As a service to the readership, I am compiling this index to the revised subpoenas issued by Orly Taitz in the Grinols v. Electoral College case.
Specifically, Judge England in a January 18th order granting Defendants more time to respond and ordering Taitz to modify the subpoenas stated:
A-one week (sic) response time would be unreasonable at any time during the year…
So Taitz issued one revised subpoena on January 26, with responses due February 4 (6 business days later) to Barack Obama. Other revised subpoenas have not yet appeared on the court docket, but will be added here when and if they appear.
Also in this case, the State of California today (January 28) moved to dismiss the case as to them as moot and also filed this declaration.
| Recipient | Due | Document | Exists? |
| Barack Obama | 2/4/12 | Passport used to travel to Pakistan 1981-3 | Maybe |
| Birth Certificate on file at Kapiolani Hosp. | Unlikely | ||
| Certified copy of birth certificate | Yes | ||
| Microfilm of birth certificate | Unavailable to Obama | ||
| Occidental College registration | Unlikely | ||
| SS-5 Social Security Application | Likely, but FOIA requests take a while | ||
| School Registrations 1967-1969 showing citizenship | Unlikely | ||
| 1968 passport | Maybe | ||
| Indonesian passports and immigration and naturalization papers | No | ||
| Kenyan passports and immigration and naturalization papers | No | ||
| British passports and immigration and naturalization papers | No | ||
| Barbara Milkuski | 2/4/2013 | “Copy of any and all documents by ‘experts’, who according to Senator Milulski ‘authenticated’ birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama posted on the WhiteHouse.gov | Maybe |
| True and correct copy of the original 1961 typewritten genuine birth certificate issued by the Health department of Hawaii. | Yes. It’s on the White House web site. | ||
Read more:
Orly cites TOP SECRET documents. Just imagine what those documents or records would reveal.
KUDOS to YOU, doc
you are one AMAZING guy!!!!!
Passport used to travel to Pakistan 1981-3 – this one the holy grail of birther documents. Even Trump wants to see this one. Many believe is will show Obama declared himself an Indonesian Citizen because is was difficult (not impossible) to get into Pakistan as an American Citizen.
Microfilm of birth certificate – If this exists, Arpaio and Zullo want it age tested.
Occidental College registration – If it exists, birthers are looking for place of birth, citizenship status and legal name.
SS-5 Social Security Application – Looking to see what SSN was declared.
Ron Swanson‘s favorite time of year.
And even if the subpoena were valid, Obama would not be required to provide his SS-5 because it is not his to provide.
The proper approach (in case Orly is reading this) would be to demand that Obama provide her with an authorization allowing her to obtain a copy of his SS-5. If course, she would have to show relevance and the case would have to be in discovery.
According to The Fogbow Orly exchanged some tweets with Jack Ryan, who told her that there are so many things wrong with her subpoena that he couldn’t begin to enumerate them.
He said he could not explain it in 140 characters. It would be difficult to explain it in 140 words, 140 sentences, 140 paragraphs, and in Orly’s favorite style of court filings, 140 pages.
He did suggest she read the rules. That will happen.
Thank you, Doc!
In follow up to a previous exchange we had, see the great efficiency in the Judge’s decision to hear the TRO (despite the lack of proper service) and to draft a well-considered opinion–that by doing so, his work was almost done with a cut-and-paste. Keeping in mind that large block quotes are normally considered inartful, note that the State of California’s motion to dismiss nonetheless cut-and-pasted a very huge block quote from the Judge, prefacing it with the following:
“With apologies for the lengthy quotation, but believing it is the most efficient means by which to make the point, the relevant passage from the Court’s previous order is presented below.”
On ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court will of course agree with himself.
John, you’ve been around here long enough to know that the “difficult for an American” scenario is a total crock that has been debunked totally.
…which of course highlights Orly’s buy-in to the birther meme that Obama spent a year in Pakistan, not two weeks, between the time he went to Occidental and Columbia.
…which of course is quite the compliment to Obama, whom birthers usually refer to as our Ay-firmative Action Slacker President, since he’d have to have gotten his undergraduate degree in just three years in order for this to work.
If she cites them doesn’t she say what they reveal?
Being late to the topic, I assume the birfers assume it is difficult to travel to Pakistan because the screen tells them nasty things about Pakistan. Screen says Pakistan is bad, so we don’t like Pakistan, therefore Pakistan doesn’t like us. Doesn’t want us over there. And thus it has ever been because nothing ever changes.
Big Brother would love these people! We have always been at war with ______________ .
Without exception, every birther reply I’ve seen on this site for weeks boils down to “nuh-UHH!”
Black Jesus has really made them lose their shpadoinkle.
Yeah, it was tough for an American to travel to Pakistan. It required a plane ticket, a passport, and a visa.
Pretty much what was required to visit most foreign countries. Did you know that you need a visa to visit Australia?
Amazingly enough, there are Americans who travel to Great Britain, even though we were at war with them just 200 years ago!
John lives in the birther bubble. He probably has never been outside the United States.
Well I wish someone would either explain or point me to the rules specifically about the order in which things must happen. It just seems to me that Orly is always issuing subpoenas really soon, before defendants get served, while motions to dismiss are pending and stuff like that. What I get in bits and pieces is that things can be done before I intuitively thing they should, but I don’t have a solid frame of reference.
I’m starting on Rule 3 (FRCP) and see if it helps.
Actually, the birther argument is a little different. Rather than projecting the present to the past, they rewrite the past.
Here’s my article from December of 2008 setting the stage:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/barack-obama-traveled-to-pakistan-on-an-indonesian-passport/
Ronald Reagan said in 1982:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42083
Mario Apuzzo was a big booster of the travel ban, making a false statement in pleadings in the Kerchner lawsuit.
Uh, oh.
—-
Rule 3 is a good place to start…. Roughly speaking, after properly serving Complaint and Summons on a defendant, the defendant gets some time to try to Quash the Summons, Move to Dismiss, or Answer, or even do all three in succession. It can take a lot of time. But until the defendant actually Answers the Complaint, nothing can really move forward.
It’s very important to realize that once the Answer is filed, contrary to what Orly demonstrates, the lawyers for plaintiffs and defendants are expected to cooperate with eachother–not just spring surprises on eachother. They have to make disclosures to eachother, and actually plan discovery and get that plan approved by the Judge. Good litigators regularly talk things out before going before a Judge; whenever possible they do things like prepare “agreed orders” that the Judge just needs to rubber stamp. They try not to bother the Judge with a dispute, unless they really can’t work it out between themselves. For example, a motion to compel must actual state that the movant tried to get cooperation first before bringing the motion.
In federal court, Rule 26 contains most of the key discovery provisions. Timing/sequence for discovery is addressed in Rule 26(d)(1). Subpoenas are under Rule 45. But parties do not serve parties with subpoenas. That’s because parties are already obligated to follow a set of discovery rules–without a subpoena. In contrast, non-parties have no such legal obligation to produce docs or give a deposition or appear in court, so a subpoena becomes necessary to “Command” the obligation.
Obama is a party in Grinols, who just got served (properly?) the Complaint and Summons in early January, and he may want to quash the summons or just move to dismiss (which will be granted). He’ll never have to Answer the Complaint or engage in discovery, because the Judge already determined at the TRO that the Court doesn’t have jurisdiction.
I doubt there has been proper service. (Has she ever correctly served anyone?) Olson (Olsen?) stated that he was making a courtesy appearance. But anyway…. Yep, the Judge determined that the Court doesn’t have jurisdiction, so there’s no point to any of this flailing about by Taitz except to rile up the FMs and grab some more money. Oh, and more attention, too. HuffPo will probably print something about her latest temper tantrum.
Actually, Doc, I’m not sure whether the thing Orly served on Obama in early January was even a Complaint and/or Summons…. Anything is possible…
—
I think Orly allegedly served Obama the next day, after the hearing…
You’re right. Here’s her filing of the Affidavit of Process Server. She apparently served (correctly or not) the President in his official capacity after declaring to the Court the previous day that she was suing him in his individual capacity. http://www.scribd.com/doc/119024474/EDCA-ECF-49-Grinols-v-Electoral-College-Additional-Proof-of-Service-on-Fed-Gov-Defendants
She also claimed in Court that service had already occurred.
Oh, Orly!
That is complete rubbish.
I was working for Credit Lyonnais in Los Angeles at the time which, despite being a French bank was mostly US staffed, and my beat included the oil industry (Arco, Oxy, Union Oil, were amongst my clients) and US executives routinely traveled to Pakistan all the time with few if any hassles. (As well as other Eastern Asia countries.)
Take this as first-hand testimony.
And the Meretricious One has always steadfastly refused to acknowledge this.
Wait until April. At the moment, Queensland is drowning, New South Wales is burning, and Victoria is jealous that QLD and NSW are getting all the attention.
Meanwhile everybody is laughing at the Prime Minister’s partner cracking an offensive joke about digital rectal exams and small asian doctors. (not laughing at the joke; laughing at the ‘first bloke’)
All in all its might just be best to wait for the good weather in April.
(I inserted numbers to make replying easier for me.)
ad 1.
See above. Besides, I’m not sure someone is required to still have the very passport used 30+ years ago. At the rate Obama has traveled since becoming President, whatever passport he once had was filled up with stamps long ago.
Besides, do birthers really believe that there is something in Obama’s US (!) passport that says he declared himself a foreign citizen? Can they be so stupid? I guess they can…
ad 2.
How would Obama even know in what form Hawaii stores those documents? Besides, when has “microfilm of…” replaced “original long long long form vault BC”? I can tell you: at the minute a birther (likely Corsi) realized the propaganda value of asking for documents which aren’t even sure to exist and which don’t have to exist.
As in “yeah alright we’ve seen the original long long long form, but that doesn’t mean that one wasn’t created 3 years later so we need to see it on the same microfilm as the Nordyke BC’s” – classical case of moving the goalposts again.
Besides, I don’t think the CCP wants it age-tested, they want it to support their claim of the BC number being out of sequence.
ad 3.
Same as with the WH PDF – even if birthers could somehow prove Obama designated himself a foreign citizen by the name of “Barry Soetoro Soebarkah” (or whatever), it doesn’t prove foreign citizenship. The best birthers could reap from that is a potential fraud more than 30 years old. Not enough to warrant impeachment or even a significant political gain. Politicians have done worse many years less from now and are still up and running (and even re-elected).
ad 4.
Does this mean birthers finally acknowledge that the thing they tout as “forged SSN application” does not have any probative value?
Age testing? How would that work? The only possibility I see is carbon dating. Problems with that one:
1. Carbon dating cannot exactly date a thing within 10-20 years (the margin of error is not only measured in a percentage, but in years as well – the younger a thing is, the less precise is the dating) One can already predict what birfers will say if experts conclude the microfiche dates from somewhere between 1943 and 1983.
2. Carbon dating destroys the original. That was the problem with the shroud of Turin. It was obvious which part of the cloth to choose to carbon date – and the scientists who did the test knew that if the test proved the shroud a fake, some persistent believers would claim that that part of the cloth was not representative and the result of medieval mending.
Which is exactly what happened.
The problem with carbon dating the microfilm will be that you are destroying evidence for no logical reason (birfers will still say it was forged) – and you are destroying a historical record that future generations may be very interested in.
“SS-5 Social Security Application Likely, but FOIA requests take a while”
She can make all the FOIA requests she wishes and she won’t get it. It’s already been denied, more than once, by SSA and the courts.
As for getting it from Obama, AFAIK he’d have to give her his permission to obtain it. Not. Gonna. Happen. for many reasons, the least of which is that he’s hiding anything.
Plain and simple, he should not give in to paper terrorists, and that’s exactly what birthers are.
And after that you’ll need Obama to tell you how many bubbles there are in a bar of soap.
I meant FOIA filed by Obama to get responsive document.
@J.D. Sue
I read that while party subpoenas are unusual, they aren’t prohibited. They are usually to prevent destruction of documents.
I suspect there is no provision in the code for forcing someone to file a FOIA request. If a party is entitled to a document they would request it themselves through either a FOIA or a valid federal subpoena. Neither could happen in this case.
“So Taitz issued one revised subpoena on January 26, with responses due February 4 (6 business days later) to Barack Obama.”
Putting aside the fact that a litigant does not use the subpoena process to discover documents from another party, the time for responding to a subpoena is measured not from the date it was issued (January 26) but rather from the date it was properly served on the individual or entity from whom the documents are sought (and who knows whether, or when, that will be achieved).
As to the method for properly seeking documents from an opposing party, well, Orly is going to have to sic her Flying Monkey Squad on a civil procedure text to figure that one out,
Not really.
First, one would not use carbon dating anyway for the reasons you stated.
Second, I think there are other methods apart from carbon dating that can be used to determine the age of a (relatively) recent document – or at least to exclude that it was created in, say, 1980. Remember how the forged Schicklgruber diaries were busted by discovering that the ink (not the paper) wasn’t around in the 1930’s.
Third, if only a small part of the object is required for carbon dating (or whatever other method), you would not “destroy evidence” by using a small part clipped off somewhere on the corner. It matters naught what stuff conspiracy theorists make up to explain away a result that refutes them because you don’t date documents to refute conspiracy believers. (Just like you don’t send the US Army to Hawaii to raid the DoH vaults and “secure evidence” just because some wingnut would like to see that.)
Besides, I don’t see how one would “mend” different parts of microfilm without leaving unusual traces, so the argument that the tested part was from a different time than the rest falls flat (for the sane world).
And finally, since you’re addressing claims by the conspiracy believers: most birthers have already decided that most documents were “planted” back in 1961 and not newly created recently. Proving a “microfilm roll” was really from 1961 would only cause them to move the goalposts, just like the claim “even if the vault BC is legit, it doesn’t mean what it says is true”, a claim made in birtherverse last year and predicted by me at least a year before that.
Correct. The recipient of a subpoena or document request is obligated only to produce copies of documents that he/she has in his/her possession or control. Obama cannot be forced to seek documents from third parties such as the SSS or Kapiolani Hospital or Hawaii Department of Health.
Gee, John, the guy that I am dating spent an entire year in Pakistan doing post-doctoral research during 1981-82. He was there on a United States passport and had absolutely no problem obtaining a Pakistani visa.
With strawberry blonde hair it was kind of difficult for him not to stand out as an American.
Fail, John. Fail.
When I traveled to the UK around 1992, there was some type of advisory or, at least, heightened security due to a recent IRA bombing in the financial district.
And did you know that that visa is electronic and shows up nowhere on a U.S. passport? For some countries everything is electronic these days and they don’t even bother with stamps in the passport book. (Entry and exit into and from the EU will only have stamps for the initial entry country and the final exit country.) Some countries have courtesy passport stamps simply so you can show you were there, but for no other reason. In the future such requests as OT makes will be totally pointless.
Not for those reasons I’m afraid.
Carbon dating looks at the rate of radioactive decay of carbon elements that have been absorbed by the object when it was a growing thing, so it only works for organic material that was alive shortly before being made into useful (or decorative stuff). Wood is the most obvious example, and cloth made from natural fibres.
Microfilm is made from petrochemical products for the substrate, and inorganic chemicals for the photographic layer. So the carbon integrated into the hydrocarbon substrate was absorbed from the atmosphere many millions of years ago.
Carbon dating is dead neat: cosmic rays passing through the atmosphere cause the formation of small amounts of radioactive carbon nuclei, so the level of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere is fairly constant – the rate of loss by decay is equal to the rate of formation by cosmic rays – but when the object is buried in the ground or otherwise out of harm’s way, the level of radioactive carbon slowly reduces as there is only decay. Science is cool.
I don’t know how you’d tell the age of a microfilm, I guess preferably from any manufacturing information on it (batch codes etc.). Obviously it ages, and any birther expert could confidently tell you its age without even examining it (just like they can identify forged documents by remote sensing), but I don’t know what a real expert could do.
Thanks for confirming that detail. The only document on the list that we KNOW Obama has is the certified copy of his birth certificate, since he showed it to the Press. I daresay hardly anybody has copies of school registration forms. They might well keep old passports; I do.
A scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind, where the “grail” in question is just a marketing trick.
John, thank you for summing up so eloquently why it is pointless to ever respond to birther demands. After all, there is no reason whatsoever for wanting the microfilm age tested. Sheriff Joke and Mike the Amazing Wonder Used Car Salesman have no explanation for why, if the State of Hawaii was to provide them with the microfilm, it should not be treated as a government record kept in the regular course of business. Their only reason for doubting it is that they doubt any actual proof that they are wrong. Thus, even if it were provided, age tested and Zeus himself appeared and stated it was real, they would still find a way to move the goalposts. It isn’t about providing proof of what happened, it is about providing proof of what the birthers say happened. Since that is not available (Since what the birthers say happened didn’t happen), no proof will ever satisfy them.
I can’t imagine why Obama would file a FOIA for his SS-5.
In “real” discovery in a real case he would have been served with a Request for Production. Obviously he doesn’t have the original, but he could ask for a certified copy on his own, which would not require a FOIA request, if he wished OR he could merely provide permission for the plaintiff to obtain it.
That said, a party can not be forced to provide something they don’t have and/or do not have control over.
—
I never heard of that. There are other rules/procedures to prevent party destruction of docs.
Re: “Yeah, it was tough for an American to travel to Pakistan. It required a plane ticket, a passport, and a visa. ”
Not even the visa. Pakistan gave US tourists 30-day visas on arrival.
From Practical Law Company, “Federal Practice Using Subpoenas to Obtain Evidence“:
Of course, what I am trying to get at is precisely what is wrong with Taitz’ issuing the subpoena. If the subpoena is directed at Obama prematurely, say before he is served with the complaint, then he is a non-party and a subpoena can be issued to non-parties before all defendants reply (?) and if Obama has been served, still there’s no rule that says a party can’t be served (according to the quote above).
There are things wrong with the subpoena, for example asking for things the subject doesn’t have, or that are protected information, and not giving enough time to respond. However, the Government didn’t ask the Court to quash the subpoenas which they could have done if they were facially invalid; rather, they asked for an extension of time. And the Judge, who could have sua sponte quashed the subpoenas (?) rather ordered Taitz to modify them to give a reasonable amount of time.
This blog should be renamed the “What is the meaning of ‘IS’ “ blog. Then again the blog could be named the Neville Chamberlain blog and its members can continue to behave like Chamberlain did toward , the mister nice guy, Hitler reincarnated as; aka Soebarkah, Obama, Soetero who, in his own words, says that he is a muslim . http://youtu.be/tCAffMSWSzY OK! so obot dolts conjure up a silly argument, that the ‘miscreants’ words captured during MSM interviews are doctored up by birthers. Any claims against the ‘miscreants’ acknowledgments that he is a muslim can be validated by the clips that are contained in the video, because they are available at the MSM web sites that conducted the White House “miscreant’s” interviews.
There comes a time when the denouncers of facts need to be called for what they themselves really are all about. The phony, swellheaded frauds with monikers of; Dr. Obtuse aka Dr. Conspiracy aka Dr. Neville Chamberlain, Dr. Dummer aka Dr. K, J.D. and others are all equally incompetent with evaluating ‘evidence’ as are all the other ‘birther experts’ aren’t they?
This blog’s ‘swellheads’ surely make every effort to appear as competent forensic experts who are able to condemn other birther forensic experts that have shown how the WH ‘imbecile’, TelePrompTer idiot, unpublished Harvard Law cretin, and fraud who has provided false forged documents to the American people.
The ‘swellheads prove that their age old stupidity that they adhere too, and is shown by one of their leaders, an alleged rapist, who proves that the ‘demon’ party whacks are a nefarious bunch by asking questions, or making comments about the meaning of ‘IS’ -:(
Furthermore the pseudo intellectual now illegally in office has NEVER published any sort of Harvard law review articles on legal matters that are important to the law students in and around America; isn’t that strange? OH! and he is having to forfeit apx 2.5 million in an attempt to extricate himself from the ‘voter fraud’, ‘document fraud’ , criminal fraud with regard to ‘oath’ swearing and more.
Now how can the self appointed “forensic” experts’ Dr. Conspiracy aka Dr. Obtuse aka Dr. Chamberlain, or Dr. K, and other Dr. phonies along with other phonies identified as R.C. a someone who claims to be some kind of superior ‘whatever’ and can’t get a blog radio show working properly. HAhhhaahhh! R.C. the BIGGEST INCAPABLE and nasal voiced entity on Blog Talk Radio.
This racist explains the facts of the ‘unknown’ history of that piece of dung in the White House. The NON-EXISTANT TURD in Wa. DC… promulgates that his history is supported by the facts that there are no birth, Selective Service, Social Security, records.. no publications in the Harvard Law Review, at all http://is.gd/DYrpFC . America has a ‘no one’ in the white house and the obots on this blog have attested that the ‘no one’ in the White House exist without any credible history… WOW! are there any more people on the planet earth with LESS abilities with using ‘common sense’ ?
And on the other hand another anti O’bunghole racist has published many articles and is a PHD from Harvard, Dr.Obuse aka Dr. Conspiracy states that he himself has an intellectual capacity greater than the Harvard PHD, and former Assistant Secretary of State for the U.S government and a former Ambassador for Economics acting for the U.S.
This Harvard PHD has nothing to hide and could’ve made a better president than that ‘turd’ in the White House. This Biography of an Anti Obama aka “RAT” who has a PHD in political science, was an ambassador for America to various international organizations, also assistant secretary of state within Americas government. http://is.gd/T4mZnZ
AND! btw, this PHD Constitutional law expert says what an NBC citizen is required to have, to be called an American NBC . http://wp.me/P1a4Br-25 Of course the pseudo expert “Dr. Obtuse aka Conspiracy” is the SUPER intellectual who has more credentials to be a forensic expert “NOT” will again attempt to ridicule those who are SUPERIOR to his (Dr.Conspiracy’s) infinitesimally tiny intellectual capacity to reason using ‘commons sense’, something that a jury would use to arrive at a consensus to jail the ‘usurper’ when he is tried in a court of law with a jury.
Are the ‘swellheads’ on this blog that are not any more qualified in forensics, and who have proven to be more ignorant than birthers when they attempt to comment and attempt to disparage WH “miscreant” data obtained by many citizens without the benefit of discovery or the force of law?
Are this blog’s ‘swellheads’ able to >>>disprove<<>>>>>>Dr. Conspiracy:” As for Keyes, I have debated him and I was not impressed.”<<<<<>>>>>>>Reality Check January 27, 2013 at 4:18 pm <<<<<<<<
RC needs to be altered to reflect the actual facts, and that is RC should be altered IRC …“Incredulous Reality Check” .
RC question to Dr. Nevill Chamberlain aka Dr. Conspiracy–”’Was that via email or did he comment here at one time? I invited him to come on RC Radio but he never responded.” BOoooo HAHAHAA R.C. needs counseling for certain.
Rat ordered to appear and ignores the order is another attempt to circumvent the laws governing fraud, and if the WH ‘miscreant rat’ is ever tried in a court with a jury… he will be jailed. http://is.gd/rgr9fj
Biography of an Anti Obama aka “RAT” who has a PHD in political science, was an ambassador for America to various international organizations, also assistant secretary of state within America's government. Dr. Obtuse aka Conspiracy, R.C. and more, believe that the sun shines up their ‘derrière’ when the true facts are that it is some ‘obot’ with a flashlight rather than the sunshine that appears on their ‘derrière. http://is.gd/T4mZnZ
Now… which of these are more capable in knowing what is in America’s house; is it Dr. Obtuse, Dr. K, J.D. or whomever ? http://is.gd/T4mZnZ
—
Thanks for clarifying.
—
Note the last sentence of defendants’ motion: “Federal Defendants intend to file a formally noticed motion to quash the subpoenas forthwith and hereby ask the Court to extend the deadline for responding…”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/118079864/Grinols-et-al-v-Electoral-College-et-al-Motion-To-Extend-Time-For-Responding-To-Subpoenas-California-Electoral-Challenge-Hearing-12-26-2012
So? Even were this true, what does it matter?
The Constitution makes it plain that the President can be of any faith.
Your evident contempt for this President is based on – what, exactly? Failure to publish in the Harvard Law Review???
Wow! Speaking of pseudo …
Thanks, I had forgotten that.
On the other thread there was considerable discussion as to what “discovery” is and is not. In some texts I’m reading I see non-party subpoenas mentioned as discovery, the Practical Law source being one of them.
If we can stretch subpoenas to fall under discovery, then we can clearly invalidate the Taitz subpoena under FRCP 26(d)(1) which says:
Here “any source” is used as distinct from “parties” in the same text, from which I would infer that it includes non-parties.
I don’t claim to be a competent forensic expert, only more competent than the birther forensic experts insofar as being able to demonstrate that their conclusions are faulty.
Veritas (sic) refers to Dr. Herb Titus, who argues based on the Hebrew Scriptures that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Certainly Dr. Titus, speaking as an academic carries some weight, but he is also speaking as an official of a political party in opposition to President Obama and someone speaking as a politician really doesn’t count. He’s being an advocate, not an academic.
If it were just me who is saying what a natural born citizen is, I wouldn’t speak with so much confidence, but it is not just me. It is several credentialed law professors and recognized constitutional expert, 10 court decisions, and authorities going back to the early 1800’s who have been cited by courts. When has Dr. Titus ever been cited as an authority by a court? I daresay never. I do not speak of my own authority because I have plenty of real authority to back me up.
The same may be said for forensic document analysis. I have real authorities to back me up. Birthers have none.
By the way, writing in a haughty and insulting style is not going to impress anybody here.
Articles here on Titus:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/law-professor-nixes-obama/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/bible-says-obama-not-eligible/
If Doc. C were to decide to rename his blog, I see that “TheMindBoggles.org” is available.
Veritas was at Regent? That’s almost as well respected academically as Mary Lou’s College of Cosmetics and Air Conditioning Repair in Bluefield, West-by-God Virginia! You can find Mary Lou’s on the edge of town, out on the state highway, right behind the Dairy Queen.
It might be strange if it were true, but it is not true. I think you must change your name to “falsitatis.”
Obama’s article starts on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html
Veritas, thank you for that well reasoned, objective and informative article. I think I speak for everyone the world over who is following the birther movement that your insightful logic and clear eyed, non biased simple presentation of facts has made us decide to pack up and call it quits. I’ll give Soros a call, let him know the gig is up, and offer to help my buddy Barrack pack.
Is it just me, or are birfer tears really getting sweeter? 😛
How many names does “Veritas” post as? Veritas needs to turn off RW radio, and get help. Lithium would be a start.
Titus is an anti-Semite and a professional bigot. Regent carries zero weight.
“Forget the birth certificate. President Obama is not eligible to be president of the United States because he is not a “natural born citizen” as defined by Article II of the Constitution, which was based on Deuteronomy 17.
This was the message delivered by Herb Titus at yesterday’s “First Friday” lecture…”
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4587/meet_the_christian_reconstructionists_behind_the_latest_birther_theory_/
Virginia governor McDonnell’s “degree” is from Regent. Some of his proposals were so awful, he was ridiculed by every late night comedian.
Right along with the Taft School of Law and Auto Mechanics, located on the second floor of a shopping plaza.
Just ask Orly Taitz.
Veriitas, stringing together a whole page of ad hominems, juvenile insults and non sequiturs proves nothing about obamaconspiracy.org.
My dad always told me that as soon as you resort to insults, you are probably losing the argument, and that empty vessels make the most noise. Your posting is proof that he was right.
My blood sugar spiked just reading that post.
Interestingly, Jewish law bases membership in the Jewish people on whether or not one’s mother was Jewish, not one’s father.
It’s ironic that the birthers are chasing after a Holy Grail at all. The “real” Holy Grail was basically a medieval invention to inspire the masses after the supposed True Cross was lost in the battle of Hattin. I can just see some medievil Jerome Corsi reelling after Saladin captured it and wouldn’t give it back.
As an officer in the International Jewish Conspiracy™, I’ve already called Soros.
Ironically, the True Cross is available here in Chinatown. It comes with a certificate of authenticity, written in Mandarin.
Can I catch a ride with you?
“Veritas” needs to stick to posting drivel at Orly’s where the other morons there hang on his every word because they know no better… or perhaps just enjoy reading the BS.
I think it’s beyond drivel…
“Veritas” needs to stick to posting drivel at Orly’s
.
a drivel a day keeps the birthers at bay
Indeed. I was just outside with my dog and I think she’s having that problem.
—
That’s right.
That other thread was lawyers engaging in very-technical splitting hairs in trying to figure every angle of what the Judge might do and if there was anyway Orly could convince the judge that she hadn’t actually lied. I was finally convinced it absolutely couldn’t be discovery when I saw that the subpoena was expressly for an in-court hearing — she was essentially demanding that Occidental testify in court and present docs as evidence to the Judge. Discovery is always out-of-court testifying (e.g. a deposition), out-of-court production of docs, etc. IMO, the fact that Orly labeled her motion as “discovery” can only–at best–save her under the George Costanza Code of Lying, which is unlikely to be recognized in the federal courts.
We speak generally of “discovery” as basically the period after the Answer is filed and before the actual in-court trial (or some other in-court evidentiary hearing). It’s the period everyone tries to discover any/all information/docs that might lead to evidence that can later be presented at trial. The rules of subpoenas can become confusing because they can sometimes be for discovery (out-of-court) or for trial or hearing (in-court).
Sometimes his English and grammar make me wonder if he is even American.
Veritas is insane!
—
FYI, this is incorrect. So long as Obama is named in the caption of a filed complaint (i.e., the top part of the Complaint that names the plaintiffs v. the defendants) he is a party, regardless of whether he has been served.
So.. just another birther, huh?
Hey look who’s back, it’s Veritas, one of the Internet’s most verbose yet ignorant ranters.
Look at all of those words words words, you’d think if Veritas was right they would have won one of those 200 court cases right? Right?
Of course any replies to the troll are useless since it was a drive-by, it won’t be back because that’s how they roll.
Veritas, I think your written words just don’t have the effect you are hoping for. You need spitting and waving of arms, some visuals. I think you could make your rant more entertaining if you made it into a video–like Rudy. Pastor Manning also comes up with some entertaining videos occasionally. And Orly! Think big. Think viral.
Yes, it’s called an ETA. I have been to Australia twice. I actually had a bit of trouble getting an ETA the first time – apparently someone with the same name as me was on Australia’s watch list and I had to submit some documentation to prove my date of birth. The second time it was no problem.
“Furthermore the pseudo intellectual now illegally in office has NEVER published any sort of Harvard law review articles on legal matters that are important to the law students in and around America; isn’t that strange?”
Do views on fetal rights, abortion and the law qualify as important issues to law students?
Excerpts from Politico:
“An unsigned 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama’s views on abortion policy and the law during his student days.”
“The six-page summary, tucked into the third volume of the year’s Harvard Law Review, considers the charged, if peripheral, question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama’s answer, like most courts’: No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother’s rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy.”
“The Obama campaign swiftly confirmed Obama’s authorship of the fetal rights article Thursday after a source told Politico he’d written it. The campaign also provided a statement on Harvard Law Review letterhead confirming that the unsigned piece was Obama’s – the only record of the anonymous authors is kept in the office of the Review president – and that records showed it was the only piece he’d written for the Review.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html
Aren’t so many birthers outright liars?
As a “Constitutional law expert” you should have no trouble citing a single Constitutional law text, history text, or civics text which unambiguously agrees with your opinion on the requirements to be a natural born citizen. A text published before 2008, please.
I’ll be waiting, but I won’t be holding my breath.
All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen. – Sandra Day O’Connor
+10
Miscreants, turd, and rat? Veritas, you forgot screed. We have standards here. Do try to remember all of the troll words or the Doc may ban you (again?).
Keyes is a carpetbagging crackpot, who disowned his daughter. He was once UN Ambassador. BFD
Obama will have a library, hundreds of books will be written about him, and he will go down in history as a great president. With Obama’s re-election, he is the world Jewish leader – not Bibi.
I hope that makes you miserable.
You might be able to date a microfilm by comparison to others of known provenance that you would expect to be similar to it. How definitive something like this would be depends on how quickly the film in question degrades over time.
They’d still just argue you used old film even if it was obvious that the contents of the film were the same age as the actual film itself.
“Virginia governor McDonnell’s “degree” is from Regent. Some of his proposals were so awful, he was ridiculed by every late night comedian.”
I know, he’s my governor. gag.
Woodrowfan: That’s almost as well respected academically as Mary Lou’s College of Cosmetics and Air Conditioning Repair
“Right along with the Taft School of Law and Auto Mechanics, located on the second floor of a shopping plaza. Just ask Orly Taitz.”
I think Mary Lou’s and the Taft School are big homecoming rivals.
And who will follow him?
Okay, Rickey – let me come to the aid of my lunatic friend, VERITAS here! I’ve got hundreds of texts I could cite like this one – read it and weep!
from Page 3058 of The people’s cyclopedia of Universal Knowledge published by Eaton & Mains, in 1897 (Google Books) under the heading, “Citizenship and Naturalization in the United States”
“Citizens may be divided Into two classes: natural born and alien born. Natural-born citizens are of two kinds: native born—those born of either American or alien parents within the Jurisdiction of the United States, and foreign born—those born of American parents without the Jurisdiction of the United States. Alien-born citizens are of three kinds—those who become citizens by their own voluntary act, upon personal petition: those who become citizens involuntarily, by the act of others, such as minor children; and those who become citizens Involuntarily, as a consequence of their own acts (alien wives).
The native-born citizen in his own country needs no certificate that be is a citizen. His oath that be Is native born is all that Is required of him until the contrary is proven.”
Oh. Whoops! I’ve let Veritas down.
Benji Franklin January 29, 2013 at 9:47 pm [Having irreversible loss of brain function as indicated by a persistent flat electroencephalogram]
“The native-born citizen in his own country needs no certificate that be is a citizen. His oath that be Is native born is all that Is required of him until the contrary is proven.””
This of all things written over the years is a laughing matter and has no bearing whatsoever on qualifying to be the American president.
That’s an interesting quote, and it highlights how we have come to take birth certificates for granted. But it was only in the early 20th century that all states started recording births and issuing certificates. Before that, many jurisdictions didn’t bother. Yet somehow, we still had Presidents.
You poor little crybaby loser, making up a bunch of sh!t because the evil commie black muslim guy is in the White House for another 4 years.
You pathetic dog poop.
“And who will follow him?”
Misha says CORY BOOKER, I agree
—-
Not at all. Law Review members must all prepare “publishable” articles, but few are actually published in the Law Review Journal. And Law Review Journals are not created based on what is “important to law students”. Instead, they are scholarly journals for what is important to scholars, judges, lawyers, students, and anyone else who wants to read the journals. The role of Law Review students is primarily editorial–they solicit/review/select/edit/publish the submissions of scholars from throughout the country/world. Obama was the President of one of the most prestigious scholarly publications in the world–the Harvard Law Review. (And FYI, just to become a member of the Law Review one has to be among the top students in the law school).
OT threadjack alert:
Cory Booker Continues His Steady March Toward Canonization by Personally Saving a Stranded Dog from Freezing to Death
http://gawker.com/5979103/cory-booker-continues-his-steady-march-toward-canonization-by-personally-saving-a-stranded-dog-from-freezing-to-death
A feeling I have about most birthers. Only a fraction of them can string together a longer sentence or complex words without making ridiculous spelling and/or grammatical mistakes.
Now the world knows how “Red Diaper Doper Babies” relate to America’s Republic. The “Red diapered” crowd exist here, on this blog, where they show their communist ideology. What is strange is the fact that many Americans died to save the American Republic from becoming a communist/socialist country, and their reward is now a commie attempt to initiate a soft overthrow of America’s Republic. BIll Ayers needs to be jailed for blowing up government buildings all over America as a leader of the Weatherman.
Those who died to preserve American freedoms are dishonored by the brainwashed commies on this blog.
The heroes on this blog are an insult to common sense people in America. The heroes on this blog have been nurtured by the enemies of America like; Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, ??? Jones- a card carying commie, Sebelius, Jennings a fisting kit advocat, and a whole cadre of indoctrinated ‘commies’ who are all members of the commie/socialist democrats of America.
The former Democratic party is now the “commie’s” party of America who intend to vote themselves benefits from the public trough, as Argentina’s voters did in their past. Now Argentina is an economic basket case…. it’s a perfect example that shows where America is headed.
I have no idea where Taitz cited a TOP SECRET document, but it sounds pretty entertaining. Where is this citation?
I try to avoid commenting on their spelling, grammar and even word usage as mine is less than stellar. I’m considering changing my screen name to However10.
“The heroes on this blog are an insult to common sense people in America.”
Mission accomplished.
This is true. I was a Trotskyite in college, then a kibbutznik. My grandfather subscribed to Der Tag, a communist newspaper. We meet to sing “The Internationale.” Want to join us? I hope you’re an atheist.
Да з’равствует Ленин!
From each according to his ability. To each according to his need. – Lenin/Ленин
Sounds like common sense to me.
Anyone who thinks Democrats are Communists is plainly an idiot. Pointless to even talk to.
Yeah, but it’s sooo much fun.
When I lived in a Gaithersburg development, there was a Republican neighbor who always had the flag hanging. Whenever he did, I hung the Russian flag.
Here’s where I got the idea: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfps0fzUm61qbhfrso1_500.jpg
Well, then find yourself a country where only people who don’t, in some form or other, depend on government payments are allowed to vote. Though I’m not sure there is any on this planet.
Also you should move to a country where only people who don’t advocate things you deem “socialist” (like universal healthcare) are allowed to vote.
Gosh, that starts to sound more and more like a “only members of the ruling party may vote” country. You would actually feel at home in Stalinist Russia, I suppose.
Heck, even during the beginning of the Third Reich, most people were allowed to vote. Though the regime had disbanded all other parties, up to 36% of the people voted “no” by writing that on the ballot which only contained one party. By your logic, these people were evil pro-Stalin Marxists and should have been stopped from voting against the party line. *facepalm*
And of course since birthers claim blacks only voted for Obama because he’s black, you would need a law that disallows people (non-whites only, of course) from voting for someone of the same colour.
This is a good point to note that today is Saul Alinsky’s birthday. He was born in 1909 and would have been 104 today. Happy Birthday Saul! I never actually heard of him before RWNJ’s like this one started vilifying him for whatever reason. He appears to have been a pretty good guy.
OT, but apropos. Highly recommended: Tony ‘n Tina’s Wedding
http://www.tonylovestina.com/index.cfm
Both of his books were on the required reading list in college.
‘Obama was influenced by Alinsky’ is a dog whistle to anti-Semites.
And how would she know anything about a Top Secret document? I had a Top Secret clearance when I was in the Navy. and the only people who could see and know about Top Secret documents were those who had Top Secret clearances.
Red Diaper Doper Babies, my parents escaped from a communist country, I have had family members tortured under communist regemes, I know what communisn is, you don’t. You are a blattering idiot, a RWNJ full of hate.
I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the Nixon Justice Department dropped all charges against Ayers. The bombings took place 40 years ago. Have you ever heard of the term “Statute of Limitations?”
As if you know the first thing about risking your life to preserve American freedoms. You obviously don’t know anything about communism, either.
So you see what I mean by “entertaining.”
Unfortunately, I have no idea what document John is referring to.
And don’t forget one had to have a “need to know” as well. I also had a TS with an SCI. Doesn’t mean I got to read everything!
Absolutely. We also had “officers’ eyes only” documents which could only be viewed by an officer who had the appropriate clearance.
Maybe she has the “Double TS Clearance”. The one that was so secret we know nothing about!
Or maybe she had a KGB clearance. Has Orly Taitz ever been properly vetted (other than by Charles Edward Lincoln, that is)?
This article has been updated with the Milkuski subpoena.
Mail order lawyers from former Soviet states automatically get Top Secret Clearances. It goes with the job.
Ok…that I can understand. A KGB clearance would be far above anything I ever held! Now this brings up a completely new Conspiracy Theory…who sold the documents to the KGB? Who is this spy?? Who is it trying to destroy our government from within?
Birthers have made a fetish of the word “vetted.” You see it almost as often as “usurper.” Yet I wonder how many birthers had ever used it prior to reading some silly blogger claim Obama “WAS NEVER VETTED!!”
Neither does John.
Every time I say to Max and Angel, “You’re going to be vetted,” they run around the apartment and try to hide.
I don’t know why. Dr. Sean is a very nice veterinarian.
Orly Taitz was a KGB agent: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post.html
Here’s the truth about Orly Taitz’ name: http://spreadingtaitz.tumblr.com/
The dinner patrons are very unhappy.
Obama’s article appeared in the Law Review 2 months before he became its president.
J.D. Sue: And FYI, just to become a member of the Law Review one has to be among the top students in the law school
take it from classmate CONSERVATIVE Bradford Berenson Harvard Law, class of ’91; associate White House counsel, 2001-’03 UNDER BUSH:
“You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review, no matter how political, or how liberal the place is, by virtue of affirmative action, or by virtue of not being at the very top of your class in terms of legal ability.”
“Barack was at the VERY TOP OF HIS CLASS in terms of legal ability. ”
“He had a FIRST-CLASS LEGAL MIND and, in my view, was selected to be president of the Review ENTIRELY ON HIS MERITS.”
AND one of karl rove’s deputies helped obama get elected to law review
And why does Orly believe that Senator Mikulski has custody of any documents used or prepared by experts? Orly is demanding “a certified copy of the alleged expert authentication that Senator Mikulski claimed to have received,” but Senator Mikulski never claimed that she received any authentication. She only wrote that the birth certificate had been authenticated.
That reads like a form comment, something a grumpy person ‘donates’ to every blog that isn’t sufficiently hateful enough.
For a good time, google “Red Diaper Doper Babies” … it’s been around! In the Urban Dictionary …. a favorite of Michael Savage … title of a song by “Johnny Cakes and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypso” (I don’t recommend it) …
Usage seems to have dropped off in 2007.
Jon Stewart had a great piece last night on the Citadel that pointed out for a bunch of freedom and capitalism loving individuals, they sure had a lot of authoritarian rules.
Obama did not write an article but a student comment. From the website of Harvard Law Review
Most student writing takes the form of Notes, Recent Cases, Recent Legislation, and Book Notes. Notes are approximately 22 pages and are usually written by third-year students. Recent Cases and Recent Legislation are normally 8 pages long and are written mainly by second-year students (Obama wrote about a recent decision). Recent Cases are comments on recent decisions by courts other than the U.S. Supreme Court, such as state supreme courts, federal circuit courts, district courts, and foreign courts. Recent Legislation look at new statutes at either the state or federal level. Book Notes, also written by second-year students, are brief reviews of recently published books.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/about.php
Also, many glorify how only students with the top grades can even become a member of HLR. Leaving Obama out of the picture because he doesn’t matter, just the general proposition), here is what the website says about membership
Harvard Law Review Membership Selection Policies
Membership in the Harvard Law Review is limited to second- and third-year law students who are selected on the basis of their performance on an annual writing competition. Harvard Law School students who are interested in joining the Review must write the competition at the end of their 1L year, even if they plan to take time off during law school or are pursuing a joint degree and plan to spend a year at another Harvard graduate school.
…
Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis. Some of these discretionary slots may be used to implement the Review’s affirmative action policy.
Here is a link to Obama’s student comment that was published anonymously (anonymity according to tradition):
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_case_comment.pdf
The style is in the usual perfunctory law review form, but the substance is quite chilling. The issue concerned the expansion of “fetal rights” : should a “fetus” have the right to sue the mother for prenatal injuries caused by negligent behavior? Within the comment, he clearly lays out the double standard for wanted pregnancies versus unwanted.
___________________
Commentators agree that courts should weight these interests differently in cases where a woman has decided to carry her pregnancy to term, and that the issue of fetal-maternal tort suits therefore demands a separate doctrinal framework. For example, fetal-maternal tort suits might entail far more intrusive scrutiny of a woman’s behavior than the scrutiny involved in the discrete regulation of the abortion decision. On the other hand, the state may have a more compelling interest in ensuring that fetuses carried to term do not suffer from debilitating injuries than it does ensuring that any particular fetus is born.
____________________
Wow- a wanted “fetus” MAY have a right to be born without debilitating injuries whereas an unwanted “fetus” has NO right to be born.
The whole comment is disturbing. The “fetus” may have a cause of action against a third party but not the mother because of their “physical connectedness.” They are “legal adversaries from conception until birth.”
Just wow…
awww our resident on again off again birther has returned. How’s the self victimization business going Charo?
Comme ci, comme ça. Tough times you know for small business owners so I can’t complain.
Classy.
I have no idea what has prompted charo to bring up the Harvard Law Review article, which came to light over four years ago. If anyone is interested, there’s a Ben Smith article at Politico from Aug. 2008. Ben Smith of course tries to make it all as ugly as possible, but doesn’t get anywhere near the level of charo’s comments.
The comment (it is not actually an article), was mentioned above; that is why I looked for it. I quoted from it word for word. I linked it. See for yourself.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_case_comment.pdf
Why are you shocked by that? It is just another form of ” you don’t have to do it, but if you are going to do it, do it right”. You don’t have to allow a fetus to develop into a child, but if you do then you are responsible for making sure that child is not damaged by your actions when it was a fetus.
I see now where that was brought up, I missed it before.
But I am baffled by your comments. Perhaps you didn’t notice that the part you quoted is from the middle of a paragraph about how the question of whether a fetus can sue its mother relates to Constitutional law. Your comments about a right to be born appear to be completely unrelated to the subject being discussed. Maybe you should go read it, and point out where Obama discusses the right to be born. I don’t think he does.
charo: Obama did not write an article but a student comment. From the website of Harvard Law Review
doc: Obama’s article starts on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html
a question of whether fetuses should be able to file lawsuits against their mothers. Obama’s answer, like most courts’: No. He wrote approvingly of an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that the unborn cannot sue their mothers for negligence, and he suggested that allowing fetuses to sue would violate the mother’s rights and could, perversely, cause her to take more risks with her pregnancy.
His article acknowledged a public interest in the health of the fetus, but also seemed to demonstrate his continuing commitment to abortion rights, and suggested that the government may have more important concerns than “ensuring that any particular fetus is born.”
And he concluded the article with a flourish: “Expanded access to prenatal education and heath care facilities will far more likely serve the very real state interest in preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair.”
According to Obama’s footnotes, the child’s mother, Bari Stallman was involved in a car accident in 1981 with a Clarence Youngquist. Her daughter, Lindsey, was born with severe injuries from the wreck, and so Stallman’s husband, acting for the baby, sued both his wife and Youngquist for negligence, hoping to recover damages from their insurance companies.
Obama’s article addressed only the narrow question of whether a fetus could sue its mother for negligence. He didn’t take on the broader question of the fetus’s personhood, or whether it could sue others.
On one hand, he warned that allowing fetuses to sue their mothers could actually lead to more abortions.
“Imposing civil liability on mothers may be as likely to deter the carrying of pregnancies to term as to deter maternal negligence during pregnancy,” he wrote.
He was also acutely sensitive to women’s rights, and to the consequences of involving civil law in childbearing.
“Fetal-maternal tort suits might entail far more intrusive scrutiny of a woman’s behavior than the scrutiny involved in the discrete regulation of the abortion decision,” he wrote. “On the other hand, the state may also have a more compelling interest in ensuring that fetuses carried to term do not suffer from debilitating injuries than it does in ensuring that any particular fetus is born.”
Obama’s article, which begins on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review, is available in libraries and subscription-only legal databases.
A Catholic Hospital in Colorado is arguing in a medical malpractice lawsuit that a fetus is not a human being. That should be worthy of several wows.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/
—
I don’t want to debate the abortion issue here, but this is not a fair representation of what he said in the Comment. He did not say mother and fetus are legal adversaries from conception until birth. Instead, he said it would be wrong for the courts to create such a legally adversarial relationship, by allowing lawsuits against mothers for alleged negligence with their own bodies (e.g., suing poor women for not getting sufficient nutrition). In contrast, if a third party negligently hurts the fetus so that it is born with debilitating injuries, that might be a basis for suit to pay for the damages associated with those injuries.
—
I expect he used the term “article”, as I did previously, as a term more understandable to people outside the world of law reviews. Inside that world, the term “article” is only for non-student works, and terms like “note” or “comment” are used for student works. Outside that world, people easily misunderstand the terms “note” or “comment” to be something short or casual, so it’s easier to just use the more generally understood term “article”. The legal world tends to use terminology that seems to understate things, like “brief” or “clerk”.
True
Another case of a claim to be Catholic but only in name, not in deed.
I agree to not continue with the the abortion debate. People can read the link and draw their own conclusions.
Good, because reproductive freedom is constitutionally guaranteed.
This whole thing about the HLR is OT for this thread, but I will test Dr.C’s patience further with one more comment. Obama’s article is, of course, a review of law. That is, gathering and summarizing relevant legal authorities. The result of that summary is that a fetus does not have a right to sue its mother for negligence. That is not policy advocacy by Obama, that is reporting what the law is. The closest he comes to advocacy is in the part discussed above, where he comments on the negative aspects of making mother and fetus legal adversaries, and that’s a minor sideline of the article anyhow.
Anyone who wants to criticize Obama for his support of abortion rights will find no shortage of plain and unambiguous statements to prove that support. Using this HLR article seems kind of strange, and appears to rely on readers not understanding what a law review is.
Sounds familiar. Isn’t the celibacy requirement for Catholic priests based on a single line in the Bible where Jesus observes that, paraphrasing, “some people live in celibacy because they think it brings them closer to God”? Which was then somehow retconned into Jesus advocating such behaviour?
I understand the purpose of the comment. It was his choice to write about that particular case, and to write a statement like this in a perfunctory manner is disturbing to me:
“On the other hand, the state may have a more compelling interest in ensuring that fetuses carried to term do not suffer from debilitating injuries than it does ensuring that any particular fetus is born.”
That is my opinion. I am not asking you to adopt it. Some things IMO cannot be sanitized.
Dave: Using this HLR article seems kind of strange, and appears to rely on readers not understanding what a law review is.
VERY true –
Actually there is precedent for married priests because St. Peter was married (Jesus cured his mother-in-law). The Church may decide at some point to allow married priests because there is precedent for it. There are married priests currently, those coming from the Eastern rite ,maybe even Angelicans who have converted. The Magisterium has presently decided not to permit the married priesthood in the rites that do not have it because of the commitment required to the vocation of the priesthood, which supersedes the vocation of fatherhood (in the sense of the biological family). A man may become a deacon if he is already married; however, if his spouse dies, he may not remarry. My husband looked into it once (the deaconate) but it wasn’t his calling.
OT: It won’t happen because then the Church would have to pay real world salaries, like a rabbi receives.
Celibacy is for economic reasons.
I would use a stronger word – hypocrisy. A fetus is a human being except when it might cost the church money.