. Tomorrow. Because the AG of GA has already written an advisory opinion explaining the intent of the law; and supporting the law. I anticipate the AG will not take too kindly to people from Chicago encouraging pledged delegates in his state to break the law.

Citizens of GA pouring through thousands of comments posted on the blog each day, eventually found my comments and responded with their emails.  In this way, we assembled a team I began referring to as ‘my Georgians’ to carry out the project in just that one state. At the same time I was researching the laws, obtaining the contact information, and writing the letter to the AG for the next state.  And communicating the state vote binding project to readers of other people’s blogs, and recruiting citizens of each state to get out the letters I had written, state by state.

The next day, August 15, Ann Kornblut reported  in the Washington Post these variations on the plans for the open roll call of all states on the floor of the convention that had been reported just the previous day.

Clinton to Get Roll-Call Vote at Nominating Convention

How, exactly, the roll call will work remains an open question, advisers on both sides said. After having her name entered into nomination, Clinton could then ask her delegates to support Obama, bypassing the long process of reading names aloud. But several advisers said they think there will be some kind of roll call, which could begin as early as Tuesday night of the convention. (emphasis added by jbjd)

Hmmm…

My letter to the AG of GA went out that same day.  Copies were distributed to the SoS, the Chair of the state D party, and hundreds of state and national media outlets.

August 15, 2008

Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334

VIA  FAX: 404. 657.8733

SUBJECT:   Solicitation to Violate O.C.G.A. § 21-2-196 (2008)

Dear Attorney General Baker:

Here in Georgia, pledged delegates selected as the result of votes cast for Senator Clinton in the Presidential primary election are legally required to vote for her during first-round balloting at the party’s nominating convention.  OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL appended to the above-cited law explains, “This section reflects the legitimate interest of the state in insuring orderliness in the electoral process, and it provides a means of presenting the political preferences of the people of this state to a political party.” But in what can at best be interpreted as an overzealous advocacy on behalf of Senator Obama, in states throughout the country, including Georgia, proponents for his nomination have bombarded her delegates with subtle and not-so-subtle pressures to commit to switching support to him, before the convention.  Or, failing that, they replace the Clinton-pledged delegate with one loyal to Obama.  (See examples below.  Note that while the first link shows the copy of a letter Senator Obama’s campaign sent to pledged delegates in Georgia, they distributed this same letter to delegates in all states, including states which, like Georgia,mandate pledged delegates to follow their candidates into the convention.)  In Georgia, encouraging delegates entrusted with representing the political preference of Clinton voters, to pledge their support before the convention to Obama, solicits these delegates to break the law.

As a concerned citizen of Georgia, I am bringing this matter to your immediate attention anticipating that you will take appropriate action to ensure from now on, campaigning in this state related to the upcoming Democratic National Convention is consistent with Georgia laws.

Sincerely,

References: “Bearing Witness” (posting of letter from Khalil Thompson, Obama for America, Chicago) http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/2008/08/bearing-witness.html

Clinton supporters protesting removal of delegate at Democratic National Convention http://www.whas11.com/news/local/stories/WHAS11_POLITICS_080814_CLINTONOBAMA.486a4d97.html

“Explain, Dems tell Clinton delegate” (article on state party efforts to discipline Colorado delegate for Clinton for refusing to switch to Obama)

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_10170139

Copy: Karen C. Handel, Secretary of State

VIA FAX: 404.651.9531

Jane V. Kidd, Chairwoman, Georgia Democratic  Party                                                                                            jane@georgiademocrat.org

Readers began posting states in which stories of irregularities regarding Clinton pledged delegates had been in the news.

KENDALBLUE on 08.15.08 at 12:23 am

jbjd @@@@@@@@@
a link about Kentucky delegate..clintonrules posted it.

http://clintondems.com/2008/08/clinton-supporters-protesting-removal-of-delegate-at-democratic-national-convention/

On the 15th, PA Governor Ed Rendell (D) appeared with Neil Cavuto on FOX and misinformed the viewing audience, there is no such thing as a “pledged” delegate.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 7:07 pm

ED RENDELL
(PA IS AN UNBOUND COMMONWEALTH)

You are going to have to reach PA delegates who might not know Ed Rendell does not know what he is talking about. He’s saying there’s no such thing as pledged delegates within the Democratic Party. And, since PA delegates are unbound, they don’t know that in other states, including CA (we think), delegates are bound. So they might believe all delegates will switch their votes to BO, meaning even if they wanted to vote for HRC, their votes won’t matter.

Another state confirmed.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 7:08 pm

OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON OREGON
(you’re next)

Anyone from Oregon – Do a shoutout to other Oregonians. Have them email you and put their addresses into a group marked OR. I am going to have you send this to me. I am writing your state letter now!

Oregon is next!

And another.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 9:29 pm

HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP HELP
**********************************************

Does anyone have any information on the OR HRC delegate being pressed to switch to BO? I can’t find this; but I heard this on the radio. Anyway, I really want to include a link in the OR letter which, otherwise, is ready to go. WHERE ARE MY OREGONIANS? I am dancing as fast as I can.

IN is next.

Here is a wonderful wrap-up from one of my Georgians of the maiden effort in the vote binding project.

antifish 08.15.08 at 10:04 pm

OK Pumas, let’s all cheer up.

Just to let you know, in concert with our fellow Puma, jbjd, we GA pumas fought back against delegate intimidation today. Jbjd wrote a wonderful letter in legalese which was faxed to our Att Gen and Sec of State. We sent copies through snail mail to all pledged delegates letting them know we have their back. I know jbjd is eager to help each of you in your states, but please realize that she must carefully research the laws of each state in order to craft the letter properly. Let’s all be patient as we fight the strong-arming and intimidation of delegates.

A reminder we are on the side of the law.

jbjd 08.15.08 at 11:02 pm

ABSOLUTELY SOMEONE SHOULD BE SETTING UP A GENERIC PROWL TO ALL STATE DELEGATES, UNPLEDGED OR PLEDGED

I am only working on pledged delegates because they are being harassed to change their minds. And I wanted to start in states whose laws require pledged delegates to follow their candidates into convention because anyone who coerces a person to break the law needs to be stopped.

CA, Nancy Pelosi’s home state is confirmed, and gearing up to go!

jbjd 08.15.08 at 11:25 pm

REMEMBER NOVEMBER

Yes; send emails to me so I can set up a folder for CA. I will have the letter ready to go out as soon as I get your email addresses. And does anyone in CA know of any additional stories of delegate harassment? I only have one example. (I also use examples from other states, though; it would be shortsighted to assume the types of harassment out there occur in only one state.)

Still trying to reach the delegates before they head out for Denver.

jbjd 08.16.08 at 12:52 am

COPIES OF THE AG LETTERS NEED TO GO TO ALL STATE DELEGATES WHO AT THIS POINT MIGHT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT’S GOING ON AND WHO NEED TO KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON BEFORE THEY LEAVE FOR DENVER

Re-read my earlier comments today about Ed Rendell’s statement on t.v. The interviewer asked whether HRC winning was now possible. ‘Delegates can vote for anyone they want. The last time they were pledged was back in 1980 at the Carter Kennedy convention.’

State delegates can be reached by snail mail. It would be great if we could get these letters out tomorrow.

On the 16th, I posted the epiphany that Obama and the DNC are rigging the nomination.

jbjd 08.16.08 at 1:16 pm

***********************************************
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I THINK I FIGURED OUT HOW BO AND THE DNC ARE RIGGING THE NOMINATION

I posted yesterday that I saw Ed Rendell on Neil Cavuto, rejecting NC’s proposition that HRC could still win if enough delegates changed their minds, with this statement: ‘That’s not going to happen; delegates can vote for anyone they want and they will vote for BO. We haven’t had a robot rule since the 1980 Kennedy Carter convention.’ After seeing this on t.v., I began posting here to remind you PUMAs that some states require, by law, that “pledged” delegates must vote for their candidate at least through the first round of voting at the convention. I warned you the DNC was engaging in a campaign of misinformation aimed at state delegates, who may or may not know what is the law in their states, to get them to think voting for HRC would be useless. I urged you to get word to state delegates, hold your vote.

Today, I started thinking, what if “robot rule” was actually a term of art? So, I looked it up. And, sure enough, it is.
http://cassandra2004.blogspot.com/2008/02/open-convention-ted-kennedy-1980-dnc.html

And then it hit me. BO is spending this week spreading misinformation to get state delegates – not the supers – to change their votes. We have to try to stop him. Normally, this ’shepherding’ of delegates is done by the candidate; BO has been in touch with delegates in each state. But HRC cannot do this now. So we have to.

This needs to be a prowl.

On August 17, I ‘blew the whistle’ on the true nature of “pledged” delegates and the Democratic Party.

jbjd on 08.17.08 at 5:49 pm

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMENT I HAVE EVER WRITTEN OR WILL EVER WRITE ON THIS BLOG… PLEASE REFER OTHERS TO THIS COMMENT THROUGHOUT THE DAY, IN SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS… I AM BUSY WRITING YOUR STATE-SPECIFIC LETTERS TO THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, TO BE COPIED TO OUR DEAR STATE DELEGATES PLEDGED TO HRC, TO LET THEM KNOW, WE HAVE THEIR BACKS…

***************************************************************************
DECONSTRUCTING DEMOCRACY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

My Dear Fellow PUMAs,

If you are going crazy trying to figure out what’s happening with the Democratic Party, join the club. I’m not kidding. Join the club. Because it just hit me, the way to understand this Democratic nominating process is to think of The Democratic Party as what it is – a club. And the only thing that makes this club so special is that it was able to get permission from each of the 50 states to collect campaign contributions and put the names of the candidates it wants to hold office onto the state’s election ballot. That’s it. That’s all there is. Let me explain.

According to Party – or rather, club rules, presidential candidates are chosen at the club’s nominating convention. Afterward, the club submits the name of its candidate for POTUS to the appropriate state official in each state – usually the Secretary of State – as part of an application to get onto the state’s general election ballot, in compliance with that state’s laws. In fact, states only allow the candidate for POTUS chosen by a “major political party” to submit ballot papers so late in the game because club rules and by-laws require their candidates to be chosen at a “nominating convention.”

The club determines who will be its candidate for POTUS on the general election ballot through a vote at the convention by people it calls “delegates,” which delegates obtained that status through an allocation process set by the club. That is, the club places the names of its proposed candidates on state ballots in the primary and caucus elections and then, in exchange for receiving a specific number of votes in that process, the candidates are assigned a delegate to vote for them at the convention. Most state delegates are given a special status, called “pledged.” According to club rules, when these pledged delegates cast their votes at the convention, they should use their best judgment to represent the wishes of the voters based on whose votes they were elected. Historically, by counting these delegates pledged to each candidate, the club has usually been able to predict which of its candidates will end up with the nomination at the end of the primary and caucus process, since one candidate usually garners enough pledged delegates to surpass the number the club set as the requirement at the convention. But not this year. Neither club candidate – BO or HRC – was assigned enough delegates through the primary and caucus process to secure the nomination at the convention. Luckily, the club had in place rules whereby this deficit in delegates could be made up by special delegates commonly referred to as super delegates who get to cast their votes for either candidate at the convention.

The Democratic Party set up volumes of rules and by-laws that govern all these operations, with auspicious sounding titles like “Charter,” “Constitution,” “Model Rules to Delegate Selection Process,” and “Call to the Convention.” But here’s the thing about all these club rules: they can be changed at any time. According to club rules. So, if like me, you have read club rules and believe, as I do, that members of the club have not played fair throughout this presidential nominating process, am I saying there is nothing you can do about it? Hardly.

Remember what I said in the beginning: the state only lets the club get onto official state ballots as long as they follow state rules. And unlike club rules, when states make rules, they’re called laws. (TO BE CONTINUED…)
©jbjd

And my eventual reply to the alert about delegate harassment in KY.

jbjd on 08.18.08 at 10:22 pm

OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG…OMG

KENTUCKY IS A PLEDGED STATE! I AM ON IT… LOOK FOR IT…

And the follow-up.

jbjd on 08.19.08 at 12:55 am

caracal carrie

I am all over KY – I have the law but this letter is unique since the club actually replaced a delegate pledged to HRC with one pledged to BO, ostensibly to satisfy an affirmative action requirement in either DNC or state rules – and NH. CA, GA, IN, and OR are done. When you wake up, look for the posting.

Now I was put in touch with Ricki Lieberman, in NY, a muckity-muck in the Democratic Party everyone else seemed to know about but me.  Here is how she was described on Huffington Post a few weeks earlier, in July.

Also a former Clinton “Hillraiser” (meaning she raised more than $100,000 for the campaign), Lieberman is keeping her own private hope alive with a daily email blast to supporters, entitled “Electability Watch,” which features a cascade of negative articles and other items about Obama as a means to argue that superdelegates should change their minds in Denver and crown Clinton the nominee instead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/clinton-distances-herself_n_113094.html

Ricki  printed my work on vote binding states in her now-infamous newsletter, “Electability Watch.”

I was also put in touch with a reporter from the LATimes.  I did my best to inspire him to write a story, describing the unlawful attempts made by agents acting for Obama to coerce delegates pledged to Clinton in vote binding states to switch their votes to him.  He just wasn’t interested.

On the morning of August 21, 2008, this article on Georgia Politics Unfiltered proved, our campaign to stop pledged delegate harassment had worked in GA.  (Perhaps not coincidentally, GA was the only state in which I had been able to recruit a team of volunteers to carry out all of the steps of the project, including sending a copy of the AG’s letter to the delegates along with a note saying, “We have your back.”)

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Attorney General Tells GA Delegates They Can’t Switch Their Vote At The Convention

I’ve confirmed with two members of the state’s Democratic National Convention delegation that Attorney General Thurbert Baker sent them a letter informing them that they could not switch their vote to another presidential candidate if they are a pledged delegate to someone else.

Two delegates pledged to New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Shannon Marietta of Dougherty County and Cheryl Williams of Gwinnett County, both said they received a letter from the Attorney General stating that they could not switch their vote until Sen. Clinton released them or she received less than 35% of the vote during the roll call vote.

The Attorney General’s letter cites an relatively unknown section of Georgia’s presidential preference primary law that states Any person selected as a delegate or delegate alternate to such national convention shall file a qualification oath with the Secretary of State pledging support at the convention to the candidate of their political party or body for the office of President of the United States for whom they are selected to support. The oath shall state that the delegate or delegate alternate affirms to support such candidate until the candidate is either nominated by such convention or receives less than 35 percent of the votes for nomination by such convention during any balloting, or until the candidate releases the delegates from such pledge. No delegate shall be required to vote for such candidate after two convention nominating ballots have been completed. [Source: Official Code of Georgia Annotated 21-2-196]

Both Clinton delegates said they planned on voting for New York’s junior Senator on the first ballot anyway.

I’m currently working on getting a copy of the letter.

http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/2008/08/attorney-general-tells-ga-delegates.html

Ricki also contacted Alegre’s Corner, another PUMA blog, to post the work on her site, and recruit citizens from these states to download their state letters and send to the identified recipients.  That night, Alegre’s Corner had joined the vote binding state campaign.

http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/diary/717/

By August 23, everyone is listening.

jbjd on 08.23.08 at 11:37 am

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

Howard Wolfson, staunch HRC supporter and formerly with her campaign, has been a pundit for FOX since some time after HRC suspended her campaign. He just announced (remote) to Cavuto, some states have laws that require delegates to vote for HRC.
Cavuto: ‘You mean even if HRC releases her delegates, they still have to vote for her?’
Wolfson: ‘Yes.’

WOW! WOW! WOW! As most of you know, finding these laws and getting out the word is what I have been working on! Isn’t this great news?

The next day, August 24, the day before the opening day of the convention, CNN, HuffingtonPost, FOXNews, and NYDailyNews, among others, attributing different sources, announced for the first time that Clinton would release her delegates at a luncheon on Wednesday afternoon, and not after the first open call of the roll of all delegates from all states on the floor of the convention.  They also announced the DNC had lifted all sanctions against FL and MI – Clinton won both states, neither one of which is a vote binding state – giving them full votes at the convention.

Still left intact since its announcement 10 days earlier, on August 14th, was the plan to hold an open roll call vote of all delegates from all states on the floor of the convention.

But would that plan still be in place at the start of the convention?

(Next:  Part 3:  The Coup at the Convention)

the DNC is a private club; they make their own rules. You don’t need a lawyer to protest their breaking the rules; these are their rules. They wrote in the use of discretion throughout their charter. This means, even if they engage in conduct that looks to you like it is against their rules, this doesn’t mean it is against the rules. It means you don’t like the way they exercised their discretion.

A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3)

August 10, 2010

(Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3), (3 of 3), and EPILOGUE.)

© 2010 jbjd

Introduction

The Democratic National Committee Services Corporation, disguised as the DNC, installed Barack Obama into the Office of President of the United States of America by committing massive election fraud that played out uniquely during each of these 3 (three) phases of the 2008 Presidential election cycle in relation to the company’s August 2008 Presidential Nominating Convention: 1) pre-Convention; 2) Convention; and 3) post-Convention. The fraud committed both before and after the Convention has been dissected in several articles previously posted here on the “jbjd” blog.

This  three-part series entitled, “A Coup, Through and Through” analyzes the fraud pulled off at the Convention.

Keep in mind, not all fraud is created equal. While the record establishes the D’s committed fraud throughout the general election cycle, my work has remained focused almost exclusively only on that fraudulent conduct which both 1) violated laws explicitly or implicitly proscribing such conduct; and 2) arguably altered the outcome of the 2008 Presidential (Electors) election.

Part 1: Prologue to Fraud

Before Barack Obama could be installed in the Oval Office, interested parties both within and outside of the Democratic National Committee Services Corporation had to ensure he would win the DNC Presidential nomination so that his name could appear next to the D on the general election ballot.  Because, as I have previously opined, while Electors voting in December may elect anyone they want; I could not imagine they would dare to elect a President whose name hadn’t even appeared on the November ballot. NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (1 of 2) and (2 of 2). (Note:  I recently learned the D’s have been pressing state legislatures to pass the National Popular Vote Initiative (“NPVI”).  If this thing gets through, I believe even a candidate who fails to qualify to get on the ballot in one or more states can still be elected.) (See, HOW ADOPTING the “NATIONAL POPULAR VOTED INITIATIVE” CAN STEAL an ELECTION ‘BY HOOK’ and ‘BY CROOK’.)

But given the several problems they knew were inherent to his candidacy, any one of which, if exposed, could prove fatal to his political aspirations, winning the nomination would require that they clinch the nomination as far as possible in advance of the DNC convention. In this way, they could limit the scope of the public examination of the candidate apt to occur in a protracted battle for the nomination.

They were willing to do whatever it took to accumulate enough pledged delegates during the primary and caucus contests to reach the magic number that long before the convention would ensure at that time, he would be handed the nomination. Manufacture chaos at the caucuses and capitalize on the confusion created? Check. Collude with A.C.O.R.N.? Check. Censor critics with charges of racism? Check. Cultivate a compliant press willing to conceal stories unflattering to either the candidate’s character or, their own complicit conduct on the road to his nomination? Check and check.

When the numbers for Hillary Clinton, his toughest competition in the race for the nomination, placed these two in a virtual dead heat with 3 (three) more months until the primary and caucus contests ended and 5 (five) months until the convention, co-opt the free will of the voters by spreading the meme she has already lost the nomination? Check. Co-opt the free will of the candidate by calling her a sore loser if she doesn’t drop out of the race now and throw her support(ers) to him, for the good of the party? Check.

DNC rules provide if voting at the convention fails to support one candidate over the other then, special super delegates will add their votes to the totals to reach the number required for nomination. So they were also furiously pouring money into the PAC’s and war chests of these super delegates, in return for which the candidate received a public pledge of support positively correlated to the superior size of his financial investment.

But even factoring in the votes of those super delegates already expressing support for Obama, with less than 3 (three) months to go before the convention he still had not achieved the superiority in delegates that would secure his nomination. And the delay had taken its costly and anticipated toll.

Despite their best efforts to control the narrative, one of those ‘problems fatal to his political aspirations,’ known as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, had leaked out. And from the time the public learned of the long close relationship between the candidate and his avowed “spiritual adviser,” he had already lost more than 10 (ten) points in the polls.

To understand what they did next, you need to know the difference between being designated a Clinton pledged delegate and an Obama pledged delegate.

Attorney Bob Bauer, then counsel to the DNC and now WH Counsel, explains the delegate selection process to the federal court in DiMaio v. DNC, a case not material to the fraud laid out here.

The DNC is the governing body of the Democratic Party of the United States and is responsible for promulgating delegate selection rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention…The nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States is chosen by the delegates to the Democratic National Convention held in each presidential election year. The National Convention is organized and run by an arm of the DNC. The delegates from each state are chosen through a process adopted by the state’s Democratic Party. For each presidential election starting in 1976, the DNC has established formal Delegate Selection Rules to govern the selection, in each state, of its delegates to the National Convention. These rules require each State Democratic Party to develop a written delegate selection plan and to submit that plan to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (“DNC RBC”) for review and approval. The delegate selection process in each state involves two basic functions: (1) the allocation of delegate positions among presidential candidates, i.e., how many delegates from that state will go to the Convention pledged to each candidate; and (2) the selection of the actual individuals to fill those positions, i.e., the selection of the people who will attend the Convention as delegates and alternates. Generally, state parties use either a primary or a caucus/convention system. In a primary system, the state party uses the state-government run or a party-run primary election to allocate delegate positions, and then a party-run meeting (caucus) to fill those positions. In a caucus system, the state party uses a series of party-run meetings — caucuses — both to allocate delegate positions and to select the persons to fill those positions. A caucus/convention system does not involve use of the state’s electoral machinery. Of the 56 states and territories that sent delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, 20 used party run caucus/convention systems.

http://www-lvs13.net.ohio-state.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Dimaio-Brief-9-19-08.pdf

In short, the numbers of votes a candidate receives in a party primary or caucus contest translates into so many pledged delegates awarded, based on the vote:delegate ratio concocted in advance by the party. When the contest is over, the state party meets to select which party faithful, pledging fealty to one candidate or the other, will fill the slot of pledged delegate for his or her preferred candidate and then cast a vote for that candidate at the national nominating convention.

On May 31, the DNC RBC met to finalize their response to the dilemma presented by FL and MI. Legislatures in both states had moved up their primaries in contradiction to the calendar set by the DNC. As punishment, the DNC indicated it would not seat delegates from either state at the convention. (Accused of “pandering” to Iowa, Obama had pulled his name off the ballot in MI. Clinton did not. She won heavily in both states but, the DNC and their allies in the press not only did not count those pledged delegate numbers in her totals, they did not even credit her with receiving the number of popular votes.) DNC Chairman Howard Dean had said in March, he expected delegates were “eventually going to be seated in Florida and Michigan as soon as we get an agreement between the candidates on how to do that.”  In the meantime, each state party had allocated pledged delegates based on the actual popular vote for the candidates whose names appeared on the ballot, including those delegates who filled the slots represented by the ‘name’ “Uncommitted,” a category that received 40% of the MI vote.

The Committee,  whose members were hand-picked by Chairman Dean, heard from both of the states involved, and from representatives of both of the candidates, and then made their decision.  In FL, where both candidates appeared on the ballot, the Committee awarded delegates in accordance with the popular vote, but gave each delegate only half a vote at the convention. But desperate to bolster Obama’s sagging numbers, his allies on the Committee adopted this solution for MI. First, all delegates would be seated at the convention but with only half a vote each. Second, all votes that had been cast for “Uncommitted” were now deemed to have been cast for Obama; and delegates assigned based on votes cast for “Uncommitted” would be reassigned to delegates loyal to him. Third, 4 (four) of those pledged delegates already assigned to Clinton as the result of votes cast for her; would be taken away and re-gifted to him.

In the eyes of many stalwart Democrats, by second-guessing the voters’ intent in this way, the RBC had abandoned the core principle of “fair reflection” enshrined in the DNC Charter. Harold Ickes, an adviser to the Clinton campaign, pulled no punches. “This motion will hijack, hijack, remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton and most importantly reflect the preferences of 600,000 Michigan voters. This body of 30 individuals has decided that they are going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters.”

On June 3, the primary / caucus season ended.  Clinton suspended but did not end her campaign.

Once upon a time – March 28, 2008, to be exact – Chairman Dean announced to the press he thought it would be “nice” if by “July 1,” all of the  superdelegates weighed in with the name of the candidate they would support, implicitly acknowledging even back then that neither candidate would secure the requisite number of pledged delegates throughout the remainder of the primary / caucus contests  to ensure the August nomination.  Top Democrat wants party contest decided by July 1. But on June 4, the day after the primaries ended and just 5 (five) days after the RBC issued its controversial shuffling of the MI delegate deck to sweeten Obama’s hand, the following headlines appeared in the L.A. Times:  “BREAKING NEWS:  Dean, Pelosi, Reid set Friday deadline for superdelegates’ choices, move to force end to Clinton bid

According to the article, DNC Chairman Dean; Nancy Pelosi, (Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 3rd in line of Presidential succession, acting in a civilian capacity as Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention); and Senator Harry Reid jointly issued a “carefully worded statement” which was widely interpreted as “a clear step to force an end to the effort by Clinton,” telling superdelegates to make their candidate choices known “tomorrow.”

Tomorrow? Whatever happened to “by July 1″?  Why this sudden (and rather petulant) rush to memorialize Obama’s coronation?  Probably because those pesky problems with his candidacy were about to derail his political aspirations.

For months now, rumors had been swirling that Obama was not Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a “natural born” citizen, one of three requirements listed in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Then Communications Director Robert Gibbs (now WH Press Secretary) had come up with a seemingly brilliant on-line advertising campaign under the banner, “Fight the Smears,” designed to counter these mounting speculations.  The focal point of the ad campaign was an image of a mock-up “Certification of Live Birth,”  listing Obama’s place of birth as “Hawaii.”  (It was even appropriately redacted so as to give the appearance of protecting the candidate’s privacy.)  Ad copy accompanying the image reassured the public, this proves he is a “native” citizen.  At the bottom of the page, in the footer, appeared the sort of attribution required by the U.S. Code for all political advertising expenditures:  “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.”

Designing a political ad campaign such as “Fight the Smears” ‘to be used only in case of emergency’ was one thing; but actually rolling it out was another.  Because its success gambled on the truth of this one contemptuous statement:  American voters are too stupid to know that there’s a difference between “natural born”  and “native”; and that “Fight the Smears” is nothing more than a PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, anyway.  Understandably, the Obama team held back on the nuclear “Fight the Smears” option for as long as it could.

Yet hard as everyone tried, Clinton just would not abandon the nomination. And why should she? Examining the traditional rubrics of success – total number of pledged delegates; popular votes; likelihood to beat the Republican in the general election – the two contenders remained within the ‘margin of error.’ Besides, neither Clinton nor Obama had amassed the requisite number of pledged delegates to wrap up the nomination on the first call of the roll on the floor of the convention.

The Obama campaign launched “Fight the Smears” on June 12.

Up until this point, the ‘dirty tricks’ carried out by operatives tied to the D Corporation to lie and cheat their man’s way into the D nomination were only sinister and underhanded.  But, with the exception of the allocation of votes:delegates in Texas, technically, they were within the letter of the law. (LULAC v. Texas Democratic Party.) All that changed in the summer months leading up to the convention, when Obama and his champions and converts, now clawing at straws, conspired to literally steal the nomination.

The state parties had specifically chosen delegates to fill the number of slots reserved for Clinton or Obama as the result of votes cast for her or him in the primary or caucus contest, based on their loyalty to either one candidate or the other. But DNC rules only insist that pledged delegates voting at the national convention “in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” (Emphasis added by jbjd.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/fb3fa279c88bf1094b_qom6bei0o.pdf, p. 23. In other words, under DNC rules, there is no such thing as a “pledged” delegate. (At one time, the DNC did have such a “robot rule,” which required delegates pledged to a candidate to vote for that candidate at the convention. But they eliminated that rule in 1982.)

Which was a good thing for Obama emissaries who now fanned out across the country and harassed her delegates, in person and by wire, to get them to agree to switch their votes to him, before the convention.

Twisting arms to ‘turn’ pledged delegates before the convention was not only not prohibited under DNC rules but also, in 37 (thirty-seven) states, it wasn’t against the law. As for the other 13 (thirteen) states, well, that was quite a different story.

See, voters in 13 states  – AZ, GA, IN, KY, MA, NH, NM, OH, OK, OR, TN, VA, and the delegate mother lode, CA – had enacted this special legislation. ‘In our state, pledged means PLEDGED. This means, delegates pledged to a candidate as the result of votes cast in the political party’s primary or caucus election; must vote for the candidate voters elected them to represent, at the party’s nominating convention.’ (I ‘discovered’ these states in the summer of 2008 and named them “vote binding states.”) In short, extorting Clinton pledged delegates in these 13 vote binding states to commit to switching their votes to Obama before the convention, was against the law.

And they knew what they were doing was illegal.

Because as Mr. Bauer wrote in his submission to the federal court in DiMaio; “[DNC] rules require each State Democratic Party to develop a written delegate selection plan and to submit that plan to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (“DNC RBC”) for review and approval.” Id. (The DNC RBC is the same outfit that on May 31 had shuffled the candidate’s delegate count in a blatantly partisan attempt to improve Obama’s numbers and move him closer to the nomination.) And, contained in those DNC delegate selection rules is provision 2.2: Each State Party Committee shall include the following documentation with the submission of its Plan to the RBC:

(I) a copy of all state statutes reasonably related to the delegate selection process. (Emphasis added by jbjd.)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/e824f455b24c7782dc_jjm6ib44l.pdf

Being “related to the delegate selection process,” the state law that required pledged delegates to vote at the convention for the candidate voters elected them to represent was included in the delegate selection plan each of these 13 states had submitted to and was subsequently approved by the DNC RBC.  In other words, Obama’s agents who began harassing Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states to switch their votes to him, months before the convention, undoubtedly knew they were breaking the law.

But desperate times called for desperate measures.

(Next:  Part 2:  Lead-up to the Coup)


ELENA KAGAN’S ‘DADDY’

June 30, 2010

© 2010 jbjd

Introduction
Pundits weighing in on the scope of interrogation Elena Kagan, Barack Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nominee will endure by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee predict she will be asked questions intended to inform as to how a J. Kagan would tend to rule in cases involving issues like guns (how seriously does she take the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms); and judicial restraint (can she separate her progressive politics from her rulings from the bench).  Questions will also likely arise concerning her decision as Dean of the Harvard Law School to restrict military recruiting on campus (ban altogether or limit in scope).  But in all of my reading on the subject, one issue that has never come up is this.  Is Ms. Kagan’s tendency to become star struck into inertia in the presence of certain pre-eminent practitioners of law who, if she is confirmed, will no doubt appear before her; a fatal flaw that renders her lacking the judicial temperament expected of a member of the high court?

In other words, would a Justice Kagan set aside the fact that Professor Larry Tribe’s her ‘daddy‘?

*******************************************************************************************************************************************

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, reaffirming the individual right to own a gun enshrined in the 2nd Amendment, making clear the right has blanket application across the U.S. by virtue of the 14th Amendment.  For those focusing on the confirmation process of SCOTUS nominee Kagan, thoughts understandably turned to what appear in hindsight to be the less than candid answers provided by now  J. Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings, and made likely that questioners would want more of a guarantee that Ms. Kagan really means what she says.  Here are some excerpts from a great posted on the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee web site on Monday , entitled, “McDonald, Sotomayor, and Kagan.”

…Consider the testimony of Justice Sonia Sotomayor at her hearing.  In a response to a question by Senator Leahy, she said: “I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.  In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA.  And I have friends who hunt.  I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.”  But today, she joined with Justice Breyer in saying “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

Given that what the Senate heard from President Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court seems to have little bearing on her post-confirmation behavior, Senators may wish to approach Ms. Kagan’s testimony with a degree of skepticism.  The fact that Ms. Kagan has no judicial record to point to, and a record of liberal activism, only underscores this point.

http://rpc.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Blog&ContentRecord_id=732e924d-d1a8-4715-a88b-cf186f1a2b45

Yet, according to this excerpt from an article entitled, “Kagan Sounds More and More like Safe Vote for Gun Rights,” which appeared  in Talking Points Memo, Tuesday’s testimony seems to have allayed concerns a J. Kagan would tamper with what she agrees, 1 (one) day post-MacDonald, is now “settled law.”

“Is there any doubt after the court’s decision in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment to the Constitution secures a fundamental right for an individual to own a firearm, use it for self- defense in their home?” Leahy asked.

“There is no doubt, Senator Leahy, that is binding precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in — in — in any case. So that is settled law,” Kagan responded.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/kagan-sounding-like-safe-vote-for-gun-rights.php

So, at least for now, it would seem gun ownership would remain safe if Ms. Kagan was confirmed to the Court.

What about her ability to stray from what is touted as a ‘leftist’ bent evidenced by her work as an adviser to President Clinton?   Well, after all, advising him how to accomplish his policy goals was her job.  And, evidently, she was good at it.  But she was also no shrinking violet when it came to making her voice heard, even when others on the same side of the aisle raised their voices against hers.  President Clinton describes a case in point.

Former President Bill Clinton vividly remembers the first presentation that his young legal adviser, Elena Kagan, made in the Oval Office.

Against the wishes of his high-powered economic team and top congressional Democrats, Clinton in late 1995 was considering vetoing new legislation that was framed as a way to halt frivolous lawsuits against the securities industry. At his direction, Kagan had analyzed the bill and determined that it would raise the bar so high for such suits that shareholders could be prevented from pursuing legitimate fraud claims.

“There she was, in her mid-30s starting out in her career, with the entire economic team, all of them against her position, and she knew it,” Clinton said in an interview, in his first extensive public comments about his onetime aide since her nomination to the Supreme Court.

“She stood there and defended her conclusion,” Clinton said.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20100620/NEWS/6200362/1052/news01

The NYT article, “As Aide, Kagan battled Aide Over Policy,” tells of the clash between the adviser and Christopher Edley, Jr., a consultant to the Clinton Administration, now Dean of the law school at UC Berkeley.

At the heart of the dispute was a broader cleavage inside Mr. Clinton’s White House between two visions for Democratic politics, one that adhered to traditional liberal conceptions of social justice and aid to the disadvantaged and another that sought to nudge the party to the center after a generation of electoral losses.

Along that fault line, Ms. Kagan, now President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, was situated squarely in the camp of the centrist New Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/us/politics/15kagan.html

So, it would seem that, even factoring into consideration, working for a Democratic President was her job; Ms. Kagan still appears to be able to maintain an even-handed approach to policy-making within the law along with the fortitude to champion her position.

What about the meme that, as Dean of the Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan banned military recruiters from campus?  Well, turns out, that statement is more fiction than fact.  Here is a good account in the Harvard Crimson of what went on during her tenure, from “Kagan’s Stance on Military Recruiting Under Scrutiny.”

…”I believe the military’s discriminatory employment policy is deeply wrong— both unwise and unjust,” Kagan wrote in a September 2005 letter to the Law School community, voicing her opposition to the policy. “And this wrong tears at the fabric of our own community by denying an opportunity to some of our students that other of our students have.”

But a recently uncovered e-mail indicates that although recruiters were barred from OCS services and facilities, they were not prevented from independently recruiting on campus. The message detailed a number of campus recruitment opportunities, including the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps interviews for summer internships and “full-time active duty positions.”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/6/25/military-kagan-school-recruiting/

So, thinking the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy conflicted with Harvard’s policy of non-discrimination, she barred military recruiting BUT ONLY FROM OFFICE OF CAREER SERVICES, SERVICES AND FACILITIES.  Individual recruiting was always allowed.

In addition, a spring 2005 letter penned by the Harvard Law School Veterans Association following Kagan’s ban on military recruiters’ access to OCS services stated that Kagan asked the association to “facilitate some measure of interested student access to military representatives” to compensate for any inconveniences caused by the policy decision. The HLSVA complied by setting up an e-mail address for interested students to send confidential inquiries.

Although Kagan did not ban military recruiters, her critics claim that she created inadequate access to recruiting services for students interested in joining the military. In the same letter sent in spring 2005, the HLSVA conceded that the e-mail address “falls short” of duplicating the services of OCS, suggesting that Kagan’s restrictions complicated military recruitment for interested students.

Despite her opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Kagan maintained an exception to the school’s non-discrimination policy that allowed the military to recruit through the OCS as they had done since 2002, before she assumed the deanship.

Id.

In other words, when Ms. Kagan received complaints from the HLSVA that, the alternative venues she had proposed in lieu of recruiting directly through OCS; she reinstated the exception to the school’s non-discrimination policy, allowing military recruiting to take place through OCS, an exception that had been in place during the tenure of the previous Dean.

But in spring 2005, Kagan eliminated that exception in response to a Third Circuit Court decision that ruled as unconstitutional the Solomon Amendment, which grants the military agency to cut funding to a university that “prohibits, or in effect prevents” military recruiting. Kagan reinstated the exception only a few months later under pressure from the Department of Defense, which threatened to cut funding to the University….

Id.

Thus when the federal court struck down the law allowing the military to cut funding to schools that prohibit military recruiting, Ms. Kagan revoked the exception (to the school’s non-discrimination policy).  A few months later, the DoD threatened to cut funding to the University; and she reinstated the exception, thus again allowing the military to recruit through the OCS.

Presumably, this in-depth explanation allays any animus against Ms. Kagan’s confirmation which might have been based on a false belief she banned military recruiting at Harvard Law School and, by extension, that such prohibition evidenced Ms. Kagan held an objectionable animus to the pursuit of military service.

But the chances are slim to none that anyone on the Committee will ask Ms. Kagan about whether her record of principled independence portends she will be equally impartial when it comes to hearing cases argued before the bench by Professor Tribe.  And they should, as this would be a likely scenario, given that Mr. Tribe is among the top 30 lawyers who have argued the most cases before the Supreme Court since the beginning of the 20th century.  http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/lazarus/docs/articles/Lazarus_Advocacy_Matters_Before.pdf Yet, as you will see, when it comes to Larry Tribe, Ms. Kagan tends to act less like a seasoned legal professional and more like a deer caught in the headlights.

Larry Tribe is an admitted plagiarist and Dean Kagan knew this but chose to do nothing about it.

National Review Senior Editor Ramesh wrote this back in 2005.

In the spring of 2003, The Green Bag, a legal journal, published an essay by Tribe called “Public Rights, Private Rites: Reliving Richmond Newspapers For My Father.” It is a memoir of Tribe’s first argument before the Supreme Court, in 1980. The case grew out of a Virginia murder trial. The judge had closed the trial to the public, including both the victim’s family and reporters. Tribe represented the newspapers for which those reporters worked.

Tribe argued the case just two weeks after his father died. That fact, his essay explains, emboldened him to do something daring: to invoke the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.

The Ninth Amendment is the one that reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words: Just because the Constitution lists a bunch of rights doesn’t mean that we don’t have other rights that aren’t listed. Even people who think that’s a fine principle have been a bit puzzled about how the amendment should affect government in practice, and in particular about what judges should do with it….

And if that story casts Tribe as a forgotten hero of the Ninth Amendment — and thus, to some people, as a hero of the story of American liberty . . . Well, the essay leaves the impression that Tribe doesn’t mind that too much. The Richmond Newspapers decision, he writes, was a “landmark.”

But the record in front of the Supreme Court does not corroborate important parts of Tribe’s story. He didn’t argue his case in Ninth Amendment terms. Other parties in the case did, but not Tribe.

The Ninth Amendment did not appear in the statement Tribe filed asking the Supreme Court to review the case. There, Tribe said that Virginia had violated the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. At this stage of the litigation, it was the lawyers for the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the American Newspaper Publishers Association who made the Ninth Amendment argument, in their friend-of-the-court brief….

When he argued the case in front of the Supreme Court, Tribe didn’t mention the Ninth Amendment even once. (An audio transcript of the case is available online.) Fifteen minutes into it, a justice asked Tribe “just what provision of the Constitution [the Virginia statute] violates as applied in this case.” Tribe replied, “I think that it violates the Sixth Amendment, and the First, and the Fourteenth.” He spent the rest of his opening argument on the First and Sixth Amendments. Virginia’s lawyer, unsurprisingly, didn’t mention the Ninth either. Tribe got to make a rebuttal, in which the words “Ninth Amendment” again did not pass his lips.

http://old.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200502250845.asp

More recently – June 28, 2010 – there is this:  “Pearls Richer than Tribe:  Plagiarism allegations dog a Harvard Professor.”

In 2004, The Weekly Standard broke the story that much of his 1985 book God Save This Honorable Court had been taken, in one case word-for-word but usually with small adjustments, from Judges and Presidents, a 1974 book by historian Henry J. Abraham. Then–Harvard president Lawrence Summers, along with then–Harvard Law dean Elena Kagan, strongly condemned Tribe’s actions, but administered no punishment. (Tribe, Summers, and Kagan all now have ties to the Obama administration: Tribe, on leave from Harvard, runs the Justice Department’s Access to Justice Initiative; Summers is director of the National Economic Council; and Kagan is solicitor general and has been nominated to the Supreme Court.)…

http://article.nationalreview.com/437059/pearls-richer-than-tribe/robert-verbruggen?page=1

Last but by no means least, there is this scathing denouncement of the whole sordid plagiarism affair(s), by Massachusetts School of Law Dean Lawrence Velvel, posted on his blog, “Velvel on National Affairs,” in April 2005.  It deserves a full reading, not only because Dean Velvel painstakingly compares and contrasts the works in question but also because by doing so, he evidences the reasoned approach a legal scholar sans blinders might take when confronted with this same factual scenario.

Re: Larry Tribe, Larry Summers, And Elena Kagan: Because Of The Larry Tribe Affair, It Is Time For Larry Summers To Go …

… Finally, there is Elena Kagan, who has been Dean of the Harvard Law School since 2001. This relatively new Dean unfortunately got caught by a bad situation — by the Ogletree and Tribe matters, and by the Jack Goldsmith matter. But unhappily caught or not, she apparently has gone along with non-punishment of Tribe, and she joined Summers in his whitewashing statement about Tribe. She has also gone alone with what appears almost surely to be the defacto (and undisclosed) non-punishment of Ogletree. She has gone along with the hiring and retention of Jack Goldsmith, who apparently played a role and, after publication of The Torture Papers, more than ever seems to have played a role, in the American government’s abominable renditions to other countries for purposes of torture, and who refuses to talk about this matter. As discussed here in a December 15th posting, she was said by The Boston Globe to have defended Goldsmith’s presence at Harvard by telling it, and as far as I know she has never denied that she defended his presence in Cambridge by telling it, that he “‘puts issues on the table that everyone focuses on and debates’” (yeah — like renditions), that he is “‘a very agenda-setting scholar, and that’s exactly the kind of exciting scholarship that we want to have here’” (he certainly seems to have helped put renditions on the agenda), and that she is “‘as proud of his appointment as I could be.’” So Dean Kagan has gone along with Summers’ bad-results-producing actions regarding plagiarism, copycatting and ghostwriting, and, to boot, is very proud of hiring a teacher who seems to have played a fairly important role in the American government’s abominable and grossly illegal renditions. (Goldsmith’s role is described here pretty fully in the same December 15th post.) All of this seems no more praiseworthy than Summers’ actions, and perhaps, in some respects, worse, because torture is involved. So, in my view, Kagan too should go, just like Summers.

http://velvelonnationalaffairs.blogspot.com/2005/04/re-larry-tribe-larry-summers-and-elena_22.html

Conclusion

It is unlikely that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will question Supreme Court nominee Kagan as to whether she can be an effective jurist when ‘tossed into the arena” with Larry Tribe.  But perhaps they ought to.


NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (1 of 2)

August 25, 2009

© 2009 jbjd

The title of this post is inspired by a line in the last stanza from one of my favorite poems, Reluctance,  by my favorite poet, Robert Frost.

Ah, when to the heart of man
Was it ever less than a treason
To go with the drift of things,
To yield with a grace to reason,
And bow and accept the end
Of a love or a season?

I have always found giving up without a fight to be treasonous, especially when I am certain I am right.  And I am certainly right about Barack Obama.  That is, people within  the DNC selected him to become POTUS notwithstanding the evidence indicates he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a NBC.  Indefatigable, I have assembled this primer which, hopefully, will end the interminable farce over how best to address his Constitutional eligibility.    I name the names of those people responsible for depositing him in the Oval Office, and define the precise scope of their culpability, in anticipation that efforts to rectify this election anomaly will now be focused squarely on them.   Keep in mind that, by identifying the people with direct culpability, I am by definition ruling out everyone else.   For starters, this blameless faction includes Barack Obama.  Because even assuming he is not a NBC, without these others, he could never have gotten the job.

Recognizing the real culprits in this drama requires an understanding of the process for electing the POTUS, as spelled out in the Constitution.   Fortunately, our tax dollars paid for an enterprise that will contribute to such an understanding.  The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress published an excellent report entitled, “The Electoral College: How It Works,” which contains this concise summary on the Presidential election process.  Please, master this passage before you proceed.  (All emphasis to the original is mine.)  (jbjd note (08.05.10):  Subsequent to writing this article, I decided to stop referring to Electors using the word “College,”  as this term does not appear in the Constitution.)

When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from three to 55, for a total of 538. Anyone may serve as an elector, except for Members of Congress, and persons holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution. In each presidential election year, a group (ticket or slate) of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groups in each state, usually at a state party convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the election held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November (jbjd note:  date omitted). In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system. Maine and Nebraska use the district system, under which two electors are chosen on a statewide, at-large basis, and one is elected in each congressional district. Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December (jbjd note:  date omitted). They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. (jbjd note (08.05.10):  Some states have enacted laws that  require Electors to support the nominee of the party; but no faithless Elector has ever been prosecuted for violating this oath, and Congress has never failed to ratify the vote of the Electors even when this includes the votes of these faithless Electors.) Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. (jbjd note:  Congress enacted a law changing this date to January 8 just for the year 2009.)  A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win. This report will be updated as events warrant.

http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/28109.pdf

Thus, on January 8, 2009, Congress finalized the election of BO for POTUS when, exercising a procedure spelled out in the Constitution, they ratified the individual vote tallies from Electoral College votes cast in all 50 states, and the District of Columbia, which had been submitted to them via the Constitutionally prescribed process by then Vice President Cheney, the President of the Senate, who had received these totals directly from the individual state Electoral Colleges as required by the Constitution.  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

Immediately after this Congressional Ratification, self-identified “Patriots,” certain BO is not a NBC, flooded the blogosphere with hyperbolic rants against everyone in Congress for failing to insist on a Constitutional vetting of the man before voting for Ratification.  These so-called ‘Patriots’ referred to Congresspeople of both parties as “Traitors,” accusing their elected officials of committing “Treason” for failing to uphold the eligibility requirements for POTUS spelled out in the Constitution, even though, ironically, the Constitution itself  required Ratification once Congress was confident the Electoral College had conducted its vote in accordance with the ‘process’ prescribed by the Constitution.

In other words, Congress is not directly responsible for making BO POTUS but only for Ratifying the results of the voting undertaken by the Electoral College.  This means that they are also not responsible for the fact he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job, even assuming he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

This does not mean the Electoral College is directly responsible for making BO POTUS.

Neither the Constitution nor federal law prescribe the manner in which each state appoints its Electors other than directing that they be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  In most States, the Electors are appointed through a state-wide popular election (“general election”).

That is, voters only elect Electors in the state’s general election.

Currently, Electors are nominated to fill these positions by the political parties at their state party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each state. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to the party. Generally, they hold a leadership position in the party. Often, they are major party fundraisers.  They may be state elected officials but, the Constitution prohibits members of Congress from becoming Electors in the Electoral College.

Whether the names of these nominated Electors then appear on the ballot depends on election laws that vary state to state.  In some states, the names of these Electors appear along with the letter “D” or “R,” along with the name of the party nominee.  In other states, only the name of the nominee appears along with the designation of the party.  But regardless of the appearance of the names on the general election ballot, voters in each state only choose the electors on the day of the general election. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

Weeks after their ‘appointment’ by means of the general election, these elected state Electors meet in each state – this gathering of Electors is referred to as the Electoral College, although the term Electoral College does not appear in the Constitution – to cast votes for the next POTUS.   The Constitution is silent about the factors that go into their voting decision.  Thus, Electors are Constitutionally free to cast votes for whomever they want.  This means, they may even vote for a person who is not the nominee of their political party or, is not in the same party as the slate of Electors that won the state’s general election.  However, some states have enacted laws that require the slate of Electors receiving the largest popular vote in the state’s general election, must cast their votes for the Presidential nominee from the same political party.  In other words, in these states, if the D’s received more votes than the R’s, then the Electors for the D party must cast their votes for the D party nominee.  And every state except for NE and ME, and the District of Columbia are winner take all, meaning, all of the electoral votes assigned to that state (or the District of Columbia) must be cast by Electors of the winning political party.

Immediately after the vote of the Electoral College, self-identified “Patriots,” certain BO was Constitutionally ineligible for the job, flooded the blogosphere with hyperbolic rants against the Democrats in the Electoral Colleges who cast votes for BO without first vetting him for Constitutional qualifications.  These ‘Patriots’ referred to Electors representing the Democratic Party as “Traitors,” accusing them of committing “Treason” for failing to uphold the eligibility requirements spelled out in the Constitution.  But remember, the Constitution does not require Electors to vet the party candidate for President as to Constitutional eligibility,  being silent as to the qualification of the person Electors may elect for the job.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

In other words, the Electoral College is not directly responsible for making BO POTUS but only for casting their votes for him in accordance with both the Constitution and state law, as the nominee of the D party when that party was the winner of the state’s general election.  This also means that they are not responsible for the fact he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job, even assuming he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

Then, the responsibility for electing an ineligible POTUS must be found in a process directly related to his nomination.

(TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2 OF 2.)

When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for
presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors,
chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state
a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of
Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from
three to 55, for a total of 538. Anyone may serve as an elector, except for Members of
Congress, and persons holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution. In
each presidential election year, a group (ticket or slate) of candidates for elector is
nominated by political parties and other groups in each state, usually at a state party
convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than
the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the election
held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 2, 2004). In most
states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential
and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular
votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system. Maine
and Nebraska use the district system, under which two electors are chosen on a
statewide, at-large basis, and one is elected in each congressional district. Electors
assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December
(December 13, 2004). They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the
candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President,
after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral
vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6
of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538)
is required to win. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers