...the relative power of "evidence" vs. "narrative." By evidence, I mean the facts and clues that support an argument or hypothesis. By narrative, I mean propaganda. For example, there is evidence of fraud in Obama's identity documents, but such evidence does not fit the narrative that Obama's identity documents are authentic. In the face of narrative, We the People are supposed to ignore the evidence. All of our officials and elites do.
She predicts:
...unless voters come to view Barack Obama as a "socialist" - even a "democratic socialist" - and, as such, an existential threat to our (in theory) constitutional republic, President Obama, funny papers and all, will be re-elected in November.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
LETTER TO ATTORNEY APUZZO RE RECIENT NEW JERSEY COURT RULING
ReplyDeleteAttorney Mario Apuzzo
185 Gatzmer Ave, Jamesburg NJ 08831
Phone 732-521-1900
Mr. Apuzzo,
I've read your brief challenging Judge Masin's decision that Barrack Obama is allowed to appear on New Jersey's ballot. I've also watched some video of the court proceedings.
I understand that the court decided that New Jersey is not obligated by state law to verify the eligibility of presidential candidates. It appears that through legal maneuvering, the court has attempted to nullify the presidential eligibly provision of our Constitution. The decision implies that though this Constitutional provision exists, the state has no obligation to comply with or to uphold it!
I would point out that the Constitution is as much a part of New Jersey law as those laws enacted by state legislation. Furthermore, it is misguided to think that all Constitutional provisions must be null and without effect, unless it is specified who shall enforce them. The Constitution recognizes that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States or to the people, this includes the power of enforcement.
Since the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the obligation of verifying the integrity of State ballots, this responsibility falls directly upon the States. If it is argued that a state government does not have this obligation, then this power and obligation falls to the people. This would mean that any citizen of the state of New Jersey has the legal right to verify the integrity of a state ballot by challenging it in court, and to subpoena all necessary documentation and evidence.
It is so often a fallacy to suppose that by construing a law in a specific manner, one may nullify or avoid the consequence of that law. Certain provisions of our Constitution specify that Congress shall have the power to enforce those provisions. For example, it was expected that the States themselves ought to uphold the several Amendments protecting the rights of the newly-freed slaves. However, because it was observed that the Southern states were actively trying to nullify the rights of freed slaves, a provision was included in the "Reconstruction" amendments granting to Congress the power to enforce those amendments if necessary.
Also, the 18th amendment, (concerning Prohibition) provided that Congress and the several States together would have the power to enforce the amendment. As to the rest of the Constitution, (and as to the provision concerning presidential eligibility) our Founders did not think that they were signing a document which was only of introspective value. As already mentioned, the Bill of Rights recognizes that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States or to the people. The power of enforcement is a responsibility which cannot legally be set aside.
Regards,
Matthew Shockey
Phone 865-963-8409