ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Obama Citizenship Blogs -> The Right Side of Life

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Obama Citizenship

: The Right Side of Life

Candidate Qualification: Countering the DNC on Eligibility

By Phil

ADVERTISEMENTS

In my continuing coverage of Candidate Qualification, Justin Riggs, blogger at yourfellowcitizen.com is currently mulling over a different tactic of holding someone accountable for a candidate’s official eligibility:

The United States Democratic Party consists of two separate entities: the Democratic National Committee, which is an unincorporated association, and the DNC Services Corporation, which is “a District of Columbia non-profit corporation that is controlled by the elected national officers of the Democratic National Committee, owns the assets, employs the staff and possesses the contractual rights and obligations of the Democratic National Committee.” (p. 5 of PDF) [emphasis in original]
 
Originally, state open records acts only applied to governmental agencies, but as governments have outsourced more and more of their functions, several court cases have arisen involving the right of the public to access documents held by private, non-profit corporations. In several of these cases, the courts held that the public did have a right to access to the requested information. Two examples of these types of cases are Gannon and Nichols v. The Board of Regents of The State of Iowa and Kimberly Kay Allen v. John Day. The courts seem particularly sympathetic to the plaintiff when the organization being petitioned for information is functionally a government agency, or is performing a government function, both of which define what the DNC Services Corporation is and is doing.
 
My feeling is that a court would be more likely to rule in a plaintiff’s favor under the circumstances which have arisen under the current controversy (I’m no lawyer, of course). After all, how can a citizen be expected to perform their duty to elect an eligible President if the parties legally responsible for ensuring the eligibility of their candidate won’t share the information necessary to make a rational and informed decision? This information is vital, and of a national interest.
 
Because of the Hawaii Certification of Nominations, we now know who certified Barack Obama as eligible to serve as President under the provisions of the Constitution, and when they did so. The only information we are missing is this: what information was presented to these officials that allowed them to make their determination of eligibility? Procuring that information is our next goal at http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com.

Justin has been performing exemplary work over at his blog. Do check it out sometime; it’s full of communications with State and party officials from across America.

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on December 31, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0207 secs (new cache)