A brief submitted to an appeals court in California explains that elections officials in California had a duty to examine Barack Obama’s eligibility to the office of president during the 2008 election.
WND previously has reported on the case brought by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes and others.
He has argued that a judge’s earlier dismissal of the case ignored significant precedents, that state officials previously removed from the ballot a nominee for president simply because he did not meet constitutional eligibility requirements and in another situation, a court actually removed agovernment’s chief elected executive from office for not being eligible.
North Dakota Gov. Thomas Moodie, removed from office when the state Supreme Court found him ineligible
A multitude of cases have been brought over the issue of Obama’s eligibility. Some are by critics who have doubts about whether he was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, and others are from those who question whether the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama’s father was a subject of the British crown at Obama’s birth – from being eligible for the presidency.
The disputes revolve around the Constitution’s demand that the president be a “natural born citizen.”
In his reply brief to Obama’s arguments the case should be dismissed, Kreep argues that even though Obama’s attorneys argue that “jurisdiction over presidential qualifications lies with the United States Congress,” that actually is not a full explanation.
He cites the U.S. Constitution that “each state” shall appoint a number of electors, and “this case concerns itself primarily with California state election law and the compliance or non-compliance by the secretary of state in fulfilling her ministerial duties as chief elections officer of California.”
“This is not a political question, but is, rather, a question well within the jurisdiction of this court to determine, as it is a duty that may be compelled by this court’s equitable power,” he wrote.
A remedy is proper at state level where a duty is imposed on a state officer. The underlying writ does not require anything of any federal official, but does require Respondent [Debra] BOWEN, the California Secretary of State, to fulfill a specific duty to verify that a candidate meets the eligibility requirements for the office that the candidate is seeking. This is a matter of first impression, and RESPONDENT’S correctly assert that there is not yet any statutory or judicial rule which requires this duty of the Secretary of State. However, it is a duty that is reasonably inferred from the already existing duties of said office,” he argues.
Kreep’s earlier appeal documentation had explained the precedents that he believes should be applied.
“In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver’s birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president,” the brief, being filed this week, argues.
“Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver, unsuccessfully, challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States, which affirmed the actions.”
Also, the governor of North Dakota was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution’s eligibility requirements.