October 29, 2009

Birthers Lose Another Lawsuit
— Gabriel Malor

Alright, that's not news. The news is that the judge wrote what will probably be the most in-depth discussion (30 pages) of the issues that have plagued the Birther lawsuits: standing, separation of powers, and the political question doctrine.

First, for the first time a court has suggested that failed presidential candidates like Alan Keyes might have standing to sue the President over constitutional eligibility. This is the argument that Ace has been making for a while. As Ace said long ago, somebody out there should have standing. The court in this case considered several possible plaintiffs and found each lacking: active military, retired military, state representatives, taxpayers, and distant Obama relatives (!!!).

When it came to presidential candidates, though, the judge noted "the political candidate plaintiffs are the only category of plaintiffs who potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement[.] [T]he Court will turn to whether the political candidates can satisfy the redressability requirement of the standing analysis."

That's where the plaintiffs failed. As I have been arguing all along, the Constitution does not commit any authority to the courts to depose Presidents. Sole constitutional authority to remove sitting presidents rests with Congress. Thus, there is no remedy for the courts to provide.

So the lawsuit was dismissed. Oh, and lest I forget, Orly Taitz took it in the teeth (again). The judge was not amused by her antics. I LOLed at this observation:

While Plaintiffs removed Mueller in their First Amended Complaint following the Court’s suggestion that they narrow and focus their claims, they insisted upon the continued inclusion of the First Lady, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President as Defendants. [FN2]

FN2. The inclusion of the First Lady in this lawsuit, considering she holds no
constitutional office, is baffling.

But seriously, Taitz is probably facing a bar complaint over several of her claims, which the court called "inexcusable", and for some possibly criminal behavior. I've tucked that portion of the decision below the fold.

The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.

This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. ... Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel.

Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.

Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.

While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.

This observation at the very end of the decision, however, seems a bit much to me, as it is not so much directed at these particular plaintiffs as it is their counsel and the Birther movement in general:

Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction.

The judge is right, of course, but he probably shouldn't have blamed these particular plaintiffs for the behavior of a fairly varied group of people.

For your nighttable reading pleasure, the decision is here (PDF) or if that's not working here.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:13 PM | Comments (219)
Post contains 861 words, total size 6 kb.

1 I don't buy the birther thing, but I am pissed that as a citizen I cannot make a presidential candidate prove that he meets the Constitutional requirements for president.  That is just wrong.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 29, 2009 05:19 PM (NgoAe)

2 The judiciary here thinks they're above criticism too.

Posted by: andycanuck at October 29, 2009 05:21 PM (2qU2d)

3 RACISTS!

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at October 29, 2009 05:25 PM (UaSIe)

4 Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary

That's what really got the judge.  Forget everything else, you must not criticize the robed ones.

It seems that Taitz' tactics are showing disrespect to the judiciary, though.  It must waste the courts' time having such frivolous lawsuits.  Next thing you know, she'll be suing Pepsi with some client who claims to have invented bottling water.

How silly.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 29, 2009 05:26 PM (ItSLQ)

5

Heh uh heh.  Uh, have you heard uh the one the one uh Rahm eruh uh , the uh one uh about uh how I got eruh, um these heh uh jug uh er uh ears?

BLACK TACO!

Have you seen Michelle's arms? The grrl's got a grip! Heh!

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at October 29, 2009 05:30 PM (UaSIe)

6 Oh, and why hasn't Alan Keyes been a plaintiff in one of these lawsuits yet?  As soon as I heard that judges were dismissing these cases based on standing, I figured he would have stepped up to the plate.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 29, 2009 05:34 PM (ItSLQ)

7 #1, I agree.  And I salute the balanced nature of your remark

Posted by: ParisParamus at October 29, 2009 05:39 PM (+nlbr)

8 I don't buy the birther thing, but I am pissed that as a citizen I cannot make a presidential candidate prove that he meets the Constitutional requirements for president.  That is just wrong.

You can and, in fact, did in the last presidential election. You're just not entitled to then go to the courts when you don't like the answer you got.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 29, 2009 05:41 PM (Mi2wf)

9 If I am understanding this correctly, even if the President would be deemed unqualified by lack of natural birth, the remedy would be the same as impeachment, through the congress. Fat chance of that happening.

Posted by: rawmuse at October 29, 2009 05:43 PM (V/ZfA)

10

Saluting the camera at Dover

There was very little press on BHO's 4 am photo at Dover this morning. About families being asked to come and pose with their loved ones' remains at 4 am

HT Instapundit

And didn't Michelle look lovely with the vets at the World Series last night? /

Next, they'll be wrapping themselves in the American flag.  The flag that they wouldn't wear or salute before/during the campaign.  The flag that Bill Ayers stomped a couple of years ago.

grr

Anything but making a decision to help the troops in harm's way. Ditherer-in-Chief.

Posted by: Rewrite! at October 29, 2009 05:46 PM (UaSIe)

11

If I am understanding this correctly, even if the President would be deemed unqualified by lack of natural birth, the remedy would be the same as impeachment, through the congress.

Fat chance of that happening.

 

And if it did happen, you'd get President Biden and VP Pelosi.  Which doesn't sound like an improvement to me...

Posted by: jic at October 29, 2009 05:48 PM (Pdh30)

12 You can and, in fact, did in the last presidential election. You're just not entitled to then go to the courts when you don't like the answer you got.

Barack publicly presented his birth certificate during the last election?  When was that, I must have slept through it.  It's possible, I do sleep a lot.

Or did you mean the challenge to McCain?

Posted by: Methos at October 29, 2009 05:52 PM (IoxPW)

13

Yes, I understand all that but, what was Michelle wearing?  Wasn't Bush golfing in the middle of a war, the heartless bastard?  Jobs created or saved, that's what I want to hear.  Magic!  That's the ticket.  Watch as we cover 30 million people who don't have insurance for less money!  At no time will the fingers leave the hand!  Using the post office and social security as a model!  Damn, the great and powerful O. 

I'm gonna go throw up, go to bed, pull the covers over my head and hope against hope that this is all a terrible nightmare.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at October 29, 2009 05:55 PM (r1h5M)

14 You can and, in fact, did in the last presidential election. You're just not entitled to then go to the courts when you don't like the answer you got.

I would argue that if it is simply an electoral matter, then it need not be in the Constitution, otherwise it would simply be a guideline for voters.

My view on this goes exclusively to the media.  That a major presidential candidate, let alone a president himself can get away with repressing what is presumably a relatively innocuous piece of information and not get an eyebrow raise from the media is pretty disgusting.  There is certainly no journalistic curiosity anymore.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 29, 2009 05:55 PM (ItSLQ)

15  I mean the COLB released after the proto-Birthers made a fuss. The COLB that only encouraged them.  The COLB that they don't believe even after Hawaii officials verified Obama's birth citizenship. 

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 29, 2009 06:01 PM (Mi2wf)

16 Proof good enough for lawyers maybe. Just kidding, Gabe. But, seriously, official government documents can be as close to the truth as Goldilocks and the Three Bears. (There's just no way Papa Bear's soup was too hot.) There exists a reasonable possibility that Obama was born overseas and his official documents are based on lies. Obama's life story begins in a murky scene. People want something more than paper with stamps on them. The State Department has his passport applications, for example. This is a political matter more than a legal one because he's in office and only time will change that.

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 06:01 PM (F+Eaw)

17 She should have shown him her taitz.

Posted by: Rewrite! at October 29, 2009 06:01 PM (UaSIe)

18 http://patriotroom.com/article/hot-oof-the-press-full-text-of-pelosi-hc-bill SORRY BUT 1219 TO 1247 HAS TO BE FISKED NOW AND GET ITS OWN POST.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at October 29, 2009 06:02 PM (m5aSu)

19 And if it did happen, you'd get President Biden and VP Pelosi.  Which doesn't sound like an improvement to me...

Actually, no.  AFAIK, you'd get POTUS Biden (question: what is preferable, a competent despot or an incompetent pompous jerk?) but the VP slot is empty until Biden would fill it or he's incapacitated and then it would be POTUS Pelosi.

Posted by: AmishDude at October 29, 2009 06:03 PM (ItSLQ)

20 Damn I suck at linking the original link is at gateway pundit. The shit sets up gov health centers and gov directed specialties and areas.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at October 29, 2009 06:04 PM (m5aSu)

21 They now control student loans, it is in this freakin bill to get your student loan money refunded you serve for a couple of years in their specialty or area.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at October 29, 2009 06:04 PM (m5aSu)

22 If he was born in Kenya and then brought to Hawaii at a very young age, how did he get here? Transporter, plane, balloon, ship? A plane ticket to Hawaii for a certain young lady with a new born son would be interesting.

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 06:05 PM (F+Eaw)

23 A phrase was uttered by a guest on CNBC today and no one batted an eyelash, the guest called our politicians, "the political class".  That's about the third or fourth time I've heard that little phrase and I don't like it because it sort of like saying "the political elite" and when I think of "the political elite" I think of the queen of England or the Pope.  It doesn't make me think of elected officials who are supposed to know that they work for the people and can't seem to remember that salient fact.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 06:06 PM (p302b)

24 Boy, Nancy, your tits sure put out some sour milk! 2000 pages of Socialistic Fascism.

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 06:07 PM (F+Eaw)

25 What ever happened to honest cloud? She'd be humping this bill's leg like crazy by now.

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 06:09 PM (F+Eaw)

26 The birthers are going about this all wrong.

He's not hiding it because he was born in Kenya. He's hiding it because of the data that would finger Frank Marshall Davis as his biological father.

Posted by: Larry Sinclair at October 29, 2009 06:15 PM (DtTM9)

27 Boy, that lawyer Gary, sure is a Kreep!

Is there no room in the human condition for zealous advocates who can argue this case without going over the edge/arround the bend?  Sad, in a way.

Posted by: ParisParamus at October 29, 2009 06:15 PM (Fr5dq)

28 From what I understand the "campaign" has sent out emails, almost non stop, asking the faithful to write cards, letters and emails to their representatives in Washington.  So, while the republicans and conservatives sat back and figured they had this one.  And while they allowed a few senators and congressman to say "don't worry it's not happening (which is what mcconnell said in an interview yesterday) the minions were busy as little bees making sure they get their public option and their bill.  Can't wait, when this bill is passed, in the middle of the night, after adding two thousand additional pages of pork (bribes for votes) for McConnell to have to watch his taped interview and eat his words.  He was very sure and I think he was wrong to be so sure with this bunch, they never give up, they keep punching until you get knocked out and don't know what hit you.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 06:15 PM (p302b)

29 I don't understand what the big deal is. His BIRTH CERTIFICATE is on the internet for everyone to see! Idiots!

Posted by: Chris Matthews at October 29, 2009 06:16 PM (DtTM9)

30 9 If I am understanding this correctly, even if the President would be deemed unqualified by lack of natural birth,

What, like if MacObama was from his mother's womb, untimely ripp'd, or something?

Posted by: Alex at October 29, 2009 06:17 PM (NKDuS)

31 Actually I think everyone is going about this the wrong way.

Correct Question: Why did Obama (who promised transparency) hire at least 6 law firms (when sued in 6 the states) and spend over $500K fighting the release of his Birth Certificate?   Doesn't it make more sense for him to spend $50 and release it?   What's the explanation?

Answer:  Obama is being respectful to John Kerry and waiting for Kerry to first release his military records (as he promised to do years ago) or he's hiding something.

Posted by: LouisianaLightning at October 29, 2009 06:22 PM (Nsz+x)

32 Why aren't people making money off this guy?  Especially in this recssion or joe biden's depression, whichever you prefer.  You would think that the girl who played with him in the kitchen in nursery school and the guys who hung out with him at the madrassa would all want a NY Times best seller.  You would think his buds at Columbia undergrad and his professrs would be out there telling funny anecdotes about him and about them knowing someday he would be the prez.  You would think his law school buds would be out there writing about their all nighters together and watching him argue his first case.  You would think his friends in his summer class would have funny stores about lunches with the partners and serious conversations about what he wanted to do with his life.  Heck, in this day and age, having a NY Times best seller means you can pay off the mortgage and the credit cards, means you can make the rounds promoting your book.  It's good press for him too....yet.. silence...really money is a great motivator...so why no books?

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 06:23 PM (p302b)

33 What's good for Jack Ryan's sealed records should be good for Obama's.

Posted by: Buckleyfan at October 29, 2009 06:25 PM (DtTM9)

34 spend over $500K fighting the release of his Birth Certificate?
Posted by: LouisianaLightning at October 29, 2009 11:22 PM (Nsz+x)

Do you have any actual proof of those numbers?

I see that 'fact' thrown around all the time in these threads and no one has ever provided any substantiation of that particular point.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 06:25 PM (ur6Ar)

35

30 9 If I am understanding this correctly, even if the President would be deemed unqualified by lack of natural birth,

What, like if MacObama was from his mother's womb, untimely ripp'd, or something?

**********************************************

Well, that NEA hack compared him to Caesar just the other day, right?


 

Posted by: effinayright at October 29, 2009 06:25 PM (k6cRx)

36 9 If I am understanding this correctly, even if the President would be deemed unqualified by lack of natural birth,

What the judge said was, the courts can get involved in these questions (under certain conditions) before the inauguration. Once someone takes the oath and becomes President, the courts have no role to play because they can't offer a remedy even if the plaintiffs prove their case.

This ruling, as least as it applies to other candidates, is about timing more than anything.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 06:31 PM (ur6Ar)

37 Heads up...e news just said Jon gosselein has a new apology for kate and the kids and, and a bizarre connection to Michael Jackson....no that my friends, is news....

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 06:32 PM (p302b)

38

This is your government..Breaks Egg in hot skillet. This is your gov on drugs.

Any questions?

Posted by: lowest strata at October 29, 2009 06:32 PM (c56Ft)

39 Besides where s the bacon?

Posted by: lowest strata at October 29, 2009 06:35 PM (c56Ft)

40 I survived the 2008 campaign season and all I got was this lousy President?

Posted by: The Dread Pirate Neck Beard at October 29, 2009 06:36 PM (27nOK)

41 As I have been arguing all along, the Constitution does not commit any authority to the courts to depose Presidents. Sole constitutional authority to remove sitting presidents rests with Congress. Thus, there is no remedy for the courts to provide.

Your reasoning is circular.  And so is the court's. 

The court said that it can't be in the position of deciding if Obama is actually President because he's already been sworn in and is therefore President.

Uh, wrong.  He was never President if he is not qualified.  His election and assumption of office would be VOID ab initio. 

He would not be "deposed."  He would be determined to have never been a sitting President in the first place. 

Just because there was a ceremony -- an exercise in theatrical rituals of politics -- doesn't change the historical reality of his birth place.  If he was not born in the US, he was never President.  All this talk about "deposing" sitting Presidents, by both you and the court, is muddled and sloppy.

Posted by: Phinn at October 29, 2009 06:42 PM (GiUTT)

42 Sole constitutional authority to remove sitting presidents rests with Congress.

Interesting nutshell.

A President popular with the Legislature may do, literally, anything he wants.

A President popular with the Judiciary may do, literally, anything he wants.

This stool has only one leg.

This President, with this Court, and this Legislature, should declare that elections are over - kaput - we have gone from a Republic to an Empire.


Posted by: Druid at October 29, 2009 06:43 PM (Gct7d)

43 "You can and, in fact, did in the last presidential election. You're just not entitled to then go to the courts when you don't like the answer you got."

I know you hate the birthers Gabe, but this is ridiculous.  There are 3 Constitutional requirements for being president.  The fact that a person can run without proving that all 3 are met is wrong.  It's even more wrong that a citizen can't redress the government and demand proof that the president has met all of those requirements.  The fact that this simple point doesn't not get 100% agreement through out the country and not even the Right is scary.  I have not seen the evidence and I will concede as I mentioned in the first post that Obama 99.99% most likely meets the requirements, but as a citizen I have every right to demand the evidence.  I also have the right to demand evidence that every other candidate that ran for president met those requirements.  The fact that we cannot demand to see the evidence is just as bad as the attempts to limit free speech or attempts to take away our right to bear arms.  This is another example of politicians wiping their ass with the Constitution and it pisses me off. 

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 29, 2009 06:46 PM (HAdov)

44 is this cross posted at Little Green Footballs?

Posted by: Ben at October 29, 2009 06:47 PM (bftbi)

45 - we have gone from a Republic to an Empire.

Forced to agree. If a President with a pliant Congress can't be held to account by those who elected him, then it looks like the Constitution really is a suicide pact after all. This is now - officially - not going to end well

Posted by: OFA Stalker at October 29, 2009 06:52 PM (+Gze8)

46 All these politicians are crooks and they all have the goods on each other, that's why they all keep their mouths shut.

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 06:56 PM (F+Eaw)

47 Maybe the remedy they seek is proof that he should never have been elected in the first place and therefore can not run again. I bet the courts could provide that remedy.

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 06:58 PM (F+Eaw)

48

This is your government..Breaks Egg in hot skillet. This is your gov on drugs.

Any questions?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

O  This is your brain

.    This is your brain on drugs

_______________________

.    This is your anus

O   This is your anus in prison.

Posted by: Rewrite! at October 29, 2009 06:59 PM (UaSIe)

49 Since duh1's Dad was a Kenyan it doesn't matter where the SOB was born...he's simply not a natural born citizen. Why is this complicated?...'cause it's not.

Posted by: torabora at October 29, 2009 07:01 PM (H1b4W)

50 we have gone from a Republic to an Empire with thunderous applause

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 29, 2009 07:01 PM (HAdov)

51 49, His Mom was Murican. That's enough if some other stuff is ok like age and stuff.

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 07:03 PM (F+Eaw)

52

I will admit. If I was given power to over see one or two TRILLION DOLLARS. I might get a little headish overboard what with dispensing it

Who would miss a couple billion?

Heh.

Posted by: lowest strata at October 29, 2009 07:05 PM (c56Ft)

53 Will Darth Bama make a speech before Congress while shrouded in a Sith snuggie?

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 07:05 PM (F+Eaw)

54

is this cross posted at Little Green Footballs?

Is it true that Charles cross dresses when he molests children?

Posted by: David Letterman at October 29, 2009 07:06 PM (UaSIe)

55

Will Darth Bama make a speech before Congress while shrouded in a Sith snuggie?

You mean that he's not the 12th Imam??!

Posted by: Dinnerjacket at October 29, 2009 07:07 PM (UaSIe)

56 We are the nuancing and parsing country now.  Before the libs said that GWB was ruining our stature in the world and now they are quietly whispering that we are being laughed at.  they are angry that we are being laughed at and that our money is moving all over the world and they are not angry with the prez, they are angry with the world.  funny how with GWB it was his fault but with BO it's the world's fault.  Anyhoo, I think it is mad funny that this group can't seem to get anything they want or maybe they can't seem to get it right.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 07:09 PM (p302b)

57 Does anyone else get the feeling that any right we have as a citizen, if it gets in the way of Obama's ambitions, will suddenly become null and void?

Posted by: obama is a traitor at October 29, 2009 07:10 PM (Qt4Y7)

58 Look, I know you guys say "don't hang with libs" but you know I hear a lot of stuff that way.  anway tonight had a rather loud discussion with someone about the Constitution.  she claims it is a nice little document appropriate to the time and that the second amendment does not apply in this day and age since it was crafted to address militias.  I of course vociferously disagreed.  This my friends, was an attorney.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 07:14 PM (p302b)

59 Why aren't people making money off this guy?

I'm sure all the people he's surrounded himself with are. I have no doubt we're victims of the greatest act of looting and theft in human history.

As for the rest - classmates, etc., most seem to be fellow travelers, while the remainder decided to stay quiet when an SEIU member or New Black Panther showed up at the front door with a baseball bat.

Posted by: obama is a traitor at October 29, 2009 07:15 PM (Qt4Y7)

60 The reason why many people think that this birth certificate business is just silly is because everyone views the team of hill/bill as nearly unstoppable.  Everyone asumes that if there was something to this birth certificate stuff that hillary would have been all over it as she would stop at nothing to be president, nothing.  That is why most people take it all with a grain of salt.   Which, btw, most people take her "I'm not running in 2012" crap as just that crap.  Everyone expects her to run

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 07:17 PM (p302b)

61 Since duh1's Dad was a Kenyan it doesn't matter where the SOB was born...he's simply not a natural born citizen. Why is this complicated?
Posted by: torabora at October 30, 2009 12:01 AM (H1b4W)

Because that definition doesn't actually appear in any statute, judicial case or constitutional clause.

I'm happy to be shown that's not the case.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 07:20 PM (ur6Ar)

62 Newt when little green lizard a long time ago. adios amigo.

Posted by: wildwood at October 29, 2009 07:33 PM (VSWPU)

63 The guy taught Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law.  What makes anyone think that they can outsmart Harvard Law on Constitutional Law...it is so not happening.  If you think of it, they thought of it yesterday.  What people are seeing is that the system and the law is capable of being manipulated.  Not just by democrats and liberals but by  republicans and conservatives too.   The whole bunch of them figured this out a long time ago, we are just finding out in this administration, or just willing to see.  The mere fact that we can hear terms like "political class" and let them pass and the fact that we have made the presidency of the US a well educated, practically ivy only, rich man's job shows that we are a mess.  An honest, well intentioned slub with a state school degree and a middle class existence can't be our president.  He/she has no access to the money and the power.  Maybe the country is seeing that the good intentions of the framers have been wholly corrupted in the last, let's say hundred years.  And it don't look pretty.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 07:34 PM (p302b)

64

I gotta show pruff  at DMV as to who the hell I am.

Who the hell is he?

Posted by: lowest strata at October 29, 2009 07:36 PM (c56Ft)

65 Gabe notes that the voter did have a say in Obama being president despite showing the kind of proof of citizenship some people want.

But that's not what the constitution says.  After all, this is a constitution we're talking about.  It MUST be interpreted such that all the terms apply.  The requirement for the president to be a natural born citizen is not satisfied by a successful election + a pliant congress.  That's just not how it's supposed to work.

I think Obama's a citizen, but the idea that I don't have standing or recourse if he wasn't is absolutely horrible and illegal.  Courts reject election results ALL THE TIME.  This court just doesn't have the balls to let the issue play out in a court before a fact finding jury.  The risks are indeed tremendous.  Enormous riots, civil war, big shot like that.  And when it's pretty clear Obama probably meets, at the very least, some strained version of 'natural born citizen' because his mom was American (does it matter her age or the year?  hell no... her kids are American to me). 

So what we have here is expediency at the cost of the Constitution.  If this were a Republican, and the court knew that his supporters would not burn the country down if they lost a case, it would proceed.  In fact, such a case did proceed against Mccain.

What we need to do is simple: insist that the states require proof... real proof, before Obama gets on their ballots again.  Let each state decide if the COLB is good enough for them, if they need someone to swear out an affidavit, etc etc.  And such laws should apply to all candidates forever.

Posted by: Nobel Peace Prize Committee at October 29, 2009 07:37 PM (3Okxb)

66 Here are members of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee being interviewed by a Norwegian journalist on live television.  The interviewer elicited several responses about the Obama award.

Posted by: The Most Interesting Man In the World (rdb) at October 29, 2009 07:42 PM (piBto)

67 What is concerning is that maybe "they" being "the attorneys" fought this for the precedents that will be set.  No one ever thinks of that.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 07:44 PM (p302b)

68 Brithers are crazy yet multiple courts have written multiple decisions all so that Obama doesn't have to produce one stupid f'n document. Release it and the question ends, jugears.

Posted by: Alex at October 29, 2009 07:46 PM (udP2l)

69 It has nothing to do with birthers and everything to do with proving you meet the constitutional requirements for president.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at October 29, 2009 07:47 PM (HAdov)

Posted by: mpur at October 29, 2009 07:47 PM (g/rX/)

71 53 Will Darth Bama make a speech before Congress while shrouded in a Sith snuggie?

If it has a hood that makes his head look like a clit, that'll be fine with me.

Posted by: effinayright at October 29, 2009 07:47 PM (k6cRx)

72 As an aside, one of my friends tonight said "If this were 1716, Hannity would be on the side of the brits"  everyone laughed.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 07:49 PM (p302b)

73 DrewM or Gabe, I'm curious, if the judge here says that he can't deal with the case because there is no longer any remedy he can offer, that remedy presumably would have been to declare Obama ineligible to run for the office, right?

So the courts can't remove him, but could they declare him ineligible (just assuming for the sake of argument that the rest of the Birthers' reasoning held up) to run for the office in 2012?  Yeah I expect we'd get the ultimate 'Patriots' tuck' rule, I'm just wondering about the realm of possibility, as you see it.

Posted by: Methos at October 29, 2009 07:50 PM (IoxPW)

74 meant 1776 had a little wine tonight and it is being reflected in my typing capability.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 07:50 PM (p302b)

75 And, by the court's reasoning, all a candidate has to do is to stall until he is sworn in, then kaput! he's the man! No questions asked if he has congress on his side! A compliant media never asking questions and a god-like candidate who can't bother to waste time PROVING HE IS ELIGIBLE and viola! Hugo Chavez!

Posted by: Alex at October 29, 2009 07:53 PM (udP2l)

76 Can anyone explain to me why the WH is allowing Beck to have that RED phone there so prominent and not at least calling to defend themselves?   I know they probably think if they ignore him and attack fox news that he will go away but the libs were talking about this tonight and they are just regular people and they are starting to wonder why BO doesn't pick up the phone and call Beck and answer some of this stuff.  And they are saying this in a funny way like just put this crap to bed kinda stuff but you can tell it is starting to worry them that Beck could conceivably be right and then they would have to think about their own core beliefs and how they feel about our democratic republic and capitalism   I'm telling you, Beck is making them all nervous.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 07:55 PM (p302b)

77

As an aside, one of my friends tonight said "If this were 1716, Hannity would be on the side of the brits"  everyone laughed.

Only if King George issued talking points.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at October 29, 2009 07:55 PM (P33XN)

78

curious at October 30, 2009 12:55 AM (p302b)

Even funnier was the day Beck brought out a cage of carrier pigeons. Offered to use them to communicate with the WH. Later in the broadcast, you could see the cage sitting on the table where the red phone was. I about pissed myself laughing over that one.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at October 29, 2009 07:57 PM (P33XN)

79 I'm curious, if the judge here says that he can't deal with the case because there is no longer any remedy he can offer, that remedy presumably would have been to declare Obama ineligible to run for the office, right?
Posted by: Methos at October 30, 2009 12:50 AM (IoxPW)

My reading of this is (and remember I'm not a lawyer and this guy is just a district court judge somewhere in CA), he, the judge, would have entrained a suit from a competing candidate before the inauguration.

He doesn't say anything about the election*, so it seems he's saying a court could hold a hearing and find a President-Elect ineligible and bar his taking the oath and thus the office.

Gabe and I have a bit of a different view of this. I think the courts could avoid a Political Questions problem prior to taking office since qualifications for office are an Article II issue (and the XII Amendment). 

Determining qualifications for office are thus not assigned to any coordinate branch by the Constitution, thus giving the judiciary as much of a right as anyone. At that point.


*I read the opinion a few hours and a couple of drinks ago, so that might not be 100% correct.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 07:57 PM (ur6Ar)

80 I'm rather getting tired with the use of the word "chill" to describe, well, any sorts of words that people don't like.

Posted by: Tom in Korea at October 29, 2009 07:58 PM (nS7nk)

81 Not to mention the day Beck had the guy manning the red phone dressed up in a Mao uniform.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at October 29, 2009 07:58 PM (P33XN)

82 I think it is creeping them out that there are people high up in the government talking to Beck.  I think Beck says some things that only someone high up would know and the minions are wondering who and why.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 07:58 PM (p302b)

83 We are living in a bad novel.

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 08:04 PM (F+Eaw)

84 What has always bothered me is that thursday night meeting in Miss Nancy's office with ole Hank.  I remember watching them all come out of that room and they were literally pale and white as if they all saw the same ghost.  Then it became hurry up, hurry up we have to do this.  And everything has been like that ever since.  I also remember GWB having to be pushed out there to talk about this.  And I really remember John Batchelor imploding on the air, I can still hear him saying "two dollars a share, this can't be right, two dollars a share".   Americans are odd people, they ruminate.  They go over stuff in their minds and think on it and think on it until they reach a conclusion.  Seems like they are reaching their conclusions a lot faster than anyone might have thought.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 08:05 PM (p302b)

85 As an aside, one of my friends tonight said "If this were 1716, Hannity would be on the side of the brits"  everyone laughed.

Nah, but most of the Dems would be.  They wouldn't have a problem with paying higher taxesI don't really see Obama or any of his followers joining in on a tax revolt, you know?

Posted by: Tom in Korea at October 29, 2009 08:05 PM (nS7nk)

86 "83 We are living in a bad novel.

Posted by: eman at October 30, 2009 01:04 AM (F+Eaw)"

o, totally....you couldn't make this stuff up...I mean "made off" and "cash/carry" are just two examples of "you would say in the movies, I mean really can't the writers be more creative than to call the guy who ran the ponzi scheme "made off" and the guy who was designated to unwind everything "cash and carry"?

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 08:07 PM (p302b)

87 "the remedy would be the same as impeachment, through the congress. " Not "same as," in fact, the remedy would be impeachment. That's the only way to remove a president from office* *I know, there's also the 25th amendment, but that clearly does not yet apply.

Posted by: notropis at October 29, 2009 08:07 PM (Braqx)

88 Posted by: Tom in Korea at October 30, 2009 01:05 AM (nS7nk)

Taxes are for republicans, conservatives and independents and, for the most part, only the middle class. 

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 08:09 PM (p302b)

89

When it came to presidential candidates, though, the judge noted "the political candidate plaintiffs are the only category of plaintiffs who potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement[.]

This is the single stupidest line ever written in a legal decision, which is saying uite a lot.  The idea that only the rival candidates are injured by the installation in office of someone who is Constitutionally ineligible is flat-out insane.  The right of a citizen to be insured that the Constitutional restrictions are being followed is far greater than the right of candidates to know, and the candidates share that right as citizens.  The right of voting citizens even surpasses that of non-voting, since they have the added responsibility of deciding who to install in office.

I just shake my head at this stupidity.  The integrity of the Constitution supercedes all and this moron judge is saying that the integrity of the Constitution is nothing, except if you are vying with someone over a Constitutional office.  Just crazy.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 08:10 PM (A46hP)

90 In response to a question about Wall Street folk fleeing the high taxes in new york, a guest on CNBC today said that eventually in the not so distant future there will be more people not paying taxes than paying them.   He seemed like a well educated nice fellow, felt bad when he said that cause I knew they would not invite him back on again.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 08:11 PM (p302b)

91 BTW-For all you "he can't be a natural born citizen" aficionados...take a look at footnote 3 on pg. 22 of the decision.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 08:21 PM (ur6Ar)

92 Problem is that most Americans don't even know about any of this as the MSM isn't reporting any of it.  To them it is a done deal. 

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 08:21 PM (p302b)

93 Not "same as," in fact, the remedy would be impeachment. That's the only way to remove a president from office*

*I know, there's also the 25th amendment, but that clearly does not yet apply.

Posted by: notropis at October 30, 2009 01:07 AM (Braqx)

I disagree.  It seems to me that if The Precedent were found ineligible for office, then that would mean that he never lawfully took office (his oath was no good, for example), and is just not the President and never was.  It's like a contract with a bad signature.  It just doesn't mean anything.  I don't see where impeachment has anything to do with it.  The ruling of ineligibilty would create a situation similar to if the President had just died, in terms of (succession) procedure.  I think this was well demonstrated by the fact that Roberts administered the oath twice.  That act showed that he wanted to take care of the case that The Precedent had never really assumed the office, due to a couple of errant words in the first oath.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 08:22 PM (A46hP)

94 To the birthers (and this is not directed at the sane commenters at AoSHQ): Obama's lickin' your tears. There's no reason for him to stop. But then I've said that before, haven't I? I have to admit I'm starting to enjoy watching you lunatics wailing for the biiiiith ceeeertificate. It makes me that much more content that, no matter how much Obama sucks, at least we haven't got a government beholden to you.

Posted by: Zimriel at October 29, 2009 08:25 PM (2Ptc3)

95 Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 30, 2009 01:22 AM (A46hP)

So basically you are saying that if this stuff were found to be plausible and he were to be found ineligible then GWB would still be president?

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 08:26 PM (p302b)

96 Pardon the typo. It's not "bith". It's "nirth". Right?

Posted by: Zimriel at October 29, 2009 08:26 PM (2Ptc3)

97 91 BTW-For all you "he can't be a natural born citizen" aficionados...take a look at footnote 3 on pg. 22 of the decision.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 01:21 AM (ur6Ar)

Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth.

 

I would say that the Constitution only empowered Congress to make laws concerning naturalization, not defining natural born.  Yes, yes, I know that I'm just an anonymous commenter and the above is from a genius judge, but the Constitution actually only empowers Congress to:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

which is not defining 'natural born'.  In any event, Congress has never seen fit to actually define 'natural born', even if it had the power - unless there is a cite or two you have.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 08:31 PM (A46hP)

98   The ruling of ineligibilty would create a situation similar to if the President had just died, in terms of (succession) procedure.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 30, 2009 01:22 AM (A46hP)

Look at page 17 of the decision where the judge discusses what remedy he could offer Drake and Robinson.

Drake and Robinson (two minor party candidates) claim their injury is they were forced to run against someone not eligible to serve if elected. Under the rules of redressability, if the judge ruled for them he would have to craft a relief that righted that wrong. The only way to do that would be to order a whole new election. Simply removing Obama and making Biden President doesn't right the wrong of having to run against Obama in the first place.

Judges can't order things unrelated to the injury claimed.

You don't honestly think any judge has the right to order a new election, do you?

Just curious but did you not read the decision or simply not understand it?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 08:31 PM (ur6Ar)

99 So basically you are saying that if this stuff were found to be plausible and he were to be found ineligible then GWB would still be president?

Posted by: curious at October 30, 2009 01:26 AM (p302b)

No.  Biden become President.  He is the current VP.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 08:32 PM (A46hP)

100 I would say that the Constitution only empowered Congress to make laws concerning naturalization, not defining natural born.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 30, 2009 01:31 AM (A46hP)

So in your mind, to whom does this power belong?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 08:33 PM (ur6Ar)

101

Er ...Biden would become President.

And if he fell in a manhole on the way over, Pelosi would be next up, etc.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 08:33 PM (A46hP)

102 I think one of the big reasons the courts are not letting this issue move forward is they see it as interference in the 2012 election. If by 2012 the eligibility issue is the limelight then Barry might have to bow out. Removing him from office and preventing him from continuing in office are two very different things. This birther thing could cause chaos.

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 08:34 PM (F+Eaw)

103 So in your mind, to whom does this power belong?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 01:33 AM (ur6Ar)

The Court or it can be specified by amendment.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 08:36 PM (A46hP)

104 The Court or it can be specified by amendment.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 30, 2009 01:36 AM (A46hP)

Yes, it could be done by amendment.

As for the courts please show me a specific grant of power in the Constitution enabling them to define that term.

FTR...I think the political branches have ceded way to much authority to the court in these matters.

Look at those signing statement Bush issued, many of those were nothing more than the Executive Branch defining constitutional terms.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 08:38 PM (ur6Ar)

105 Zimriel, first of all, let me say that you suck.  Donkey balls.  Secondly, what the hell is wrong with you that you take pleasure in the fact that a sizable chunk of the American people think the Constitution has been violated and see that confirmed by repeated efforts of the courts to cover for Obama?

Seriously, consider that.  You're cheering for Obama.

Posted by: Methos at October 29, 2009 08:39 PM (IoxPW)

106 I do agree the courts can not provide a remedy for the election of an ineligible presidential candidate. They could declare that candidate is not a natural born citizen or that it is in doubt, and let politics take it from there. It would make for some interesting blog posts.

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 08:41 PM (F+Eaw)

107

Look at page 17 of the decision where the judge discusses what remedy he could offer Drake and Robinson.

Drake and Robinson (two minor party candidates) claim their injury is they were forced to run against someone not eligible to serve if elected. Under the rules of redressability, if the judge ruled for them he would have to craft a relief that righted that wrong. The only way to do that would be to order a whole new election. Simply removing Obama and making Biden President doesn't right the wrong of having to run against Obama in the first place.

That is moronic.  The injured parties are the citizensy, not the candidates.  The Constitutional restrictions are written for the citizenry's benefit, not only for those running in elections.

Look, I already said that I think this judge is an idiot - at least what he is writing here is.  Your above idea was addressed more generally by my first post, which you must not have read.  If you disagree with me, fine.

Judges can't order things unrelated to the injury claimed.

You don't honestly think any judge has the right to order a new election, do you?

Geez.  Read the part of my post you pasted, "The ruling of ineligibilty would create a situation similar to if the President had just died, in terms of (succession) procedure."

There's nothing about ordering new elections, there.

Just curious but did you not read the decision or simply not understand it?
Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 01:31 AM (ur6Ar)

Did you not read my post that you are responding to or just not understand it?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 08:42 PM (A46hP)

108

I found the following comment on an American Thinker post. I've never seen this perspective before.

 

"This Court abdicated its responsibility when it refused to hear Donofrio v. Wells, which challenged the “natural born Citizen” status of McCain, Obama, and the Socialist candidate Roger Calero. By so doing the Court gifted the people of this country a president many will never accept as legitimate during what may become the most trying time since the 1860’s, if not since 1776. We need certainty.

"The rule of law must start with a constitutionally eligible officeholder. Before you attempt to marginalize me as another birther nut, you should know I don’t care where Obama was born -- I’ve seen no convincing evidence he was born anywhere but Hawaii. I'm not interested in conspiracy theories involving putative communist parents. However, like Leo Donofrio, I do not believe a person with dual citizenship at birth is eligible for the presidency. The only exception was for "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." That exception grandfathered the Founders' generation in. Everyone else had to be a "natural born Citizen."

"In order to believe Barack Obama is a “natural born Citizen” one has to accept the notion that had King George III fathered a bastard child born in the U.S. to an American citizen, little Georgie IV would have been eligible for the presidency – an outcome unthinkable to our Founding Fathers (and any observer with intellectual honesty).

"Fast forward to our era, what if we learned that in 1970, Ayatollah Khomeini traveled to the U.S. to speak at mosques to raise money for jihad in Iran. While in the U.S. Khomeini fathered a child who was born in Michigan to an American Muslim. Should Khomeini’s child be eligible to be our president? If you believe Obama is eligible your answer has to be yes.

"The disaster that could arise from a man with dual loyalties was of utmost importance to the Founders, which is why they included the “natural born Citizen” clause in the first place. They didn’t risk their lives and treasure only to see authority returned to Britain a generation or two down the road. With a little study, the clear historic meaning of that phrase becomes evident. The Court owed the people of this country a definitive answer to the question of Obama’s legitimacy. Based on my review of the history of the natural born Citizen clause I do not believe a man with dual citizenship meets the requirements. Whether I’m right or wrong, the people of this nation deserved a clear answer.

"In my view Obama did violence to our foundational document the moment he took his oath, and there was barely a peep, even from conservatives. We cannot expect him to care about the Constitution and the rule of law if the people don't."

 

 

 

Posted by: Pissed at October 29, 2009 08:44 PM (vB4FY)

109 'nirth,'  Oh, you're one of them.  Never mind, by all means continue trolling.

Posted by: Methos at October 29, 2009 08:44 PM (IoxPW)

110 The injured parties are the citizensy, not the candidates.
progressoverpeace

In your mind but not according to the law. The idea that a citizen can't go to court and claim some theoretical damage is not new.

Read the citations, there are long lines of cases which set a high bar for citizens to challenge certain actions. If there weren't, every liberal would run to court saying, "Using my tax money to support the military violates my rights". Representative governments just don't work that way.

You can not show that you personally have suffered damage by not having Obama show you (or anyone) his birth certificate.

The only people who can claim that specific type of damage is another candidate (or in my mind state election officials who have to put names on a ballot).

Please stop conflating what you want (no matter how passionately) with a legally redressable damage.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 08:48 PM (ur6Ar)

111

Yes, it could be done by amendment.

Obviously.  But it can't be done by Congress.  Congress was not empowered to do it.  Unless you are going to argue that the power to establish laws of naturalization (which yields naturalized citizens) includes the right to define 'natural born'?  Why would the word, 'naturalization', specifically have been used?  Perhaps there was a well accepted idea of what natural born was, at the time.  Sure there was, because dual citizenship was not allowed and not an issue.

As for the courts please show me a specific grant of power in the Constitution enabling them to define that term.

When a case comes to the Court and involves a term undefined by statute (for whatever reason) or further clarification in the Constitution, who tells the Court what it means?  What does "a year" mean to the Court, in terms of life (such as 35 years of age)?  It has an obvious meaning ... until suspended animation and other technologies render that word ill-defined, at which point the Court will decide on an operational definition and/or an amendment specifiying the operational definition will be added.  If the amendment doesn't exist, it will be to the Court, first.

FTR...I think the political branches have ceded way to much authority to the court in these matters.

Look at those signing statement Bush issued, many of those were nothing more than the Executive Branch defining constitutional terms.
Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 01:38 AM (ur6Ar)

I agree.  But they need to make amendments to restrict the Court.  And they should.  Congress and the states should have done this for 'natural born' when American dual citizenship started being officially accepted status.  But they didn't, so it's in the Court's court.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 08:50 PM (A46hP)

112 So, somewhere out there is an airline ticket that disagrees with an official document of the State of Hawaii? Or a photo from a Kenyan hospital?

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 08:50 PM (F+Eaw)

113 progressoverpeace

Read the bottom of pg 10 and the top of pg 11.

The taxpayers in this suit admit they don't have standing according to all precedents but want this judge to ignore that and make new law.

No precedents? No law? No problem!

When exactly did conservatives start endorsing judicial activism of this nature?

Did I miss a memo?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 08:52 PM (ur6Ar)

114 Does anyone have any ideas how to fix this 'natural born citizen' question, so it's not an issue in the future?  progressoverpeace, I think you and Pissed are right about the founders' intentions, but the fact is, I don't think any judge is going to take a position on this issue (aside from the punting we've seen so far), and I doubt we're going to see the will in Congress to Blagojevich him before the voters have another bite of the apple.

Posted by: Methos at October 29, 2009 08:54 PM (IoxPW)

115 Is it legal, Constitutional, or right to re-elect someone who was never eligible in the first place? Is that person now eligible for re-election simply because he held office and could not be removed?

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 08:56 PM (F+Eaw)

116 If the amendment doesn't exist, it will be to the Court, first.

Other than because you want it to, why is that the case? If there's no specific grant for the Congress or Courts only the court has a legitimate right to get involved?

Sorry, I'm not signing on for this level of judicial aristocracy.

But they need to make amendments to restrict the Court.

No, we need amendments to restrict out of control courts. Here's a court actually staying within the lines that a drawn and you are arguing he should have gone out side of them.

Nothing like situational ethics.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 08:56 PM (ur6Ar)

117 64

I gotta show pruff  at DMV as to who the hell I am.

Who the hell is he?

*******************

Pruff?  PRUFF!!!??  I gotcher PRUFF right here.

Your state has laws and regs on the books defining that pruff.  State agencies demand that you provide it BEFORE you get your license or registration.  Ditto federal laws and regs on getting a passport.

(ask yourself how Barry got a US passport if he was not either a natural-born or naturalized citizen.  Ask youself further why no one in the State Dept could not have leaked a "naturalized" status from a Barack passport application)

But, meanwhile, there are no federal laws demanding that a presidential candidate prove he is a natural-born citizen to an Election Committee or for setting forth the standards, time and place for doing so prior to an federal election or even a primary.

Maybe Congress can amend the Federal Election laws.  Maybe states with big primaries can amend theirs.

Until then......

 

 

 

Posted by: effinayright at October 29, 2009 08:57 PM (k6cRx)

118 Does anyone have any ideas how to fix this 'natural born citizen' question, so it's not an issue in the future?
Methos

Congress could do it tomorrow.

Of course, it's all irrelevant under Ark, though the True Believers will never accept that.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 08:59 PM (ur6Ar)

119

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 01:52 AM (ur6Ar)

Shit, Drew.  We are talking about the general situation, not the specifics of this case.  I already made it clear to you that I disagree with this insanity that no citizen has standing to force a candidate prove that he is COnstitutionally eligible, since all candidates should have to have their eligibility checked and verified just to become official candidates, to begin with.  Nothing extra is being requested by the citizen.  You can keep citing spots in the ruling where they make some hair-brained arguments, but I don't care.  I know what is logical and sensible.

And for you to claim that a citizen cannot be considered injured by being forced under the abuse of power by an ineligible person is crazy.  I mean, shit.  Go look at all the standing that people get for the most ridiculous "equal protection" cases - lots of times with moronic abuse of statistics backing them.  

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 08:59 PM (A46hP)

120 Congress could do it tomorrow.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 01:59 AM (ur6Ar)

Under what authority?  Are you saying that a law defining a uniform rule of naturalization can define what 'natuarl born' is?  Really?  How's that work?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 09:01 PM (A46hP)

121

You are almost certainly right, Methos. I have no idea how to fix it. I expect someone will file a Quo Warranto suit in the Federal District Court in D.C (let's hope it's not Orly Taitz, she's in over her head). I don't know enough about that statute to have an opinion on it. My understanding is Quo Warranto is a legal method of forcing an office holder to prove legitimacy. We'll see.  

 

Posted by: Pissed at October 29, 2009 09:03 PM (vB4FY)

122 The birthers would be better off suing to prevent Barry from running for re-election. The fact that the courts are pointing out that they can offer no remedy such as removal suggests that each election can be regarded as a completely separate act. That is, Barry has to fool us twice. Regarding the 2012 election his eligibility is just as open an issue as it was in 2007 and 2008.

Posted by: eman at October 29, 2009 09:03 PM (F+Eaw)

123

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 01:56 AM (ur6Ar)

Really?  Tell me the "year" definition.  A 4 year old is put in suspended animation and brought out 40 years later, but biologically still age 4.  Does he satisfy the "35 years of age" in the Constitutional requirement?  Until there is an amendment to restrict the Court's interpretation of "35 years of age", what does it mean to the Court when a case comes to it that requires the definition?

Now, do the same with natural born and introducing dual citizenship.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 09:05 PM (A46hP)

124 We are talking about the general situation, not the specifics of this case.


There's zero point in discussing what you want. That's irrelevant beyond, well,  you. We have to deal with the world and the law as it is. Based on that, this decision makes perfect sense.

You may not like it but it is well within his role as a district court judge and he applied the laws and precedents as he had to. In fact, I think he gave this crazy bitch a lot more respect than her and her nutty arguments deserved.

Anyway, it's late so have a good night.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 29, 2009 09:07 PM (ur6Ar)

125 Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 30, 2009 01:32 AM (A46hP)

Nope becasue if everything came to fruition then the administration itself could be declared null and void and that would mean taht GWB was still prez.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 09:11 PM (p302b)

126

  If this were a Republican, and the court knew that his supporters would not burn the country down if they lost a case, it would proceed.  In fact, such a case did proceed against Mccain.


McCain's case was easy, in view of statutes that specifically addressed the off-shore births of children born to American military families.  Those stats made McCain "natural born". McCain won.  End of story.

With Obambi the issue is ...not just where was he born, but a demand that he prove it was in Hawaii revealing evidnece beyond the short form birth cert Hawaii uses, and its officials, including its governor, have attested to...and that Barack be deposed as POTUS. if he can't or won't.

  But Congress can subpoena Hawaii. And the State Dept. if they feel the need.

And as the court says, it is not their jurisdiction to remove elected executive and legislative branch memebers.

h...@torabora">oh...@torabora.  Did you read the opinion? Barack's Kenyan dad never entered into the case.  It was immaterial.  Get it?   GET IT!!?   Noteven the flaky and dilatory plaintiffs in this case raised the "Obama's Dad's birthplace" issue   -----becaue it is BOGOSITY to the 12th power.

 

Posted by: effinayright at October 29, 2009 09:16 PM (k6cRx)

127

but the fact is, I don't think any judge is going to take a position on this issue (aside from the punting we've seen so far),

Sadly, I agree, though there is really not much to risk in taking it.  The SCOTUS, when it got up there, could always have just punted, anyway, and declare dual citizenship to have no effect on natural born status (though that opens up some really insane possibilities for officeholders and behavior in office, with respect to national status).  Unless, of course, the Hawaiian birth ends up having some true problems with it (which I generally doubt).

and I doubt we're going to see the will in Congress to Blagojevich him before the voters have another bite of the apple.

Posted by: Methos at October 30, 2009 01:54 AM (IoxPW)

No one has the guts to deal with this.  Congress doesn't even have the guts to debate defining legislation, as some Republican tried to introduce some minor law and was immediately rebuffed by all.

It's a shame, because people know what makes sense and the idea that sense and the law are in opposition to each other, on such a fundamental and simple point, is not confidence inspiring.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 09:17 PM (A46hP)

128

And as the court says, it is not their jurisdiction to remove elected executive and legislative branch memebers.

Posted by: effinayright at October 30, 2009 02:16 AM (k6cRx)

But, if a contract is brought to court and it is revealed upon discovery that one of the signers is 12 years old, then the contract is just null and void.  It is a fact, not a ruling of the court.  To my thinking, if the court finds The Precedent ineligiblle, then it just establishes the fact that The Precedent never lawfully assumed office.  It doesn't throw him out, but only finds that he never got in.  That seems the only reasonable way for it to go, though I'm sure Drew has some Rube Goldberg argument to claim that an ineligible person can lawfully assume the office.  Unfortunately, Rube Goldberg is big in our legal system.  Logic.  Not so much.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 09:23 PM (A46hP)

129 Didn't they change the citizenship and birthright laws very recently?   The law in effect when he was born applies.  apparently, according to my friend an attorney who works with aliens who want to become American citizens. it was changed recently.  anyway, aren't you supposed to denounce your other citizenship when you become an American citizen?   Wasn't that what made us different?  When did that rule change?  Something about other countries accepting dual citizenship but America not.    Anyway, could the states somehow sue the congress to prove this so the issue will be put to bed?

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 09:26 PM (p302b)

130 BTW, if they are going to continue to fight this then they have to fight it using like and kind.  You don't send a country lawyer in to fight White and Case.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 09:29 PM (p302b)

131

anyway, aren't you supposed to denounce your other citizenship when you become an American citizen?   Wasn't that what made us different?  When did that rule change? 

The oath of citizenship still says that, but everyone just ignores it and our law pretends that it means nothing.  From USCIS ( http://tinyurl.com/6j7d96 ):

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

In some cases, USCIS allows the oath to be taken without the clauses:

". . .that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law. . ."

If USCIS finds that you are unable to swear the oath using the words “on oath,” you may replace these words with “and solemnly affirm.” If USCIS finds that you are unable to use the words “so help me God” because of your religious training or beliefs, you are not required to say these words.

Something about other countries accepting dual citizenship but America not.    Anyway, could the states somehow sue the congress to prove this so the issue will be put to bed?

Posted by: curious at October 30, 2009 02:26 AM (p302b)

My understanding is that dual citizenship is fine with any country that allows their citizens to hold US citizenship, too - reciprocity, essentially.  Neither the states, nor anyone else, seem to have the guts to touch anything about this.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 09:36 PM (A46hP)

132 I have a friend who was born here.  Her parents, university professors, were born in France and Canada.  She is a natural born American citizen yet she has French and Canadien citizenship.  she went to McGill paying the same prices as Canadien citizens.  Now she is studying in France for the same prices as a french citizen.  always felt her parents beautifully gamed the system.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 09:42 PM (p302b)

133 I have to say, I don't understand the level of animosity Drew M. brings to this discussion, as if it is an affront to his sense of right and wrong even to have it. In fact, just by saying this I suspect I am now a "Birther" in his eyes.

I gather this is because he feels that this line of inquiry is unproductive, and that we on the Right are better off challenging him on policy grounds. That argument makes sense to me as far as it goes.

Nevertheless, the situation re Obama has revealed a real problem regarding how the electorate is to be assured that a Presidential candidate truly meets the Constitutionally-enumerated requirements.

To that end, I think the larger discussion along this line is highly pertinent. I for one would like to obviate this sort of controversy in the future.

In this light, I must respectfully say that I find the attempt to marginalize anyone wishing to have this discussion to be highly annoying.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at October 29, 2009 09:51 PM (tPZUr)

134

Posted by: curious at October 30, 2009 02:42 AM (p302b)

There are many advantages to dual citizenship, not the least of which is the ability to flee the country if something really bad happened (either a cratering economy or natural disaster or totalitarian takeover ...).  Only dual citizens know that they always have somewhere else to go, if need be.  This is a major difference between a pure American and a dual citizen.  The dual citizen is not as dependent on the US as the pure American is, who cannot go anywhere else unless they invite him.

People generally don't think about this, since there has never been anything but population flow into the US, but in other countries they know how valuable this option can be and how it changes ones attitude towards the nation (whether conscious or not).

Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 29, 2009 09:53 PM (A46hP)

135 Otis!  how are you feeling?

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 09:53 PM (p302b)

136 Posted by: progressoverpeace at October 30, 2009 02:53 AM (A46hP)

Serioiusly.  she is going to come back and the universities will be fighting to have her teach.  They love the fact that she is a citizen of the US and France and Canada, they make a huge thing out of it.  But, honestly, my education put me in contact with way more people having more than one citizenship than just everyday natural born American citizens.  Until your post it never occurred to me what an advantage it is to be able to go to another country as their citizen in case something went wrong here.  wonder what other legal advantages a person with those three citizenships would have, interesting to ponder.   Makes you wonder if Arnold and Maria's kis hold dual citizenship. 

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 10:00 PM (p302b)

137 Hi, curious! I've replaced the sharp focused pain of an infected tooth with the dull widespread ache of a violent removal of the old post and a re-do of the root canal, plus the depredations of a long course of antibiotics. The amusing thing is that the first, failed root canal was done in a highly technical, fully up-to-date manner, and the second one was done the old-fashioned way, complete with burning gutta-percha, and I have a lot more confidence in this one than the first!

The past two weeks are a blur, having been lived through a Vicodin- and alcohol-induced fog, during which we went to a big postseason baseball game and attended a ritzy dress ball. For one who is generally sober and cloistered as a monk, it has been quite a whirl.

But now I am quite on the mend, the pain is subsiding and I am slowly getting back to being a productive member of society. Thanks sincerely for all your concern.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at October 29, 2009 10:08 PM (tPZUr)

138 Glad you are on the mend.  I love fancy dress balls.  I like post season baseball games too, if the weather cooperates and my team wins....

The new endodontists have all kinds of short cuts to do as many root canals as possible in a day.  The old fashioned guy was using the tried and true method which is probably the best way.  I have a friend who is a dentist and his dad has silver points in his mouth.  My friend is like "I'm not touching them, they are working' so even old old endodontic technology if it isn't piercing the root requiring apeco is still good.  

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 10:12 PM (p302b)

139 And looking back over the thread, curious, I found your comment about the lack of corroborating stories about Obama's past to be quite intriguing--not because it suggests a conspiracy, but because it seems to suggest that Obama has played things pretty close to his vest his whole life, passing through it as a seed passes undigested through the innards of a bird.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at October 29, 2009 10:13 PM (tPZUr)

140 The ironic thing is that it was the second endodontist who was doing it assembly-line style; he had patients stacked up like airliners over O'Hare, and while the actual work was quick, I was in the chair for several hours.

And while the weather was fine for our game, my team failed spectacularly, aided by truly bad umpiring, and we were surrounded by the enemy in our own park. It broke our undefeated record for postseason games attended.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at October 29, 2009 10:19 PM (tPZUr)

141 Otis, never thought of it that way but wow, does that make sense.

Posted by: curious at October 29, 2009 10:19 PM (p302b)

142 Otis, you're absolutely right.

It's the larger issue about verifying a president meets the requirements that is important.

DrewM is just a little too ugly about this discussion for my tastes.  Most of this thread is downright reasonable about Obama, btw.  It's OK to ask these questions.  It's ridiculous to associate all people asking them with the Orly lawyers or call them 'birthers'.

No one has proven Obama was born anywhere other than the US, but he does appear to be a dual citizen.  It's an interesting question about what that means to natural born... I think it cuts right to the specific point of that term in our constitution, too.  No conspiracy... just the simple point of why that's in the constitution.  A lot of people think that section is silly, but it's the law.

And it's not just about Obama.  It's an issue that will face this country again.  It is abhorrent to pretend citizens lack standing, or that there is absolutely no redress.  A new election, the VP taking over, ineligible to run again... there are many recourses available.  Standing is just plain obvious.

As soon as you get the point across that this is a serious and intelligent criticism of this decision, you get insulted, or it's time for bed, or 'we don't have to talk about that'.  OK, whatever.  We can come to a consensus that is more lasting and reasonable than 'Obama won and this is kooky.. shut up!'

And that consensus is that states should require eligibility be proven, and if a challenge is made, a simple hearing held on the FACTS of the matter.  Natural Born Citizen should be defined clearly.  It means born as a citizen only of the US. 

Posted by: Nobel Peace Prize Committee at October 29, 2009 10:31 PM (3Okxb)

143 #26, Larry, you win the thread, a pair of ugg boots, a rolex watch and an obligatory replica handbag.

The only plausible explanation and reason for a lifetime of elaborate deception is that it was initiated and advanced by the parents to suit their own selfish needs.

Posted by: Cromwell Dixon, boy aeronaut, at October 29, 2009 10:37 PM (fmsY3)

144 #142 A real Manchurian Candidate.

Posted by: torabora at October 29, 2009 10:50 PM (H1b4W)

145 Cromwell, what elaborate lifetime deception?

Obama just is very, very, very quiet about his life.  That's all.  There's no conspiracy... he's just a weirdo.  Unlike other presidents, he has no cadre of friends and leaders and successes.  He's a chump who got easy rides because he was a very smart black man.

We know so little about him because he refuses to share information about his strange life, not because it's being hidden by a conspiracy.

Posted by: Nobel Peace Prize Committee at October 29, 2009 11:15 PM (3Okxb)

146 115 Is it legal, Constitutional, or right to re-elect someone who was never eligible in the first place? Is that person now eligible for re-election simply because he held office and could not be removed?
Posted by: eman at October 30, 2009 01:56 AM (F+Eaw)

Whether "that person" is now eligible for re-election depends entirely on patching the cracks that led to this controversy. First and foremost, is the partisan media who failed in their traditional role of vetting. When the questions arose, before the election, the media should have demanded, at the very least, college transcripts, as they have of previous candidates. They didn't. They fawned, drooled and quoted endlessly from a biography that the candidate might not have even written himself.

Secondly, Congress needs to address the authentication of  the qualifications of Presidential candidates. A process needs to be put in place to assure the public that a candidate meets the requirements. We don't have one, since this situation -- a candidate with a strange, murky background, with familial ties to foreign countries, fiercely protected by the media -- was never envisioned.

In the case of the birth certificate controversy, I saw no effort by these "birther" attorneys to hire a qualified document expert to examine the physical certificate that FactCheck photographed at Obama's Chicago office. Instead, the "birther" attorneys relied on two anonymous internet "experts," (both of whom have since been proved frauds) to examine a digital image -- as if Charles Johnson had forever set the standard for document authentication.

Finally, when it comes to the endless arguments about "the short form" birth certificate: deal with it. Many states are now using this form, and will accept it as proof of birth and citizenship for any and all purposes, including passport apps.

The courts have no way to redress this problem in a legal and orderly manner, and all the dramatic hyperventilation by a rude, attention-seeking Moldovian immigrant with only a borderline grasp of our history and legal system will change that.



Posted by: JBean at October 30, 2009 01:26 AM (d9xjt)

147 #126 The plaintiffs missed the obvious. If you have dual nationality by virtue of birth you are not a "natural born citizen". This was addressed earlier in this thread by the hypothetical King of England visiting America, knocking up an American citizen, and leaving for home. The kid grows up here, becomes President,and works in England's interests. This is a scenario that the founders wanted to prevent...hence the existence of the Constitutional clause. If it doesn't apply here then it isn't worth the paper its printed on. Why the plaintiff's bar has missed this is beyond me. This issue of violating the Constitution has grown as well. Congress has purchased equity in our markets via BarriO's leadership/minions. The Constitution is a limiting document. The Tenth A. clearly states that all powers not expressly given are reserved. There is no power reserved for Washington to own equity in business. They get to tax, borrow, spend, and regulate....The only things they may own are Post Offices, forts, and necessary government buildings. All that land out West? ...illegal. AIG?....illegal. BarriO?....illegal.

Posted by: torabora at October 30, 2009 01:28 AM (H1b4W)

148

Yeah, you kinda left out the part where she tried to suborn perjury.

This nirther BS is well past its expiration date and stinks to high heaven. Ms. Taitz should be thrown out of the country. Or tried for sedition. At the least she should be disbarred.

Posted by: JEA at October 30, 2009 02:01 AM (bWB5j)

149 My apologies - I should've read closer.

Posted by: JEA at October 30, 2009 02:02 AM (bWB5j)

150 Congress can certainly enact legislation that says "A natural born citizen is one who....."  They did it specifically in McCain's case, even though there were no real questions there. 

The Supreme Court can define a natural born citizen as well, and in fact should, under the famous ruling of Emperor John Marshall the First.

The real problem was hit upon by the American Thinker article quoted upthread.  Many, many people are not satisfied that Obama is actually the President, due to possible ineligibility.  That's bad.  It undermines authority of the government.  And Obama is not helping his cause, because he is clearly hiding something.  It could be that his parents were never actually married. (He wouldn't be the first bastard in office).  It could be that Malcolm X is the baby-daddy.  It could be that he was born on Europa.  Who the fuck knows?  But anybody with a lick of sense can see that something is being lied about, and that leads to wild speculation.

And Orly Taitz is a fucking clown. 


Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 30, 2009 02:20 AM (qWLc4)

151 This is why people hate lawyers. They have placed the "Process" above the results.
They are in fact, "Process Nazis."

Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 04:01 AM (EOnG1)

152 #152 - Congress can certainly enact legislation that says "A natural born citizen is one who....." They did it specifically in McCain's case, even though there were no real questions there.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz


Well, there was a question in someone's mind, which is why the issue was examined at all. But the resolution passed by the Senate (not Congress) - if memory serves - was not legally binding. IIRC it was more a vote of confidence based on the findings of two attorneys.

The precedent should hold (or should have), however. What's good for McCain was easily good for BHO. This is where the whole situation went off the rails. And those who choose to retreat by limply appealling to the ambiguity of the Constitution, only to plead impotence in fulfilling it's spirit, are paving the path to armed conflict by insisting that no one citizen in the electorate has 'standing' to call the POTUS to account - even with irrefutable evidence in hand.

Posted by: goy at October 30, 2009 04:02 AM (+Gze8)

153 Obama didn't have a "birth" as such.  He just sort grew until he was big enough to climb over the side of the petri dish and escape.

Posted by: Crusty at October 30, 2009 04:07 AM (qzgbP)

154 15  I mean the COLB released after the proto-Birthers made a fuss. The COLB that only encouraged them.  The COLB that they don't believe even after Hawaii officials verified Obama's birth citizenship. 

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at October 29, 2009 11:01 PM (Mi2wf)


Don't blame Gabe on this. He doesn't seem to understand that a whole lot of people don't want to take a government official's word, and would prefer to see real proof themselves.





Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 04:09 AM (EOnG1)

155 Don't understand these posts of Gabe's.  He never claims that Barky has demonstrated his eligibility.  He just recounts lovingly how Barky has managed once again to avoid demonstrating his eligibility.  Then he high-fives himself.

Posted by: lukemcgook at October 30, 2009 04:18 AM (Rjn3J)

156 49 Since duh1's Dad was a Kenyan it doesn't matter where the SOB was born...he's simply not a natural born citizen. Why is this complicated?...'cause it's not.

Posted by: torabora at October 30, 2009 12:01 AM (H1b4W)


There are a LOT of people that think "Natural Born Citizen" means you were born on the soil. The reading on the subject that I have done indicates the original intent required you to be born of the blood.

If you follow the "Of the blood" rule, it is impossible for Obama to be a "Natural Born Citizen." If you follow the "Of the Soil" rule, it IS possible for Obama to be a "Natural Born Citizen", but only if it can be proven that he was born on the soil. Which so far, we merely have the words of officials (Who every legal scholar knows will lie about adopted children, which Barack IS.) to establish his birthplace.


I believe that sums the whole mess up in a nutshell.


Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 04:23 AM (EOnG1)

157
My reading of this is (and remember I'm not a lawyer and this guy is just a district court judge somewhere in CA), he, the judge, would have entrained a suit from a competing candidate before the inauguration.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 12:57 AM (ur6Ar)

Hey! My favorite quote from DrewM. He's just a schmuck like us!



Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 04:43 AM (EOnG1)

158 114 Does anyone have any ideas how to fix this 'natural born citizen' question, so it's not an issue in the future?  progressoverpeace, I think you and Pissed are right about the founders' intentions, but the fact is, I don't think any judge is going to take a position on this issue (aside from the punting we've seen so far), and I doubt we're going to see the will in Congress to Blagojevich him before the voters have another bite of the apple.

Posted by: Methos at October 30, 2009 01:54 AM (IoxPW)


I have an idea for an interm fix. Get the individual state legislature's to REQUIRE a Copy of an ORIGINAL birth certificate with the signature of a person who WITNESSED the birth, or you won't be allowed on the ballot.

States can make their own requirements for allowing people on the ballot, and don't have to worry about what idiot judges and lawyers think.



Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 04:46 AM (EOnG1)

159
No, we need amendments to restrict out of control courts. Here's a court actually staying within the lines that a drawn and you are arguing he should have gone out side of them.

Nothing like situational ethics.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 01:56 AM (ur6Ar)


Here's my favorite DrewM quote again!


(and remember I'm not a lawyer)


I previously just thought you were stubborn. Now I realize you didn't understand what I was telling you in our previous exchanges.



Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 04:50 AM (EOnG1)

160 That's where the plaintiffs failed. As I have been arguing all along, the Constitution does not commit any authority to the courts to depose Presidents. Sole constitutional authority to remove sitting presidents rests with Congress. Thus, there is no remedy for the courts to provide.

This is not entirely true. The courts can answer the question of whether or not Obama is a US citizen eligible to be President. if the answer is "he's not" then it's over to Congress to take action.

How is this hard to understand?

Posted by: flenser at October 30, 2009 04:54 AM (RXEtm)

161
Of course, it's all irrelevant under Ark, though the True Believers will never accept that.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 01:59 AM (ur6Ar)


AGAIN with my favorite DrewM quote.


"(and remember I'm not a lawyer...)"


I think my point is Drew, that you have revealed yourself to be just another schmuck, and so your opinion isn't any better than us other schmucks. From what i've read, it doesn't even seem as reasoned as what some other schmucks are writing.

You have NEVER answered my question about state officials routinely lying about birth certificates in the case of adopted children.

Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 04:55 AM (EOnG1)

162 I think my point is Drew, that you have revealed yourself to be just another schmuck, and so your opinion isn't any better than us other schmucks. From what i've read, it doesn't even seem as reasoned as what some other schmucks are writing
Diogenes

I'm not a lawyer but I can read English and follow an argument. I also know how to cite actual laws, cases and constitutional clauses to back up my arguments. I see a lot of argument by assertion in these threads and damn little proof or support.

I also understand there's a difference between what the law is and what I'd like it to be, that's a distinction many don't want to accept in this never ending debate.

Let me give you an example from flenser at 162:
The courts can answer the question of whether or not Obama is a US citizen eligible to be President. if the answer is "he's not" then it's over to Congress to take action.

How is this hard to understand?


As the trial court's opinion explains (relying on the law and precedents, not personal desires), that's not how it works.

For someone to have an action they have to be able to show a direct harm. Then before the court can deal with it, the court has to know that should it find for the person, the court  itself must have some remedy it can offer. If the court itself can't offer the remedy to the injury, the court can't take the case.

This isn't unique to this case, it's a pretty basic element of our legal system.

So in the theory outlined above, flenser realizes the remedy to the finding would not be within the power of the judge to offer, therefore the judge can't take the case.

As far as me not being a lawyer, if being a lawyer were the end and all and be all of it, you'd take Gabe's (and the federal district court judge's) word for what the law is and these silly arguments that get made would stop.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 05:44 AM (ur6Ar)

163 Yeah with "friends" like these who will stab you in the back wherever they feel your opinion embarass them...What particulary amusing is that this sort of witchhunt is coming mainly from those who are all about "not being like left", "playing by the rules" etc
Posted by: AlexD at October 30, 2009 04:14 AM (Po/aB)

I've never considered Taitz 'a friend' in any sense. She's an idiot who should probably be disbarred.

Do you honestly think if I don't embrace every crackpot that comes along, I'm not really against Obama?


Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 05:49 AM (ur6Ar)

164

Oops.  I take it back.  Evidently Gabe really does believe that Obie has established his natural born citizenship. 

Posted by: lukemcgook at October 30, 2009 06:06 AM (Rjn3J)

165 One last thought before I head out for fun at the DMV (or as I like to call...the model for government run health care)....

If you are arguing that any taxpayer or citizen has standing to bring this kind of suit please realize even the people who filed suit on those grounds admit they don't have standing under current statute and case law (see the bottom of pg 10 and the top of pg 11 of the court's opinion).

You are arguing for a position that the people who actually filed the suit admit is wrong. They simply want the judge to violate the law and ignore precedents and make it up to help them.

When did that kind of judicial activism become a conservative value?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 06:08 AM (ur6Ar)

166 I'm not a lawyer but I can read English and follow an argument. I also know how to cite actual laws, cases and constitutional clauses to back up my arguments. I see a lot of argument by assertion in these threads and damn little proof or support.

I also understand there's a difference between what the law is and what I'd like it to be, that's a distinction many don't want to accept in this never ending debate.

Let me give you an example from flenser at 162:
The courts can answer the question of whether or not Obama is a US citizen eligible to be President. if the answer is "he's not" then it's over to Congress to take action.

How is this hard to understand?


As the trial court's opinion explains (relying on the law and precedents, not personal desires), that's not how it works.

For someone to have an action they have to be able to show a direct harm. Then before the court can deal with it, the court has to know that should it find for the person, the court  itself must have some remedy it can offer. If the court itself can't offer the remedy to the injury, the court can't take the case.

This isn't unique to this case, it's a pretty basic element of our legal system.

So in the theory outlined above, flenser realizes the remedy to the finding would not be within the power of the judge to offer, therefore the judge can't take the case.

As far as me not being a lawyer, if being a lawyer were the end and all and be all of it, you'd take Gabe's (and the federal district court judge's) word for what the law is and these silly arguments that get made would stop.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 10:44 AM (ur6Ar)




And you STILL didn't answer my question about state officials routinely lying about adopted people's birth certificates !




Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 06:12 AM (EOnG1)

167 Is this the Taitz you are talking about?

Posted by: curious at October 30, 2009 06:14 AM (p302b)

168 I've never considered Taitz 'a friend' in any sense. She's an idiot who should probably be disbarred.

Do you honestly think if I don't embrace every crackpot that comes along, I'm not really against Obama?


Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 10:49 AM (ur6Ar)


I'm thinking I may have to agree with you on this.



Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 06:14 AM (EOnG1)

169 34 spend over $500K fighting the release of his Birth Certificate?
Posted by: LouisianaLightning at October 29, 2009 11:22 PM (Nsz+x)

Do you have any actual proof of those numbers?

See below link:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106138

Posted by: LouisianaLightning at October 30, 2009 06:38 AM (yGmLl)

170 The moral of the story, kids, is to never use the courts to advance your pet political theory. Unless you are an Ivy League Marxist with some like-minded fellow on the bench, anyway.

Posted by: exdem13 at October 30, 2009 06:39 AM (lYKj1)

171 171 34 spend over $500K fighting the release of his Birth Certificate?
Posted by: LouisianaLightning at October 29, 2009 11:22 PM (Nsz+x)

Do you have any actual proof of those numbers?

See below link:

(link deleted because it wouldn't post)

Posted by: LouisianaLightning at October 30, 2009 11:38 AM (yGmLl)


World Net Daily is not considered credible proof at Ace of Spades(HQ).

On this I can somewhat agree. World Net Daily too often is sloppy with the fact checking on some stuff, but on the other hand they DO have sources that ARE looking for real stuff.


Apart from that, I have found it often to be futile to give any cites whatsoever.Often times they will be hand waved away as not good enough, or irrelevant, or some such.

I can't even get these guys to admit something which is common knowledge, and which I have first hand testimony and proof of.

The fact that All state government will routinely lie regarding the birth certificate of any adopted person.

*I'M* adopted, and my "official certified" birth certificate mentions only my adopted father, and makes NO mention of my REAL father.


They just ignore this, because it blows a HUGE hole in their theory that "Certificates of Birth" are just as good as original Birth Certificates.

THAT my friend, is the elephant in the room of their argument.




Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 06:50 AM (EOnG1)

172

And you STILL didn't answer my question about state officials routinely lying about adopted people's birth certificates !

Diogenes,

First, I haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Second, I've written nothing the depends upon state officials or anyone lying or even telling the truth about adopted people's birth certificates. So I'm not sure why I need to answer for it.

Besides, who in this little story is adobted anyway?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 07:22 AM (ur6Ar)

173 Posted by: LouisianaLightning at October 30, 2009 11:38 AM (yGmLl)

Ok, so you may have demonstrated that Obama's team spent upwards of 2 million with a law firm and that law firm represented him in a few nuisance suits that never got to trial.

That doesn't prove or even hint that all of that or anywhere near 500K was spent on Birther bs.

You may be onto something (I doubt it but I'm open to the possibility) but that link doesn't prove what you stated as a fact (that he spent 500k fighting this).

And no, WND is not generally a credible source. I give you the "Kenyan Birth Certificate" fraud and the "Conservative Concentration Camps" as two examples of why they are suspect at best.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 07:31 AM (ur6Ar)

174 Mr. Dixon, thanks but no thanks. I was hoping for an Age of Conan CD key.

Posted by: Larry Sinclair at October 30, 2009 07:40 AM (DtTM9)

175 #42, #45, exactly.

Posted by: SGT Dan at October 30, 2009 08:15 AM (GgXZc)

176 No one is looking to the SCOTUS to remove a President. That's up to the Congress. The Birthers are only trying to determine if the present occupant of the White is or is not eligible to do so. Then it would be up to Congress to either let him stay if he's eligible or remove him from office if he's not. The SCOTUS is only the first step. Congress has the real burden if the Court findings support Foreign Birth, 

Posted by: Robert L at October 30, 2009 08:19 AM (GkYyh)

177

Diogenes,

First, I haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Second, I've written nothing the depends upon state officials or anyone lying or even telling the truth about adopted people's birth certificates. So I'm not sure why I need to answer for it.

Besides, who in this little story is adobted anyway?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 12:22 PM (ur6Ar)


I have probably written over 30 posts about state officials lying on adopted children's birth certificates. You, Gabe, and Ace have studiously ignored this point no matter how many times i've attempted to get a comment from ANY of you on this.

*I* am adopted, and I can testify to the fact that State officials ALWAYS claim the Adopted father is the real father, and NO, they won't let you see the Real Original birth certificate.

In case you missed it, ( which I will be shocked as shit if you've been writing about this issue all this time without knowing this little tidbit) Obama was adopted in 1965.





Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 08:31 AM (EOnG1)

178 Diogenes,

This is a bit far a field in as much as we've moved past the COLB issue and onto whether or not he can be forced to release the real one. The answer to that is obviously no.

As for you point, um, ok. You say your BC doesn't reflect the truth. I'm not saying that's not the case, I'm just not sure how you generalize that out to anything but whatever.

Again, you are stating some vague charge ("State officials ALWAYS claim the Adopted father is the real father"), make another claim there's no evidence for (Obama is adopted) and then invite people to connect the dots.

Beyond that, the COLB that Obama release doesn't have Soetero's name on it, it has his biological fathers name. (btw- it's never been firmly established whether or not Obama was adopted or not. Not even WND claims that at least as recently as a year ago, they may have changed their minds since).

So if state officials always claim the adoptive father (again, assumes something not in evidence but let that slide) why does the COLB have Barack Obama Sr. as the father?


Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 08:49 AM (ur6Ar)

179 No one is looking to the SCOTUS to remove a President. That's up to the Congress. The Birthers are only trying to determine if the present occupant of the White is or is not eligible to do so. Then it would be up to Congress to either let him stay if he's eligible or remove him from office if he's not. The SCOTUS is only the first step.
Posted by: Robert L at October 30, 2009 01:19 PM (GkYyh)

I suggest you read the opinion or my summary of that section in comment 164 to find out why under laws and practices hundreds of years old that's not an option legally available to a court.

You simply can't substitute what you think is an obvious solution for the actual law.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 08:52 AM (ur6Ar)

180 Drew, One of my major points regarding this issue is that a computer printout is proof of a record. Not proof of what that record contains.

We have ONLY the words of state officials, who will routinely lie about the records of adopted children, as proof that Obama is indeed eligible to be president, and only then if you accept the "of the soil" argument.

My (and others) contention is that this does not constitute satisfactory proof of eligibility to be president, and instead of everyone trying to cite "weasel clauses" in the law, we would very much appreciate some honest to goodness facts and reasoning as opposed to sophistry. 

At least you finally admitted what i'm saying about state officials lying about adopted children is possibly true, at least in MY case.

Gabe's the law guy. Ask HIM if it is true that State Officials will lie about adopted children's birth certificates.

Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 09:16 AM (EOnG1)

181 At least you finally admitted what i'm saying about state officials lying about adopted children is possibly true, at least in MY case.

Actually, I didn't say that. I'm simply not willing to say what you are claiming is untrue and that's simply because I have know way to know one way or another.

I hate getting into these dark conspiracy theories because there's no way to argue them. Any evidence to the contrary is simply twisted as evidence that the conspiracy is deeper than we thought.

The fact is, the COLB is a legally accepted form of proof for, among other things, place of birth (I went through all the links one time about how the Dept. of State sends you to the Hawaii health department page that results in someone getting a COLB as an acceptable form of ID and natural birth citizenship).

But let me jump down the rabbit hole for a second...if as you say these things always list the adoptive father (again, no proof Obama is adopted)...why does the COLB not list Soetero as the father?

I address your theory and your response is to ignore what I write and claim victory.

and instead of everyone trying to cite "weasel clauses" in the law

Sorry but I don't think a propper application of the law and a respect for the seperation of powers contitutes "weasel clauses". They are kind of the bedrock of the rule of law.

If lefites were trying this shit, most birthers would be applauding this judge for using the law to kick them in the teeth.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 09:24 AM (ur6Ar)

182 Just to be clear, when I wrote:

Actually, I didn't say that. I'm simply not willing to say what you are claiming is untrue and that's simply because I have know way to know one way or another.

I'm talking about your specific case.

I'm not on board with the idea that state registrar of records routinely commit fraud.

I understand there are laws dealing with kids put up for adoption and sealing those birth records but that's not what we are talking about here.

No one has proven Obama was adopted but even those who think he was say it dates until a time when he was 7 and living in a foreign country. Those sealed record laws wouldn't apply to that.

And again, the COLB has Obama Sr. listed as the father. Are you claiming that Obama Sr. isn't his real father but adopted him?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 09:27 AM (ur6Ar)

183
And again, the COLB has Obama Sr. listed as the father. Are you claiming that Obama Sr. isn't his real father but adopted him?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 02:27 PM (ur6Ar)


What I'm saying is that I can prove state officials will LIE about the contents of a birth certificate. I don't have to establish WHICH of the things they are saying is a lie. All I have to do is prove that they WILL lie.


Can I make it more clear ?


If the document is "Legally Accepted" , then the people who legally accept it need to get a clue. It relies ENTIRELY on the veracity of people who routinely lie about this sort of thing.


Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 09:44 AM (EOnG1)

184 What's the record for how long a thread has gone on?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at October 30, 2009 09:55 AM (5aa4z)

185 What I'm saying is that I can prove state officials will LIE about the contents of a birth certificate. I don't have to establish WHICH of the things they are saying is a lie. All I have to do is prove that they WILL lie.
Diogenes

There's a huge logical fallacy in there.

Look, maybe a state official has lied. Maybe more than one, maybe even 10 or 20.

That doesn't mean all do and it doesn't bring into question the veracity of every other similarly situated person.

Some priest have sex with women. You can't assume from that all or most or many do.

Some wives cheat on their husbands, that doesn't mean some random guy has to act as if his wife is cheating on him.

Some cops lie but that doesn't reflect on every cop who testifies in court.

Some white guys have committed murder, that does not mean I as a white guy should have to prove I'm not a murderer.

I could go on and on but I think you get the idea.

Just because you claim to know of one (or a few) falsified records doesn't mean every certified record should be treated as if it is false.

In fact, the legal doctrine is the exact opposite. The burden is on the party claiming it's false to prove that.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 10:03 AM (ur6Ar)

186 What's the record for how long a thread has gone on?

There was a flame thread that went on for months.

It might still even be alive somewhere.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 10:04 AM (ur6Ar)

187

RE: 186  "I'm saying is that I can prove state officials will LIE about the contents of a birth certificate. I don't have to establish WHICH of the things they are saying is a lie. All I have to do is prove that they WILL lie."

So your argument is that because they MIGHT lie, that proves they ARE lying. Wow, that's certainly infallible logic. And the best part is there's no proof required.

Posted by: JEA at October 30, 2009 10:06 AM (bWB5j)

188 My argument is they do it every single time.


It is not an "occasional" problem, it is an established methodology.

It is a routine procedure in every case of an adoption.

Don't believe me ? Ask someone else whom you know and would trust on this.

Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 10:10 AM (EOnG1)

189 Geeze, I don't know how I can say it any plainer.


State officials "Certify" birth documents as true, when they are in fact not.

This is a routine procedure in all cases of adoption.

Ergo, you can't trust as fact any birth document "certified"  by a state official if the document concerns an adopted child..

Normally this causes no problems whatsoever. It is done in the interest of the child.

It only becomes a problem if it comes into conflict with something of utmost importance to the public interest, such as establishing that a person was actually born on American soil so that they can legally be President.

In this case, does the State Official follow policy and LIE about what is actually on the birth certificate, or do they violate state law and reveal the truth?

Who knows ? Do you trust them to make the decision for all 50 states ?

My point always has been, the 50 states cannot rely on the veracity of a few state officials who refuse to show us what they claim to have seen, instead saying, take our word for it. (and our computer printout)

Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 10:21 AM (EOnG1)

190 Has anyone noticed the parallels between Joseph Smith's revelation and Chiyome Fukino's vouching for Obama's records? It's hilarious that the very people who scoff at Mormons for lack of evidence are so willing to accept the testimony of some guy in Hawaii.

Posted by: Buckleyfan at October 30, 2009 10:28 AM (DtTM9)

191 So... if some proof did come to light showing that the President is not Constitutionally eligible... would the judiciary be able to hold the electors accountable?

Posted by: malclave at October 30, 2009 10:53 AM (W1Ndc)

192 194 So... if some proof did come to light showing that the President is not Constitutionally eligible... would the judiciary be able to hold the electors accountable?

Posted by: malclave at October 30, 2009 03:53 PM (W1Ndc)


I recall hearing some lawyer say you could indict a ham sandwich. The one thing I am sure of concerning the court system is that they can be unpredictable.

Whodathunk that Americans citizens don't have standing to demand proof of eligibility ? .

Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 11:50 AM (EOnG1)

193 Wow! I can't believe this thread is still going on! I usually kill all threads before going to bed.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at October 30, 2009 11:52 AM (tPZUr)

194 Posted by: AlexD at October 30, 2009 04:22 PM (Jdx0v)

If you don't think I oppose Obama, you must be new here. I'd suggest starting with the new thread I just put up about Honduras and the despicable actions of the Obama administration in dealing with that country.

I'm simply not will to mimic the idiocy of the left and throw my lot in with every anti-Obama kook that comes along simply because they are anti-Obama.


BTW do you consider those who think that Obama hasn't complied with constitution in failing to present original birth certificate "crackpots" as well?

Some, yes.

BTW-where is the constitutional requirement that Obama present his "original birth certificate". I've read the Constitution several times and must have missed that part.

Please help me and show me where it is.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 12:01 PM (ur6Ar)

195 Diogenes,

According to your logic, since I know for a fact commenters have lied on this blog before, I can ignore everything you say as a lie.

There, that made things simpler.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 12:07 PM (ur6Ar)

196

If Obama did produce a birth certificate, the nirthers would just shout 'it's a fake!'

So in your twisted little minds, no matter what Obama does or does not do, he's not a natural born citizen, because no matter what he does or does not do, no matter what he does or does not say, you won't believe him. The circuitous logic on display here is indeed entertaining, but ultimately is a waste of time.

BTW, can'tWAIT until that day in the future when we elect a Hispanic president and get to go through all this BS again.

Posted by: JEA at October 30, 2009 12:45 PM (i9TzE)

197 According to your logic, since I know for a fact commenters have lied on this blog before, I can ignore everything you say as a lie.

There, that made things simpler.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 05:07 PM (ur6Ar)


What are you 10 ?

Seriously ?

Why stop there? If I follow your chain of logic ad absurdum, than we can extend it to the entire human race.

"Since I know for a fact that (memebers of the human race) have lied ... I can ignore everything you say as a lie."

I think a more honest answer is that you find this area of discussion uncomfortable, and you would prefer to ignore it. (You are free to do so.)


I am thinking that you didn't know that State Officials routinely certify falsities on birth certificate documents, and since you have staked so much of your position on the veracity of  said Officials, the idea that they might not be telling the truth is abhorrent to you. (My official position is I don't know if they are lying or not.)

As Franklin said, " It is a terrible thing to witness a beautiful theory being beaten to death by a gang of ruthless facts. 

Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 12:47 PM (EOnG1)

198 200

If Obama did produce a birth certificate, the nirthers would just shout 'it's a fake!'

So in your twisted little minds, no matter what Obama does or does not do, he's not a natural born citizen, because no matter what he does or does not do, no matter what he does or does not say, you won't believe him. The circuitous logic on display here is indeed entertaining, but ultimately is a waste of time.

BTW, can'tWAIT until that day in the future when we elect a Hispanic president and get to go through all this BS again.

Posted by: JEA at October 30, 2009 05:45 PM (i9TzE)


I don't know  about the Other "Nirthers", but I would look at the signature of the Doctor who signed it, and I would ask if this guy had a medical license issued by Hawaii, and if so, does this look like his signature.

If everything checked out, I would then say it's legit  and then I would say "Why the fuck didn't this Asshole show this in the first place ? "


Now as to twisted little minds, I would say the people who are alleging the opposition doesn't like him because he's black, and that they would similarly dislike a Hispanic President are the one's with the Little, Twisted Minds.




Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 12:53 PM (EOnG1)

199 Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 05:47 PM (EOnG1)

So your theory that if an individual within in a group is suspects then all members of that group are suspect only applies to state registrars of records?

Well, that's exceedingly convenient for you, isn't it?

I think a more honest answer is that you find this area of discussion uncomfortable, and you would prefer to ignore it. (You are free to do so.)

No, I find it alternatively annoying and enlightening about how people will twist things to get the outcome they want. 

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 01:05 PM (ur6Ar)

200 So your theory that if an individual within in a group is suspects then all members of that group are suspect only applies to state registrars of records?

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 06:05 PM (ur6Ar)

Now you are just losing me. Huh?

Let me see if I can restate my point more plainly.


The people who certify birth certificates will routinely certify false documents in every case concerning an adoption.

It is their Job. They would be fired, and possibly prosecuted if they allowed the original information to be released.

Many adopted children do not know they are adopted. They believe the parents they live with and grow up with are their REAL parents.

If their REAL parent's name were released from their ORIGINAL birth certificate, they would realize immediately that they were adopted, and they may well suffer a traumatic experience as a result.

For this, and possibly other reasons, State officials in charge of Records will routinely release false information and certify it as true.


What this has to do with lying bloggers I don't know.

The practice is common to all 50 states, and is considered to be in the best interest of the child.
 



Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 01:22 PM (EOnG1)

201 Apparently this is not common knowledge. *I* knew about it when I was 6, because my mother is my real mother, and I remember going in front of the Judge who asked me if I wanted to change my name to that of my new daddy.

I saw my original birth certificate when I was young, and i've seen my current "Certified" birth certificate when I picked up a copy several years ago.

My point is that you cannot rely on what these state officials say to be the truth. It is their JOB to report what the judge has ordered, not what might actually be the truth.

A lot of people understand this. That is why there was an immediate outcry from various quarters that a computer printout was not good enough to establish defacto birth in the United States.

Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 01:28 PM (EOnG1)

202 The people who certify birth certificates will routinely certify false documents in every case concerning an adoption.
Diogenes

Let's get past the logic argument.

Here's a fun fact...There's no proof Obama was ever adopted so....your concern about misleading records in the case of adoption isn't relevant.



Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 01:37 PM (ur6Ar)

203 How do you know this ?

The state isn't allowed to say.

Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 01:43 PM (EOnG1)

204 Oh, and there is this.


http://tinyurl.com/ygw86od

Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 01:45 PM (EOnG1)

205 Would love to discuss this further, but now I have to go.

Drew, I like your posts. I think you, Gabe, Ace, Uncle Jimbo, etc. all make great posts, and i'm still gonna like you all even if we don't agree on this one issue.

Later dudes.

Posted by: Diogenes at October 30, 2009 01:58 PM (EOnG1)

206 Yet here are conservatives who's only probable fault is that they are not doing the strategically wise thing and you go berserk, no "hearts in the right place" or anything like that.
AlexD

No, they are trafficking in idiotic theories not supported by fact or law. I'm not going to pretend that what they are selling makes any sense or is correct just because they don't like Obama either.

You know who else I don't support? People who make claims about facts and then are unwilling to provide any evidence for their assertions.

I'm going to pick a random example.

Somebody recently wrote, "BTW do you consider those who think that Obama hasn't complied with constitution in failing to present original birth certificate "crackpots" as well?"

Now I asked where in the Constitution was the requirement to, "present (an) original birth certificate"? I mean if you have to do it to comply with the Constitution, it must be, you know, in the Constitution.

So, when people can't show me what they claim exists, I have a hard time supporting them.

I guess in your mind, that makes me a raving left wing, Obama lover.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 02:06 PM (ur6Ar)

207 AlexD

So in your mind the most important thing is opposition to Obama and facts be damned?

Look, I'm all for attacking Obama but not by making shit up. If you'd like an example of this, look no further than the main page of this blog.

I fucked up some facts. Now it would be nice and a hell of a lot of fun to attack Obama for his guest list. The only problem is, I was wrong. I'm not going to pretend I wasn't and I'm not going to expect anyone to support me and say it's not a big deal since I don't like Obama.

Should I have not corrected the record and demand that all opponents of Obama support me even though I'm wrong?

Facts are important. When you get them wrong, fess up, correct the record, take your lumps and move on.

I'm not holding Taitz or any "Birther" to a higher standard than I try and hold myself.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 30, 2009 03:13 PM (ur6Ar)

208 Why does Barry look more like Frank Marshall Davis than Barack Obama Sr.?

Posted by: Larry Sinclair at October 30, 2009 03:41 PM (DtTM9)

209 Why does Barry look more like Frank Marshall Davis than Barack Obama Sr.?

What does his original BC say?

Posted by: Druid at October 30, 2009 03:47 PM (Gct7d)

210 I realize it was a ways ago but there was some talk about what remedy a court could offer to someone who had standing like Alan Keyes:

Remedy #1:  A cash award in damages as a percentage of his spending on his campaign.  If he and his campaign spent money to campaign against a fraudulent candidate then they are entitled to monetary damages.

Secondary Remedy #2:  The results of the discovery against the original long-form birth certificate, the doctor's signature, the hospital's name, and corroborating information or lack thereof to be turned over to Congress.

Remedy #1 is actual.

Posted by: luagha at October 30, 2009 09:36 PM (fXRIr)

211 I may be too late here but I have a question. I haven't been following these cases much but has any judge ruled who should certify if Obama is eligible? Can't a judge order whoever is responsible to produce such certification? I would think it must be Congress. I don't think it's right an appointee who owes his job to the president could be considered impartial in such a case. Congress can certainly say the COLB is fine and dandy and that's the end of it but I don't see why a judge can't order that they do make a determination. I don't see why it's even beyond the judges purview to make such a certification if it doesn't state anywhere that anyone in particular has that responsibilty. Just because he has no remedy? The remedy is to report his finding to Congress for further action as it's their resposibility to remove the president if they choose to. Somebody must have standing somehow. Wasn't Keyes invloved with one of these cases?

Posted by: Rocks at October 30, 2009 10:59 PM (f7EXG)

212 Drew, I wouldn't waste my time trying to aruge with the loon set. Like I said before, they made up their minds a long time ago, and nothing said, done, not said, or not done will change it. The vast majority just hate Obama because he's a liberal, because the conservatives got their asses kicked in the last 2 elections, and there that small percentage who hate him because he's black and the son of a Muslim.

Posted by: JEA at October 31, 2009 03:58 AM (i9TzE)

213 To Rocks, if you're still around.

It is the responsibility of every state election office to certify that candidates are qualified for the office they seek. Normally this is just a matter of determining if they live in the disctrict or state, etc, but the Presidency has special qualifications which most of the time no one needs to verify, like "Were you born in this country? "

Since bureaucracies have a habit of running on inertia, they do what they've always done. They accept the candidates word, ( and in the case of the last election, the affidavit of the Democrat National Committee) that the candidate is indeed qualified for the office which he seeks.

This is where the whole thing broke down. The Democrat National Committee is made up of Democrats, and therefore consists of a pack of liars who are not only ignorant, but stupid as well. They didn't bother to verify his credentials, no doubt due in part to the fact that Barack made every effort to mislead them on this issue.

The State Election boards likewise didn't bother to verify his credentials, partly because the Democrats certified him as legit, and because they never had to do it before. Quite likely, being raised in the modern educational system, they didn't even know they were supposed to, or even what the qualification requirements were.

A lot of other people were mislead by the computer printout which everyone claims was just as good as an original birth certificate. DrewM, Ace, Uncle Jimbo, Gabe, Hot Air, etc. all fell into this trap. They apparently felt the word of Hawaiian officials who say "Trust Me." is good enough to meet the constitutional requirements.

They may not have been aware that State officials routinely certify false information on Birth Certificates. Apparently this isn't common knowledge, but for those among us that knew about this practice, we all said "Wait a minute, Hold the phone! That's not good enough ! "

For this we are called, Ignorant, Racists, Conspiracy nuts, loons, sore losers, etc.

Now we are in the phase of this issue where everyone who wants to accept the results as "Fait Acompli" just want to make the issue go away, and poke all the "Birthers" noses into every defeat. (Like the Main post above.)

Fortunately, Conservatives are Strong and Independent, and not given to "Group Think" no matter how much pressure is applied, and so we persist.

I recall reading several years ago about psychology experiments in which they hired groups of people to all lie about something they witnessed to see if they could get the test subjects to agree with the liars, or to accurately state what they saw, even though it contradicted everybody else in the room.

Strangely enough, the majority of people would bow to public pressure and claim they witnessed something which they did not see.

That's kinda how I see things currently. 

Posted by: Diogenes at October 31, 2009 05:50 AM (EOnG1)

Posted by: ttrtrtrert at November 06, 2009 02:14 AM (wYEI1)

Posted by: Copper clad aluminum busbar at April 01, 2010 06:36 PM (dkJek)

Posted by: Copper clad aluminum at April 01, 2010 06:37 PM (dkJek)

217 It's all about matching tiffany co jewelry , and creating the best combination of colors for one's general dressing. It will help to buy what you need simpler, and you will be pleased that you just added some Tiffany diamond jewelry in your present rings selection.

Posted by: herman198 at March 10, 2011 01:10 AM (tnRWG)

218 Well done, thak you for your great posts, i learned more from here.

Posted by: ipod to mac at April 14, 2011 07:15 AM (ecKmC)

Posted by: mercedes benz at May 02, 2011 12:53 PM (EpyjS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
237kb generated in CPU 0.37, elapsed 1.7861 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.4773 seconds, 455 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.