Source: http://theconmil.com/node/17
Timestamp: 2018-02-26 03:05:23
Document Index: 735080643

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 171', '§ 171', '§ 181', '§ 171', '§ 182', '§ 182', '§ 171', '§ 181', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192', '§ 192']

How the Stomach Churns | The Constitutional Militant
A primer on mind numbing statutes
It is often stated that “we are a nation of laws, not of men.” This statement, originating from one of my ancestors John Adams, has been taught in every school of this nation. In contemporary context, it means nothing. I have stated previously that many people, I contend the majority of our citizens, believe that “the law” is meant for those outside their immediate peer group and is not applicable to their own. This is clearly evidenced by the recent mistakes made by both the RNC and DNC with respect to providing their list of “certified candidates” for the upcoming presidential election.
To understand the election code, you must understand the differences between the laws that govern political parties in Texas. There are three types of political parties recognized in the state of Texas. It breaks down as follows:
Primary Parties: those parties whose gubernatorial candidate in the last election who received 20% of the popular vote in the last gubernatorial election. These parties (Republicans and Democrats) are required to operate under § 171 of the Election Code. They are required to elect their ‘state, county and congressional’ candidates as well as their ‘county party officers’ via the primary election.
§ 171 of the Election Code
Parties with State Organization: those parties who have a state “Executive Committee” and hold conventions to nominate their candidates at all levels. In this category, you have the Libertarian, Constitution, Reform and Green parties. All of these parties are governed under § 181 of the Election Code. If they are fortunate enough to receive 5% of the popular vote in the General Election. Libertarians have done so as they receive double digit support in state-wide offices. However, the other parties in this category have failed to meet this requirement in recent history. Even though the Republican and Democratic parties hold conventions, they are still governed under § 171 as required by law.
Parties without State Organization: These parties have no state Executive Committee. Though they may make nominations for county and precinct officers at convention, they must obtain petition signatures in order to get their candidates on the ballot. I am unsure if there are any parties that operate under this chapter. However, if there are, they are governed under § 182 of the Election Code.
§ 182 of the Election Code
Regardless of which section of the election code you fall under, if you qualify for state ballot access under § 171 or § 181, you are required to meet the conditions under § 192 in order to have your Presidential Nominee to be placed onto the ballot. To be specific, the law that governs the placement on the ballot of presidential nominees is § 192.031. It reads as follows:
§ 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.
A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:
the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;
before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:
the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president; and
the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and
required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or
entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.
§ 192.031 of the Election Code
Let us break this down shall we?
Do all candidates “possess the qualification of those offices by federal law” as mandated under § 192.031 (1)? I have never questioned this. The governing “ruling authority” for this question would be the Federal Elections Commission. Therefore, should there be a discrepancy with respect to federal qualifications, we would have heard of such (hopefully).
Did the state party chairs sign and deliver to the Secretary of State a written certification of as mandated under § 192.031 (2)(A) the names of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president and (B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominate by the party PRIOR TO the 70th day before the presidential election? This year, that deadline was August 26th. Let’s take a look. The Republican national convention was held September 1-4. Therefore they did not meet this qualification. The Democratic national convention was held August 25-28. Therefore, they too failed to meet this qualification. The Libertarian party held their convention May 22-26 and did provide a “certified list” of their nominees for president, vice president and electors to the Secretary of State prior to the deadline.
Do these parties meet the criteria under § 192.031 (3)(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election or (B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181? Yes. The Republican and Democratic parties fall under § 192.031 (3)(A) and the Libertarian party falls under § 192.031 (3)(B).
On August 27, it was reported in the Ballot Access News that “Kim Kizer of the Texas Secretary of State’s elections division says neither major party’s certification has been received in the Elections Division. The Executive Office of the Secretary of State refers all questions back to the Elections Division”
There you have it. The Republican and Democratic National Committees failed to abide by the laws of the State of Texas and hold their conventions prior to the filing deadline, much less turn over a “certified list” of their nominees and electors. However, do you think these failures would compel our Secretary of State (Hope Andrade) to uphold the law?
§ 192.033(a) states “the secretary of state shall certify in writing for placement on the general election ballot the names of the candidates for president and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on the ballot.”
Laws, we don’t need no stinking laws
As we have proven above, beyond any reasonable doubt, neither the Republican nor Democratic parties are “entitled” to be on the ballot. Apparently, a little thing like THE LAW isn’t going to stop a public servant like Hope Andrade, who was appointed by Governor “Good Hair” Perry, from certifying these candidates. Indeed, she (Andrade) claimed, according to Fox News, that she “certified” the Republican and Democratic nominees on September 3. But wait! How can that be? How can she “certify” candidates that were not nominated until after the deadline? Short answer is that SHE CAN’T certify said candidates. She simply broke the law.
As a result, and according to the same Fox News article, the Barr campaign filed a lawsuit on September 17. On September 23, the Supreme Court of the State of Texas issued a one sentence “order” without explanation, simply stating that “THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS DENIED:”
Could anyone have thought the outcome would have been different considering that ALL members of the Supreme Court are members of an organization that failed to abide by the law?
It is painfully clear that these individuals, who took an oath to uphold the laws of this state, are in violation of their oaths of office. The law is clear. They simply chose to ignore the law and as a result they themselves have become criminals.
At this moment in time, it would appear that Mr. Barr will not take this matter to Federal Court, as Mr. Bush did in 2000. Additionally, I doubt that the Libertarian Party of Texas will seek relief from the Federal Courts as well. However, there is always an option for Mr. Obama to seek relief from the courts. After all, he will lose Texas anyway and if successful, he could deny 34 electoral votes from McCain.
One thing is clear. The election, as it stands, is illegitimate. I often hear conservative worry about “voter fraud” where fictitious voters cast votes, or voters vote more than once. However, the occurrence of voter fraud is a very rare crime and utilizing such is pure hyperbole. There is another type of fraud. It is called “election fraud” This is where members of “the government” violate the law in order to manipulate the outcome. This type of fraud is so prevalent in our history that books have been dedicated to the subject.
Can you say “organized crime?”
As the electoral votes have been stolen from their rightful recipient, whoever that may have been, be that Barr, Baldwin, McKinney or Nader (the latter three qualified as “write-in candidates) the facts remain clear. What we have witnessed in Texas is by definition “election fraud” and as such those individuals involved should be charged and tried for their crimes.
Are we a nation of laws? Or, are we a nation of “parties?” Does the law exist for the benefit of “the people?” Or are “the people” simply subject to “the law” at the whim of the two ruling parties? Additionally, considering the obvious connection to all parties involved who have ignored the law, could this not be construed as “organized crime?” Now perhaps you can understand why I left the GOP in 2000. Why would I wish to be associated with such obvious criminal activity? One can only hope that an honest individual, who is rather philanthropic and interested in justice, to pick up on this judicial travesty and challenge this criminal ruling to a higher authority.
Arrogance of aiding and abetting
Last night, a friend of mine called to ask if I watched the VP debate. I stated that since the election was illegitimate I did not. He asked why I felt it was illegitimate and I informed him of the situation. He simply dismissed “the law” and utilized typical responses. “We have to have a Republican on the ballot.” “How can the (the RNC) obey the law when they haven’t had their convention yet?” “Why do you wish to disenfranchise 95% of the voters?”
My responses remained consistent. The law is the law. If it isn’t applied equitably, it violates both the state and federal constitutions (equality clause). Are we to suggest that the RNC and DNC are not accountable to the law? Does “the state” control “the law?” Or, do these “parties” dictate the law to the state? I don’t wish to “disenfranchise” anyone. I did not fail in this endeavor…that honor goes to the leadership of ruling parties. In the end, it didn’t matter because “the law” made no difference to my friend. Of course no legal or moral argument would change his mind. After all, his political party must not be hindered in achieving their goal no matter what “the law” requires.
As I previously stated, “the vast majority” of people believe that “the law” is for “those people” outside of their immediate peer group. Can you deny this? Ask yourself, should the law be upheld? Or, should the law be ignored simply because the candidates are members of one of the tax-subsidized ruling parties? Equality under the law? Pure sophistry. There is no such thing. If a DA really wished to make a name for themselves, I would say that the time is now. Indictments and charges for election fraud against the following individuals would be warranted.
Hope Andrade - R
Wallace B. Jefferson – R
Nathan L. Hecht – R
Harriet O'Neill – R
Dale Wainwright – R
Scott A. Brister – R
David M. Medina – R
Paul W. Green - R
Don R. Willett – R
Alas, I will not hold my breath. Why? Because every DA in this state is a member of one of the ruling parties and as I have stated, the law only applies to “those people.” The ruling parties are above the law.
Franklin stated, upon exiting the Constitutional Convention, that we were given "a Republic, if you can keep it." Our ability to do so is demonstrated above. The Republic is dead. The tree of liberty deserves to be shaken.