Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: SCOTUS Denies Application for Stay/Injunction
The Supreme Court orders denied Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz application for staying the election as well as requesting that the Court would grant an injunction disallowing the Electoral College to hold its vote today until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be finally determined:
08A469
WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay and/or injunction addressed
to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.
CitizenWells’ letter to the Electoral College presents the next potential opporutnity along the process of attempting to inform the nation about Barack Obama’s seeming ineligibility to serve in the office of the President. Also, I have my thoughts on the next steps in this process.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
State-based initiatives for electoral reform can be found here.
Naturally, this posting will be updated as circumstances warrant.
Update: CitizenWells isn’t happy about this decision at all. Read up on what he’s doing about it.
Update: InvestigatingObama’s question may be “asked and answered:” Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote?
-Phil
21 responses to Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: SCOTUS Denies Application for Stay/Injunction
How does a technically, illegal alien, make it under the FBI’s radar, and get to this point in our election process? After all of the Red Flags that have flown for “Obama” why hasn’t there been an investigation by the FBI? Aren’t they supposed to protect Americans from threats of this nature? Where’s Elliot Ness when you need him?
Guess our Constitution is dead as of today then.
Talk about depressing.
rrobin,
I’m not sure I would go that far (I’ve already gone on record saying it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS would ever stay the Electoral College vote, and there are a number of good reasons for this, not the least of which is the Electors, per se, can now be held to account in their respective States).
In my opinion, this process has only started; a second of a number of SCOTUS cases being denied a hearing only means (1) SCOTUS seemingly wants the Legislative to handle this, and (2) it is a State-based issue, based on the fact that a denial means a lower court ruling holds.
-Phil
How does the electorate hold the electores responsible for this miscarrage. Also, Phil, how does the Legislative Branch handle this if that is what the Supremes seem to want?
Phil, Thanks, your Post 3 sounds highly encouraging.
Suzanne,
Read through some of the links I’ve provided in this posting.
In theory, the public could hold the Electors to account by launching lawsuits against them, considering the fact that voters directly voted for the Electors, and the Electors are currently responsible for making sure they’re picking an eligible candidate (since they’re hacks of the party, and the party has the documentation saying that these candidates are eligible).
Ultimately, Congress — with at least 1 Representative and 1 Senator — can move to object to Electoral College vote certification. That is one thing that definitely can happen.
I hope that helps.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
Phil,
I think that you cannot constitutionally hold the Electors bound to voting for an ineligible candidate, because seeminly the Constitution, taken in a minimal sense, holds only the Senate bound to accept the election of an eligilbe candidate.
However, I do believe the constitutional role of the Supreme Court is now over. Because in refusing to prevent the miscarraige of justice, wherein votes in NJ and CT were offered illegitimate ballots for a national election, they have given the green light to SOSs to avoid accountability and defraud the electorate.
The Supreme Court is also declaring that it holds only Federal and State Laws up for enforcement, and discount oaths of office to uphold the Constitution, and the binding force of any language in the Consitution.
Thus the Constitution is no longer the law of the land, it is only a inspirational limit or litmus test for legislators and the court. Or in other words, if it is not in federal law, don’t think the US Constitution has any legal effect.
This is disastrous for a constitutional republic, and I believe that Leo is correct, the Constitutional Republic died this morning, Dec 15th, 2008.
[...] The Right Side of Life » Blog Archive » Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz … CitizenWells’ letter to the Electoral College presents the next potential opporutnity along the process of attempting to inform the nation about Barack Obama’s seeming ineligibility to serve in the office of the President. … [...]
[...] http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1865 [...]
I think the unanswered question still is who has jurisdiction to command official documents of proof of Natural Born Citizenship – heck, even citizenship if there is doubt in the history of the candidate.
Now, if the electors do not reference letters of citizens concerned that they may have been disenfranchised and they elect without documentation, could not then other lawsuits begin in states afterwards and THEN would there be a stronger basis for SCOTUS to take a look? I see it really as a CATCH 22. Courts need evidence. Authorities of the states say they cannot ask for evidence – not their duty, etc.
Somebody has to come up with some photocopied evidence – either by payoffs to the third world officials or someone else talking here who has seen sealed records. Or would the IL gov. know something? I guarantee if it were the opposition some “in depth” journalist would make a lot of noise until it was forced out to the open air.
Ultimately, Congress — with at least 1 Representative and 1 Senator — can move to object to Electoral College vote certification. That is one thing that definitely can happen.
I believe they then have an hour for discussion, but if there is not a strong objection by others they’ll simply vote to confirm. But at least the discussion hopefully would be shown to the public and there would be an introduction of these doubts to the ignorant and later, if those disillusioned by Obama’s playing both sides against the middle – the libs and progressives – there could be more questioning of his rightful status by the former lemmings.
Thanks, Phil. I guess it’s just so depressing that SCOTUS won’t even allow a hearing on this issue. And now I go to check the news at the DD site and I find THIS message:
“Sorry rrobin, you are banned from using this forum!
obama mole”
I have no idea what this is about and I can’t even go there to ask. Can you check for me? You know very well I’m NOT an Obama mole!
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
I have to say that I disagree with Leo that the Constitutional Republic died this morning, Dec 15th, 2008. I think our Constitutional Republic has died in the hearts of man over many years. Dismal, yet enlightening, for in the hearts of men will this Republic be ressurected, if it will at all.
Here’s another quote from Leo’s blog that demonstrates the true problem in this country:
“I love God. God loves me. And I can’t help but think, with every sin we’ve committed as a country, that God is removing his protection. I’ve got one of the greatest rock and roll albums of all time coming out next year. I play golf when I like or poker when I like… I don’t have a boss. My time is my own.”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to criticize the guy. But he’s no John Adams. I’m not either. Until people of that magnitude in character and fortitude step up to the plate, or until those without such would gain such, we’re fighting a losing battle.
Phil,
Only stayed for half of the PA electoral vote, it was just a party celebration. Was not allowed to distirbute any literature and the electors were kept seperate from the spectators. There were more electors, senators and representatives present than spectators.
I got there early and went to the correspondants room and talked with an AP writer and another writer from a NE PA daily. Both took the time to go over the four page hand out with me and appeared somewhat suprised hearing about the natural born citizen issue. Don’t expect anything to happen with them.
Time to move on to the next phase of the battle.
Eric
[...] Committee, Donofrio, Faith, fraud, politics, POTUS, president, SCOTUS, Vote, Wrotnowski | via the Right Side of Life The Supreme Court orders denied Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz application for staying the election as [...]
[...] December 15th, 2008 [...]
SCOTUS has now prevented itself from acknowleding the question whether Obama is or is not a “natural born citizen” (as distinguished from “citizen”) three times and counting: First before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors. Other cases on the same question are at, or are heading to, SCOTUS. Whether SCOTUS ultimately decides if Obama is or is not a “natural born citizen” only after the Electors vote, only after Congress acts on the Electors’ vote, prior to Obama’s inauguration, or only after Obama’s inauguration, SCOTUS will have to decide — or the people and/or the military will. The issue no longer is Obama. The issue is SCOTUS.
rrobin,
I’m basically a lurker at the DD forum. I am not in agreement with the way that that forum conducts itself, but that’s out of my hands.
-Phil
I am so about sick of this wonderful justice system they call the US Supreme Court. They have just VIOLATED the Constitution of the US by allowing a non born citizen to take the office of the President of the United States of America.
I have just lost total respect for our entire justice system and they are so not above the law either.
Is there anyway that we as American citizens could sue the judges for violation of our own laws? A civil suit and a personal suit against each of them and the Pelosi gang. Why can’t we do a class action law suit? We need to show these so called leaders that they work for us not for themselves and we want our constitution upheld.
glsmariton,
The sovreign immunity clause prevents citizens from suing govt. officials and judges for crimes they commit in office. They only can be impeached, if statutes exist for that. Congress alone has the authority to impeach SCOTUS judges. And considering they’ve just agreed with the majority of Congress, it seems they were interested only in their self interest, not the Constitution…
Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.