Reading the decision of judge Thomas McPhee dismissing the Linda Jordan lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s inclusion on the Washington state ballot, I couldn’t help remembering the words of US District Judge James Robertson dismissing Hollister v. Soetoro way back in 2009:
The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.
Judge Robertson concluded that the frivolous suit was brought for an “improper cause.” Now a judge in Washington state chides plaintiff Linda Jordan for arguing what she must know is untrue in her lawsuit, Jordan v. Secretary of State Reed. Judge McPhee wrote:
… all the so-called evidence offered by plaintiff has been in the blogosphere for years, in one form or another, so too has all the law rejecting plaintiffs allegations. I can conceive of no reason why this lawsuit was brought, except to join the chorus of noise in that blogosphere. The case is dismissed.
I think both judges recognize that this is an Internet controversy, and not one involving real law and real evidence, and not one that should be resolved by a court.
Apart from the Internet remarks, Judge McPhee affirmed (citing Robinson v. Bowen and Keyes v. Bowen appellate decisions) an important principle that has emerged from the ashes of crashed birther lawsuits: the courts have no constitutional role in judging the eligibility of candidates for President and Vice President, that role being reserved for the Congress. He said:
I conclude that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The primacy of congress to resolve issues of a candidate’s qualifications to serve as president is established in the U.S. Constitution, in the passages cited by the Secretary of State.
The decision exhibits much knife twisting as it sarcastically dismisses Jordan and the rest of the birthers:
*In my best Vincent Price*
Mmmmmmmmmm, yes! Delicious birther tears!
I shall drink my fill and sell the rest on eBay!
When he talks about the out of work computer programmer is that Zebest?
Oh, this deserves an Irish Poem:
There once was a Birther named “Linda,”
Who followed Doc Taitz’s agenda.
The Judge palmed his face,
Then threw out the case,
And 46 sheets of Addenda.
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Since frivolous case redundancy is a Birther characteristic:
There twice was a Birther named “Linda,”
Who followed Doc Taitz’s Upenda.
The Judge palmed his face,
All throughout the case,
Which was 46 sheets of Pretenda
LOL!!!
Reconsider this please, pleaded Linda
When I filed it, I was on a benda.
But now that I’m sober,
I need a do-over,
Oh please let me do an Amenda!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I will start applauding that, just as soon as I find my monocle.
O wise and learned judge!
> I think both judges recognize that this is an Internet controversy, and not one involving
> real law and real evidence.
the judges don’t want to realize, of course, that the internet examination is intrinsically
superior to the Court-examination. So he tries to denigrate and ridicule it as “blogoshere”,
“was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by
America’s vigilant citizenry ”
It is superior because the examination is completely open
and easily available and many parties can join,contribute,discuss,correct,edit,examine.
And because links can be easily added, sources cited and examined and keywords
googled.Because you can easily create and include pictures, tables, code, programs,
html,pdf,ps, videos,audios etc.
But then, what the judge doesn’t say is, that this very internet examination has shown
the birthers were usually wrong.
Bound to fail was this case by Ms Jordan
From the get-go ’twas fatally flawed and
The judge said “no more”,
“We’ve heard all this before”
With sanctions I hope he’ll reward ’em
I thinking of another word that rhymes with ‘pretenda’ and ‘agenda’.
While that word might be appropriate in context, the image it conjures it probably inappropriate for polite discourse.
Even if that sentence was tweaked to make sense, it would still be amazingly absurd.
fify
I know both Judge McPhee and Secretary Reed personally and I can tell you that both are outstanding individuals. I am sure the good judge enjoyed writing that delightfully entertaining decision.
That is a ridiculous statement. On the Internet any idiot or charlatan can lie, contort, and quote things out of context. In courts people have to testify under penalty of perjury and experts must be vetted before they give an opinion. Did you notice that at press conference Joe Arpaio will make certain claims of forgery but when he had to put it on a piece of paper for the courts he backed off those claims? (That wasn’t even under oath either). It is the same with the Internet. Birthers have spread the same lies for 4 years with impunity. In the courts they lose and sometimes even get sanctioned for telling them.
Wow! This is by far the most biased and ridiculing court decision to date. The decision should be appealed and completely tossed out as it contains so much bias and ridicule and slander as to lack any real legal credibility. Is this judge a member of the FogBow or something?
Once Again, more compelling evidence surfaces showing that Obama might have been born in Kenya and that Hawaii is lying and that is why we will never see what Hawaii claims to have in their vault regarding Obama’s vital records.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/grandma-sarahs-poster-celebrates-kenyan-wonder-boy/
Well, at least the latest ruling has given birthers more room to claim the judge dismissed the case “because it was discussed on the internet”. As they did with the “twittered” dismissal before. Nothing new…
The point is that collective intelligence (or the “hive mind”) only works in sufficient numbers and if the collective is sufficiently diverse.
A thousand idiots usually aren’t more clever than one idiot, and definitely not as clever as hundred intelligent people. No matter how many basement “experts” are looking at a document, if it takes just one person who actually knows how PDF and optimization work to refute them, you cannot rely on their sheer numbers.
So much for general analysis.
And when it comes to legal questions, a thousand laymen can never surpass one actual expert. So no matter how many people read Vattel or try to interpret Minor or WKA, they can never elevate themselves to the level that they can say “we know better than SCOTUS”.
So no, the assumption that the birther hive mind somehow outperforms a court’s analysis is fatally flawed.
In fact, the real hive mind is everyone (birthers and non-birthers alike), and that one has, undisputably, already decided that the birther allegations are bogus.
I have given you a break until now, foreigner.
You’ve lost your mind.
Mobs and gossips and slanderers are not superior. Our constitution was written to close off certain avenues, just as much as to open others. That is the problem with your apparent fetish for openness. It is one thing to value openness; it is another to demand openness for everything, apparently even to the level of the President’s DNA as you posted on another thread here. Such openness becomes a mere variation on tyranny.
Our particular form of democracy is not mere majority rule, not just open to whatever “everyone” says. That is the point of our constitution, to check, balance and frame the process, to establish certain inalienable rights, to determine and *close* certain matters. To reopen them takes amendments, or Supreme Court decisions. Not the blogosphere.
Whatever value the blogosphere has, the Judge here was simply saying Linda Jordan should know better and has no excuse for not knowing her claim is without merit.
Your insistence on the word “superior” distracts from the awareness that to each it’s own, each has it’s own place.
To be open, you have to be closed about some matters. Otherwise, you are so open you don’t even exist.
So just to reiterate:
1) A birth certificate, signed and sealed by the Hawaii Department of Health, is NOT legal proof of birth.
2) A poster is.
The obvious question is this: If I were to whip up a nice little calendar saying “BARACK OBAMA: BORN IN HAWAII”, then get a poster sized version printed up at the local Kinko’s, will that convince you Barack Obama was born in the United States?
Please note also that the poster in question does not actually say Barack Obama was born in Kenya, but it refers to him as “The Kenyan Wonder Boy in the U.S.”.
Lastly, how do you know that poster is even real? It’s just an image on the Internet.
That statement was so stupid that it literally made me stupider just reading it. I now forget how to drive and am consigned to the bus until I re-learn it. Thanks a lot, jerk.
“acknowledge” would have been better formulation than “realize”
and “fundamentally” better than “intrinsically”.
But I disagree that one expert is better than thousand laymen,
if the laymen organize themselves well in work-sharing.
Judging is still mainly a task of finding, collecting, reading, presenting
suitable references. A task of diligence.
I could not agree more!
Tell that to the thousand monkeys I employed on a thousand typewriters, who could come up with nothing better than “It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.”
Yeah, but the monkeys STILL outdid the birthers.
To paraphrase THE FINDER:
BIRTHERS VS MONKEYS ?
Monkeys win, oh yeah, for sure.
Probably. Foggy told me that they’re pushing 200,000,000 members at the FogBow, making it by over a factor of 100, the largest phpBB forum in the world. When you rule out the birthers, and small children, pretty much the rest of America are members of the FogBow, so statistically, Judge McPhee probably is too.
Between The FogBow PAC and The FogBow Education Action Fund, they are the largest funder of uncoordinated Obama election activity, having raised a projected $1 Billion dollars. I think that they have done an incredible job with a staff of under 1,000 to essentially take over all Internet discussion of the Obama eligibility and to put all of the birther blogs out of business (the “bad and ugly lists below are left for historical purposes).
I think the thuggery department is scheduled to take your guns tomorrow afternoon.
Sorry, John, but you are wrong again.
My relatives in Ireland consider me to be Irish, but I never set foot in Ireland until I was almost 50 years old.
So a calendar/poster printed by who-knows-who and printed who-knows-where, which has his first name misspelled, is, in your opinion, “compelling evidence” for the accuracy of the statement sort of made on the calendar/poster.
That’s great. I’m going to go print up a calendar that says “New York Mets 2012 World Series Champions.” I’ll call mayor Bloomberg to schedule the parade.
Judging is mainly a task of, wait for it, judging.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judge
It is NOT mainly a task of finding, collecting, reading, presenting suitable references. You are thinking of the tasks of clerks, not to mention the role of the lawyers presenting their cases, and their paralegals behind the scenes. Such tasks are *secondary,* part of the job but not what judges are paid to do; they are not called “researchers.”
Judges get paid to determine and decide. There is a very good reason why we use judges for this role and not bloggers. There is, as well, a very good reason why we balance that role with the role of a jury in certain cases, and not in the court of public opinion, with or without blogs, reality tv shows, or traditional water cooler gossip-mongering.
A layman can apply the scientific method and do valid science. Birthers only try to find something that sounds like their already-formed conclusions. People as fundamentally biased as the birthers demonstrate themselves to be, are at a much greater disadvantage than an unbiased layman. Individually they are more likely to get it wrong than right.
Another problem is that people who are unqualified tend to exaggerate their expertise (Dunning-Kruger Effect). This means they don’t consider other views and they don’t check their work. They are more likely to get it wrong than right.
For these reasons and others, I would even go so far as to say that the birther’s ability is negative, so that the more you get working together (reinforcing each others’ errors), the greater the stupid.
nope. it is still absurd.
I would much rather have a lawyer who went to law school, and passed the bar ( and not named Taitz or Mario), who understands how to practically apply the law than a team of 1000 who have spent a lot of time on the internet. Your reasoning is absurd; and you owe me 2 keyboards now.
So if I managed to find a News of the World supermarket tabloid from 2005 that said Obama was born on the moon would you consider that “compelling evidence”?
Are you saying there are things on the Internet that aren’t real, aren’t true? Tell me it isn’t so!!!!
John, all you’ve done is demonstrate that you have absolutely no clue what either “compelling” or “evidence” means.
Go back to Bizarro World. It is clear that you live in backwards-land all the time.
Another great read:
“The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion, and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. While Ms Fair and Ms. Miltenberger may disagree with the holding of the Supreme Court, from a perspective of stare decises, the only means by which an opinion of the Supreme Court concerning substantive law can be overturned is either by a subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Both have occurred in the past on very rare occasions, but this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama.” Judge Thomas F. Stansfield, Fair v. Obama
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104377229/Fair-v-Obama-Maryland-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Decision-8-27-2012
He also explains that a fake BC would not mean that the President was not born in the US.
Poor John. You are so, so ignorant.
The decision is in writing. By definition it cannot be slander. Theoretically it could be libel, but to be libelous it has to contain a false statement, so you will have to point out to us what Judge McPhee wrote which is not factually true. Furthermore, judges generally have immunity for what they say and write in the course of their official duties.
You are correct about one thing – he did ridicule the birthers, and deservedly so.
You’re welcome.
This discussion is like an open source vs. proprietary software debate. Open source is not fundamentally superior. It has it’s own value, but it is not “superior.” Proprietary software has its own superior qualities, such as accountability and support. Each has it’s own place, and it is the role of an IT Director and their team (read “judge” and “court”) to decide what to use where, when, how.
Here’s an article about just this point of integration, about “bragging rights” vs. “problem-solving.”
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/243136/open_source_vs_proprietary_software.html
That all said, you don’t leave your network open to every hacker and virus-monger out there, just because “laymen” are better.
Thanks for sharing that. Another definitive smackdown for the Birthers!
My favorite part of the dismissal is that KBOA and her fellow Birther plaintiff have to pay for the costs of this case…
Yeh bummer how the truth seems to trump lies. Boo hoo John, another loss for the losers. The ridicule is justified by the outright lies and comical nature of your clown show. Citing WND? Your credibility is showing.
Your ignorance of law is astounding, but not at all surprising.
John. You. Are. A Gobshite! I also think that word accurately describes the entire birther movement. Lots of blustery talk, not a single intelligent thing in the lot of it.
I have nothing else to say to you, ever.
At the risk of incurring the sudden outpouring of wrath, I think there is some validity to foreigner’s point. Of course, a thousand idiots with produce a thousand buckets of idiocy, but I suspect foreigner is thinking of Doc C., John Woodman, the Fogbow crew etc. who can gather information then expose it to critical assessment and evaluation, with the time and exposure for errors to be identified and corrected, and additional information to be incorporated, and this can only be done on the internet.
Isn’t the argument about the pencilled codes on the Hawai’i certificate a good example? Had birthers produced their nonsense in court, it might have been diffficult to refute it, and it would risk becoming a “he says, she says” argument between “experts” decided partly on plausibility and presentation rather than rigorous analysis of facts (remember birthers lie, even in court, which makes adjudicating the truth difficult in those venues). On the internet, Doc C. gathered information, analysed it, discussed it, refuted Zullo’s lies, and then – and this is the kicker showing the integrity of the anti-birther reaction – withdrew parts of his analysis when other information came to light, demonstrating that his hypothesis about commonality of codes was not sustainable.
And as earlier comments indicate, courts do not interest themselves in delivering opinions on hypothetical questions, and defense lawyers will almost always prefer to get cases dismissed on incorrect standing, incorrect jurisdiction etc. at the earliest opportunity if that can avoid a longer and unnecessary argument about facts. So the courts have not attempted the analysis that Doc. C and John Woodman have done.
There’s a place for both. A thousand johns are not worth a single Doc C. A thousand Orly Taitzes are not worth one Jill Nagamine (I’m sure Doc C. would agree, I think Ms Nagamine is his screensaver image).
Here, let me translate that for you, John:
Wow!This is by far the most plainly written and understandable court decision to date.The decision should be applauded and completely distributed out as it contains so much honest and open characterization as to the lack of any real legal credibility of the Birther claims. Is this judge a good old boy who just let it all hang out or something???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Personally, I think the Internet (or crowdsourcing) is a great way to gather information, but is much weaker when it comes to analyzing it. That analysis usually requires some amount of intricate knowledge or expertise that is not available to the crowd. And of course, crowdsourcing only works if the crowd is interested in obtaining the truth and not just proving their preconceptions (As you pointed out, unlike birthers, Doc C drops facts if they are disproven and changes hypotheses as new facts emerge) As such, I think most people were responding to foreigner’s idea that “the judges don’t want to acknowledge of course, that the internet examination is fundamentally superior to the Court-examination” which ignores the idiocy and dishonesty that are rampant on the internet.. Generally speaking, 100 Nobel Laureates are better than a single Nobel Laureate at solving some problem just like 100 unemployed, high school dropouts will have better success than a single one. But while I think most of agree that it does not mean that 100 dropouts are better than a single Nobel Laureate, foreigner seems to think it does.
I don’t want to nay say the value of crowd sourced projects. The Wikipedia is an excellent example.
However, I don’t think the penciled codes are a good example of where the crowd does as well as or exceeds the expert. The Cold Case Posse’s report on the codes would never have seen the light of day in court because in a real court, foundations must be laid for claims. Zullo would have had to produce the original manual the codes came from, and his source — and the fact that he had the wrong manual would have obvious and his evidence inadmissible. A real authority, such as Dr. Onaka, could testify based on document archives and data from other contemporary certificates (without disclosing personal information) what the real codes were, something I have been unable to do.
I can think of limited cases where Obot blogs have uncovered facts that could useful facts in an Obama defense; If Mara Zebest were ever to try to testify, the Obot community could provide information about her former anti-Obama comments on the Internet to impeach her objectivity. However, her lack of qualifications would prevent her from getting to the objectivity question.
One qualified forensic document examiner with expertise in PDF documents and compression would be worth more than all the Obots and birthers together.
Over at Free Republic, there is less fevered enthusiasm about the calendar. They say this was discussed on FR back in March, 2011. Even then it didn’t evoke a lot of posts in response to a video. The video has been pulled already.
Most of the WND article is a recycling of the old “Sarah-says-on-phone-that-she-was-present-when-Barack-was-born-in-Mombasa ” tale. I’ve lost track how many times birthers have tried to revive that story.
What did you see that got you all excited that I missed?
I think you’re forgetting the $3.7Billion the Fogbow has already raised and spent sealing Obama’s records!
Arpaio’s affidavit says it is under penalty of perjury. That influenced even him to back off his claims.
(With apologies to Apocalypse Now) I love the smell of Birther failure in the morning!
I think you are basically saying that two (or 1000) minds are better than one. That is fine for some things, given that those involved are seeking truth and accuracy, not merely confirmation. There are times when experts are necessary, law, medicine, engineering etc. Now if there were professional forums where groups of only qualified lawyers, doctors or engineers worked on a project, I would agree with you, but not just random keyboard kings.
I watched something very special yesterday when Judge McPhee read his decision. It was one of the strongest anti-birther decisions I have seen.
Ms. Jordan was not a happy camper after having her ass chewed up in court.
When you go to court, you should have a real lawyer. She was quite out of her depth.
I just figured she couldn’t find a lawyer stupid enough to take on this loser of a case for any amount of money.
The Deputy Solicitor General did a very nice job, and I was able to thank him personally.
The Fogbow rules….Birfers drool…put some sawdust under her will ya Jed….
… not to mention the Fogbow political officers ‘guiding’ the thoughts of every school board in the country!
(awesome post, Doc!)
I am absolutely able to see some validity to what foreigner is trying to express; if I take the statement with a grain of salt. A very big grain. The problem is with the use of the terms fundamentally, and acknowledge. Also, the idea that this is an “Internet controversy”and not one involving real law and real evidence, in my opinion, is absurd. The birthers are bringing real cases and using the court’s resources. They are appearing before real judges and real court reporters. They are filing real motions. It is true that there is no real evidence, and 144 times the judge has pointed that out.
foreigner: acknowledge” would have been better formulation than “realize”
and “fundamentally” better than “intrinsically”.
I can see the merits of foreigner’s statement, but “the Internet examination is fundamentally( intrinsically) better than the courts- examination.” is just ludicrious.
You guys are crazy hysterical, not to mention extremely clever. Thanks for the floor show. Where is that waiter… I’m ready for my second drink!!!
jayHG:
Thank you!!! I actually did another verse last night, because I was really in the hum of things:
Oh Noes, look what they did to Linda!
And McPhee, he will not rescinda.
Perhaps Mario,
Could help here, although
The chances of that are quite slenda.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Whew!!! That dismissal tore tons of new orifices onto Ms Jordan. That’s definitely going to leave a mark!!
More LOL!!!
Remember you are talking to ‘foreigner’ who is, well, a foreigner. In some foreign locals, a judge is also the researcher, investigator, examiner and prosecutor.
I have probably misrepresented that difference somewhat. I hope one of our honest foreign visitors will correct me.
Not in Germany where “foreigner” has been said to come from. We don’t even have judges as “special prosecutor” as some other countries (I think Spain and Italy at least) do in cases that involve organized crime, or political crimes.
The point is that birthers think that experts can always give absolute answers.
If ever the PDF was part of a forensic examination (and we all know it never will when it’s so much easier and better to focus on the actual paper document), all the expert will be able to say is “what birthers claim is evidence of forgery, isn’t” but not “it’s impossible that this document was (not) manipulated”.
It’s fine for anything that requires either guesswork (the average/median of thousands of guesses usually is very close to the actual value) or observation (a thousand people see more than one) or non-expert knowledge (as in “among 1000 people, there will be one who remembers something”).
However, a thousand laymen can’t replace one brain surgeon, or one forensic document examiner, on their actual field of expertise.
So while a 1000 people can find a lot of things that “look suspicious” on an (electronic copy of a) birth certificate, only an actual expert can evaluate what it means.
It may have worked if birthers had found something that is definite proof-positive of forgery (as in “my father worked at that hospital and still has the employee records, and that physician who signed the BC never worked there”). But so far, all they have found are potential signs of forgery that all have been explained as non-conclusive or outright wrong. And that’s where you reach the limits of the non-expert hive mind.
A thousand laymen can try to find evidence “OJ did it” and maybe they’d succeed, but they cannot properly evaluate DNA traces if they aren’t experts in the field. If a thousand people go “these two strands match, so he musta did it”, it still means zilch if it’s scientifically bogus.
Interesting.
Well, I was saying judging is the main job, with other parts of the job as secondary.
Are there any judges whose primary job is not judging?
This point is why I mentioned open source.
I also would add that in crowd sourced projects there still are editors in various capacities, even on Wikipedia, or other roles that give shape to the crowd. In this discussion, we are talking about the law, and the chief “editors” of the courts are judges.
We can do endless research, detective work, analysis, but all of that comes to a head in front of a judge, as it already does when researched, detected and analyzed by professionals.
Crowd sourcing in legal matters has a special problem called the court of public opinion. We have actual courts, not crowd sourced courts, for very good reasons.
I have used crowd sourcing in projects. I am a fan. But calling internet-examination superior to court-examination? That misses the whole point of due process.
And it’s not like professionals can’t read or otherwise make use of the internet. It still needs in the end to go through the court examination process.
That court process is superior, to use foreigner’s word, in the most important respect, in that it a specific forum for due process, for *decisions* of innocence and guilt, which are not research projects, but are people’s lives.
maybe you have been watching the wrong forums.
There are also legal forums or medical forums or
science forums, where occasionally some experts
appear. Others join and discuss. Others find links
pointing to related things etc.
More useful than going to a doctor,lawyer,consultant IMO
You’re absolutely right! If I need to be diagnosed for cancer, I’m going to a forum where a doctor can take my symptoms and give me a diagnoses. If I have a legal problem, I will definitely ask Orly Taitz for legal advice. /snark
Because Wikipedia is also co-written by experts, not just by people who happen to have heard something.
I think the key point is who makes the decisions and why. A majority decision by non-experts may be wrong, that is why we ask real experts (and don’t take a poll among our relatives, or rely on published polls) when things really matter – whether someone is guilty of a crime, whether we should have heart surgery etc.
Wikipedia works simply by the sheer diversity of people (and some belief in “argument by authority” because not all of us have, e.g., studied quantum physics to a level where we can be sure it’s not totally made-up bogus).
But if your hive consists of people who are biased with regard to a certain issue, the results of the hive mind will also be shifted towards that bias. (As someone further up this thread has so aptly pointed out, the sign is simply swapped from plus to minus.)
The birther hive mind would probably correctly guess the number of peas in a jar, or come to a proper conclusion what the current temperature in NYC is, but it cannot overcome its tainted premise with most political or legal questions.
Which is exactly why we consider our legal system (with legal experts as judges) better than just having a jury of our peers or a council of elders.
(I stop before I start digressing into the difference between law and justice. ;))
Wikipedia also works because it insists that the content be backed up by published sources, and “original research” is prohibited. One might say the Wikipedia has its own rules of evidence.
As I mentioned, all of that, no matter how diverse, comes to a head in front of an actual judge, and in many cases, that unique crowd sourcing project called a jury. The operative phrase here is “due process,” which due process is a superior quality of the courts.
In a similar fashion, at least here, you still need to talk to an actual doctor to get an Internet prescription. We can research all we want, but then we still need to discuss our situation with a doctor if we want to get a prescription.
If you don’t actually want to achieve anything with such critical consequences, as finding someone guilty or taking a powerful and potentially deadly drug, then you can limit yourself to just gaining knowledge. But the moment you want *action* of major import, say declaring a president ineligible, you have to face actual people in an actual court, or more legitimately in this particular instance, Congress.
We can bring all our Internet research to the doctor, or the court, but we still need to go through those superior processes. If you want aspirin, or an “over-the-counter” settlement you negotiate yourself without going to court, have at it. But if you want serious action with serious consequences, due process is superior, to use your word.
Yes, that there is a decision to be made is the prime factor here. But even experts can be wrong, and innocent people are found guilty. Nonetheless, due process is about the framework for reaching decisions with consequences, making them accountable.
We can quote Wikipedia all we want, but we still need to do so in front of a judge, with or without a jury selected to fill that role.
Or “surfaces,” since the article itself points out this poster has been a birfer relic since 2008.
Although true, of course, this severely underplays the ridiculousness of ever looking at the PDF in the first place.
It’s a web page. It’s like declaring the first moon landing a hoax by an analysis of the wood fiber content of one copy of a newspaper reporting it.
I think this is my stock summary answer for all CCP fanbois from here on out: “It’s a freaking web page. What’s your point?”
Well said!!!
Indeed!
Bravo! Well put.
People like you, who have extreme difficulty in discerning between credible sources and utter cr@p, get taken for a ride by quacks and con artists all the time.
Your opinion is a foolish one and you are likely to just endanger your own life or livelihood, as a result of your inability to distinguish such differences….
I think I can parse this argument equitably:
Foerigner is right that the Internet is a powerful system for gathering data, opinions, articles, etc. It encourages analysis of the BC.pdf like gsgs recently did, and the tireless work of John Woodman, Doc C, Jack Ryan, etc. Wikipedia, myriad sources from differing political views, different philosophies, different countries. All good stuff.
Where a Judge, Doctor, Financial Consultant etc. comes in is: Making the call.
Consider Umpires: it is up to them to make a call, safe or out, strike or ball, fair or foul. They make the call, and that’s that. Now, since the advent of good-quality video replay, slow-motion, etc. he can ask for more input than he ever had in the past (a metaphor for the internet). He may change his call based on what one coach claims, what the players say, what the camera shows. But it is his call.
The internet is good at providing context, new information, broad opinions. But there is still a call to be made: Affirmed or denied, guilty or innocent, constitutional or unconstitutional. Operate on the tumor or try chemo. Buy or sell.
At some point, we trust in an authority to make that call, and rightly so. Just as through the vastness of time, boats on the sea have never been run by committee. There is always a captain. One. For the same reasons.
That is one of many areas where Birthers fail: they think their lunatic opinions on law, forensics, etc. still count after a call is made. And don’t even get me started on “If the courts fail us, it’s time for a revolution.”
That ain’t how we do things in the good ol’ USA.
Simple self-test – as soon as you think “I will only accept [X]’s decision if it’s in my favour”, you’re on the wrong track (exceptions permitted for appeals in the judicial system, they’re there for a reason, of course).
Simple self-test #2 – as soon as you think “If [X] does not rule in my favour, he is a traitor / was bribed / was threatened /…”, you’re not even on the same planet anymore.
BRAVO!!! Excellent self-test criterion.
Indeed, that is why the Internet was first invented, albeit sharing of information by professionals. But as we agree, there are matters
where a call needs to be made, and that requires more than just information.
To your point about captains, they used to need a full education, a liberal arts education if you will, not just a specialist’s education, at least at Annapolis, because in the old days, navy captains were on their own, couldn’t radio home for orders. So they needed a full understanding of science, culture, history so that their decisions would be informed decisions reflecting the full scope of human endeavor.
Paper,
I respectfully disagree….this is what the internet was invented for…
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=T-TA57L0kuc
I agree, but only because a faux Muppet says so.
I stand corrected.
Now that you mention it, try reading this description of a very famous p0rn video without breaking a sweat (hot stuff if you read between the lines!):
‘By definition, bosons are particles which obey Bose–Einstein statistics: when one swaps two bosons (of the same species), the wavefunction of the system is unchanged.[7] Fermions, on the other hand, obey Fermi–Dirac statistics and the Pauli exclusion principle: two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state, resulting in a “rigidity” or “stiffness” of matter which includes fermions. Thus fermions are sometimes said to be the constituents of matter, while bosons are said to be the particles that transmit interactions (force carriers), or the constituents of radiation. The quantum fields of bosons are bosonic fields, obeying canonical commutation relations.’
Here’s the link. Be careful. It’s NSFW (not safe for work).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
No, no, no.
This is what the internet was invented for.
I used to work with a bunch of bosons. They had pretty tachyon furnishings, like lepton-print sofas put together with Elmer’s gluons, and cheap rural paintings of muons. One of them had a strangely charmed life, and used to be fermious, but now he’s just a hadron.
the actual decision making is only a formality, just academical, when the
pros and cons have already been examined elsewhere.
You can prove a math theorem by cooperation in an internet forum, but
the official thing would be the paper that then is peer-reviewed and
published in a journal. But that final step is easy, once the proof is out.
Similar with juristical cases and evidence. Cases can be examined,
discussed in internet and judges should really consider all evidence
that is available, including possible sources that came up and were
discussed in internet. Or in juristical journals – [ btw. are there those ?
Were any articles about birther cases published in US-juristical journals ? –
or in juristical internet forums ? ]
Now, the judges may see the internet as unwelcome competition
to their judging process. The judges want to have the last word, want to
publish the final case summary and verdict reasoning.
They won’t like their arguments to be further discussed and possible
errors in it being found and discussed in internet.
Similar with doctors,lawyers,consultants,
And that’s the context how I see this ridiculing about the internet by the
judge in this case. The typical “denigrate your opponent by ridiculing and
insult” that so often we see here in this very blog, but also in the election
campaign, in other US-forums and blogs.
For that, you should walk the Planck.
Well, that is because you live in fantasy-land. The internet is similar to the wild west. Anything goes, really. Which is why self-deceiving folks can so easily wrap themselves in a comfort cocoon of only saying and hearing what they want to hear.
In the real world, there are rules and laws. The internet is not “competition” to judges, etc. Although it can be a good and easy access source of information at times, it is also a forum where any made up nonsense and quackery can easily inhabit as well. So, in terms of real world actions by courts and such, the internet is primarily just inconsequential background noise.
Concern trolls sure do whine a lot.
“For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.”
(2 Corinthians 11:19)
If you were talking about choosing a new dentist to look after your teeth, or selecting a lawyer, then a careful buyer looks at and evaluates all the evidence.
But foreigner, that’s NOT how courts work, it’s NOT their purpose. The judge is not there to dispense wisdom using his knowledge or information off the web.
The courts exist to resolve disputes and provide for remedies. Disputes come into the system when a plaintiff laying their (com)plaint before the court with all the best evidence and legal argument they have. The defense provides their response, and the judge/court decides on the basis of the law, precedent and evidence as presented. Of course, judges can use their wider knowledge of the law too. (Excuse me, IANAL so this might not be how the legal eagles see it.)
It’s a key principle in the US and related systems of law that the courts decide on the basis of what is laid before them, not on general knowledge, rumor and hearsay. In that way, it’s more like a sports match with one winner according to a fixed set of rules, administered impartially, than to a school debate on whether baseball or chess provides a better preparation for a young person’s life.
That’s the key point: the court is not a debating chamber.
Think of a court case like a boxing match with words and I don’t think one is far off. In the boxing ring, each boxer must meet the weight limits, be drug-free, and properly kitted out. the courtroom the plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of standing, jurisdiction, a justiciable wrong, etc. That requirement sinks many birther complaints: wrong people, wrong place, not a wrong that the court can right.
In the boxing ring, the boxers must land punches with the gloved hand on appropriate parts of the head and body, during the bout. Similarly in a courtroom, the evidence must be admissible, and laid before the court (not in a press conference).
A judge in these cases does not decide on the question “Is Mr Obama the validly elected President?”; he adjudicates the complaint before him.
And any good defense lawyer typically tries to get a case against them resolved as quickly and easily as possible. That’s why a competent defense lawyer will argue that the complaint fails for lack of standing, jurisdiction etc. first, rather than get into an unnecessary argument about the rights (few) and wrongs (many) of the birthers’ fantastical tales. And the judges typically tend not to want to stray too far into answering questions that do not need an answer in order to resolve a case.
It also keeps academic lawyers busy: in effect, when considering a point that is not 100% clear in statute law, they have to work out “what would a judge decide if this question was competently put before them?” on bits and pieces from other cases.
What Sam says.
Good God foreigner… this latest argument about the role the Internet should play in the judiciary is so ridiculous, criticizing it is like trying to eat soup with a fork. The proposition is so absurd that you just can’t begin to attempt it without becoming utterly flustered at the futility of it.
Although I do tend to crumble so many crackers into my tomato soup that it becomes almost thick enough to eat with a fork.
The idea that a court’s decision is only a formality, just academic, profoundly misunderstands civilization and it’s history, misunderstands power, much less our system of government here. Judges do not want the last word; they have the last word.
The Internet is not a judge’s opponent or competition. Judges may be appealed, up to the Supreme Court, and then that’s that. Those Supreme Court justices are given lifetime positions precisely so they do not have to worry about politics and the court of public opinion, much less the Internet.
One of the best parts of our system, as I see it, is the separation of powers.
I feel really odd having to explain such basic matters. I suspect this feeling reflects you giving too much authority to your own thought process, rather than endeavoring to understand why things are the way they are, rather than just going straight to the way you think they should be.
Change is important, but you have to understand what you are changing; otherwise, you just make a mess. Thus, we find Birthers holding forth on the way they think things should be, without a clue why their notions are undemocratic, unpatriotic, and mostly the opposite of what the more sincere among them think it is for which they stand.
Judges have the last word, so that kings and presidents and lawmakers, and even the courts of public opinion, mobs, blogs, think tanks, etc., do not have the last word.
I do not care if the detective caught the thief red-handed, if the thief confessed, if there is videotape of the act, if everyone on the Internet is convinced of his obvious guilt; such thieves still get their day in court, even if it as simple as pleading guilty in front of a judge.
That act is not a mere formality, even when it is most like a formality. People’s lives are at stake. Decisions change things. Decisions are a distinct form or act of power.
Regardless of the philosophical debate about whether or not the people at large should have the last word about everything (direct democracy absolute), it is not how our system works.
Barring amendments or new laws that come at a situation from a different direction, or a wholesale revolution of the system, judges have the last word. We gave them that last word in our constitution. But to pay for that privilege, they do not get the first word, nor the second word, nor the word on the street.
Your profound misunderstanding of how our system works should give you pause. It doesn’t matter how easy a decision may be in any specific instance, it remains a separate act of power.
The internet is to “justical cases and evidence” today what the lynch mob outside the sheriff’s office was in the old west.
Your sensitivity to ridicule is misplaced in my estimation. You repeat that theme a lot. In another context, it might have more value. But there are matters and opinions deserving of ridicule. If Birthers have anything to teach the rest of us at large, it is precisely that.
I have pointed out previously how one of the leading practitioners of reason was also a leading practitioner of ridicule–that person being Galileo. He may have been better served personally to lay off some of the ridicule, but his *Dialogue* punches through the centuries in part through its masterful use of ridicule.
These particular judges did not even ridicule the Internet. They basically said the plaintiffs should know better because even the Internet is awash with the information they should know before wasting the court’s time. Their ire was aimed at the plaintiffs, not the internet at large; one judge in particular aimed at the plaintiff’s apparent interest in contributing to the *noise* of the blogosphere, not its more thoughtful side. One judge basically compliments the “vigilant citizenry.” The other is at most secondarily ridiculing the internet gossips and prevaricators and people talking out of their &sses, not the internet at large. He says the plaintiff seems interested only in adding to the “chorus of noise,” not the thoughtful meditations. He doesn’t say the internet is only noise.
The main point underlying this particular aspect of birtherism is that Birthers do not even rise to the level of being an opponent. Indeed, their only wisp of power is through the very thing you are complaining about here, ridicule or denigration or outright insults and even lies. And they are not even very good at it. They snipe and toss insults as they fritter away. They convince no one. Their arguments and so-called facts are outright hogwash.
Your argument has been that the President, and others, should be convincing them, but they are not convincing anyone who isn’t already in the tank with them. The President, on the other hand, has convinced most people. He has used some light humor, but mainly he just released his birth certificate (twice).
Some people on this blog, and elsewhere, have no patience for fools. I won’t speak to the whole of a person’s life, but in their birtherism Birthers make fools of themselves. That some people ridicule them is not so much a problem in itself as much as it is simply too easy. There’s barely any sport in it.
Tell me a question: Is there any position someone could hold that would justifiably inspire scorn and ridicule?
My answer: Yes. Birtherism is one. Holocaust Denial is another. Ditto the theory that no plane flew into the Pentagon on 9/11. And that the moon landings were faked.
You can probably think of others.
Sorry, that’s just the way it is. You don’t like ridicule, don’t be ridiculous.
judges and judgements are being reviewed. It’s not good for the career,
if a judge makes judgements that other experts critisize.
This criticism nowadays often happens in internet where anyone can
find it with google.
justifiably ridicule ? What first comes to my mind are the believes of most
(all ?) religions, which are scientifically absurd.
But strangely, just that one is generally thought as something
that one should not ridicule about. Because it might hurt their religious feelings.
You will note I mentioned appeals. That is what a judge cares about, what is not good for a judge’s career, being repeatedly or notably overturned on appeal. That doesn’t change the basic situation that judges/the courts have the last word.
The criticism of which you speak is precisely why the Supreme Court justices, and all Article III justices, are given essentially lifetime appointments. And those judges are the ones who hear the appeals.
Criticize all you want. We all do. It’s an American birthright. But the courts have the last word in their sphere.
CAAFLOG and Phil Cave’s blog http://court-martial-ucmj.com/ both covered Terry Lakin’s court martial. Jonathan Turley has also covered some of the Birther cases on his blog.
That’s the point that Apuzzo and Farrar don’t get with their asinine arguments about big C and little C citizens* and drivel about their precise misinterpretations of constitutional articles and amendments. Judges have ruled against their idiocy and therefore it is a FACT that the law is as the judges say.
The judges interpret the law and their interpretation becomes law.
* it was those clowns who showed me a new meaning of the term “case law” and its sub-branches: upper case law and lower case law!
LOL! I like to do that too!!!
Being reviewed by WHOM?
You seem to have a problem with the distiction between OFFICIAL processes and irrelevant gossipmongering on either the street or the internet.
Judges and judgements are reviewed in their OFFICIAL capacity via the appeals process and other official venues, such as elections (where applicable) and BAR associations and such. Those are the official processes.
Idle whining and chit chat on the street or the internet is just that – idle and irrelevant to the process.
So NO, none of these judges are being “reviewed”. There is NO real challenge being made or even brought up to their careers.
The world is full of criticism and whining. Always has been, always will be. Most of it comes from unofficial sources that have no direct authority in the process and therefore is nothing but meaningless noise.
Again, you seem to have a difficulty in distinguishing between what is actually protected in terms of legal rights and how free speech works.
Our laws work to protect individual’s freedom to their private religious beliefs. But that doesn’t mean that the tenents of faith aren’t subject to other individual’s scrutiny and commentary.
You are being wilfully blind if you don’t think that the internet (and public conversation sphere in general) is also chock full of endless examples of religious beliefs being debated and challenged. There is plenty of ridicule on those topics to go around and those situations are far more prevalent everywhere than conversations dealing with this silly miniscule issue of Birtherism.
I don’t see how an internet forum of people without math skills gets a theorem proved. You can’t prove a theorem without understanding the definitions and the logical requirements of a proof. Lots of folks (myself included) have proven theorems above their skill level, only to find out that the proof is invalid.
Many problems can be solved with the “divide and conquer” technique, but that presumes that the individual smaller problems are within the grasp of the person trying to solve them.
There are some.
If you want to include as “birthers” those who challenged John McCain’s eligibility based on the circumstances of his birth, then we have an entire issue of the Michigan Law Review First Impressions devoted to the subject. Obama is discussed a little.
Courthouse News Service has quite a few articles on the subject.
See also articles at the blog devoted to the Supreme Court.
We’ve also seen a few articles by noted law professors posted on their own sites and elsewhere. I refer you to my article, “The Silence of the Sheepskins” for more on that.
What experts? Criticism existed before the internet. Google did not level the intellectual playing field. Judges in America have always been reviewed.
Honestly, I have no ill will towards you as a person, but your comments are fair game for ridicule. Your comments tend to be on the ridiculous side of reality
thanks for the links. I got the Maskell – pdf (53 pages)
I see, you have these “Scholars”
And the Congressional research paper.
Absolute poppycock. No “experts” are criticizing antything. The fact that someone whines about a judge’s ruling really has no impact on anything, certainly not a judge’s career (with the exception of some states, judges are lifetime appointments). What actually does impact a judge’s reputation are reversals. Haven’t seen any of those, have we And the only criiticism that matters happens in law journals. So you really did manage to get absolutely nothing correct in this post. Congrats. Being wrong is something that you seem to be very good at.
The Congressional Research Service is a part of the Library of Congress. It is a non-partisan congressional office that does research for members of Congress. Maskell is legislative attorney within the American Law Division, with the CRS since 1973. He has testified before Congress.
if we take the professors that teach law at a university,
how much % of them would say born in USA is sufficient
for being “natural born citizen” ?
I found that “most” scholars seem to believe this.
What’s the problem why the Supreme Court can’t
or doesn’t want to decide ? Or that they can’t make
a clarifying amendment. I think these uncertaineties
are not good and the Court or Congress should decide in advance
to eliminate them, even before they have an actual case.
foreigner;
start here
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/08/mittflop-v-the-obummer/
It’s probably 99.9999999%.
The Supreme Court, like every other Federal court, can only rule on an actual controversy over which it has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court does not issue advisory rulings. There has to be an actual case BEFORE the Supreme Court gets involved.
I can envision one scenario under which the Supreme Court could and would get involved. If Congress refused to certify the election of candidate for President who won a majority of the electoral votes, on the grounds that the candidate is not a natural-born citizen, that candidate could file suit because there would be an actual controversy and the candidate would have standing.
Congress can’t pass a “clarifying” amendment, at least not on its own. Even if a Constitutional amendment makes it was out of Congress, it still has to be ratified by 38 states. That is the primary reason why there have been so few amendments to the Constitution.
Finally, the “uncertainties” exist only in the minds of those on the fringes. That is why serious people do not take the “uncertainties” seriously.
There you go, making sense again. Gosh!
Two notes above should say “makes its way out of Congress.”
For good reasons.
The Courts in the US cannot and do not give advisory opinions. Surely once you understand and appreciate the intricacies of the legal and political system in the US, you can be able to make better informed conclusion.
Really my friend, you are showing little appreciation or understanding of the reality and facts here.
However in the few cases so far, the Courts have taken the Supreme Court’s position in US v WKA and shown it to be relevant to the decision that President Obama, is indeed a natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court may decide to hear these cases but will unlikely do so until there are some contradictory rulings at the circuit levels. Little chance on that one.
Your ability to unravel some of the mysteries surrounding the generation of the PDF is appreciated but your understanding of the legal and political system in the US shows extreme gaps.
As such, people have come to see you as a ‘concern troll’ and indeed, your posting style does little to alleviate the concerns raised here. Rather than show an effort to educate yourself, you continue to raise ‘questions’ which are so poorly informed by understanding, that people have come to wonder about your true interests here.
Besides what Rickey notes, that it doesn’t work that way, there simply is no authentic uncertainty on this particular point. If one thing is beyond completely clear it is that being born in this country is sufficient.
You give too much credence to liars and people who believe nonsense. Stop doing that. That is a much easier solution to your concern.
one Herb Titus already invalidates the 99.99999..% and that “there is no uncertainety”
If the Supreme Court can’t decide in advance without an actual case, then you
should change that. People must know what is law _before_ the cases arise
Titus has rather gone off the reservation late in his life. He had what he calls a religious conversion and now believes that United States jurisprudence is not based on the English Common Law, nor the Law of Nations, but rather on the Bible. His “two citizen parent” theory is based on the Hebrew scriptures and the US being a “Christian nation.” So while he arrives at the end result, “Obama bad, ” he doesn’t support the usual two-citizen parent legal theories of the birthers. His particular approach to law is so crazy that I wouldn’t even count him as an authority. Also he’s an official with a fringe right-wing political party, and hardly unbiased.
It would require a constitutional amendment to change the jurisdiction of the federal courts. While there might be an argument for such a change, I don’t think it would be good thing to bring the courts into judging every crank legal theory that appears on the Internet.
For more on Titus’ fringe legal theories, see this article:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4587/meet_the_christian_reconstructionists_behind_the_latest_birther_theory_/
Most people, including the leaders of the Republican Party, are very clear on what the law is. Herb Titus questions the law because he has a political and religious axe to grind, That someone like Titus questions Obama’s status as a natural-born citizen, is akin to Michael Behe questioning the valadity of evolution. In both cases, you’ve got otherwise intelligent men, whose ability to reason and interpret evidence has been cloulded by extremism. .
How does the American government operate? Do you know what the term, checks and balances, means? Do you have any experience reading the U.S Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the following 17 amendments?
Where do you get your information about the birther movement?
I find this an odd use of the word “invalidate.”
Why not add that Mario Apuzzo and Nicholas Purpura invalidate what we in this country grow up learning, what even my circle of extreme Birthers know (thank goodness for small favors)? Except Apuzzo’s case was found to have no merit in the law. In other words, it was the argument about citizen-parents that was invalidated by that court. If you want to talk about something being invalidated.
I went to some small trouble to make sure I wrote that there is no *authentic* uncertainty. I find it peculiar that some stray, unreasonable, late-to-the-party verbiage is going to “invalidate” long-standing reality in your eyes. Such opinions are not on equal standing with established history, much less the 99.99999%.
But if you want to mention Herb Titus, I call your Titus and raise you Sandra Day O’Connor.
Does *any* judicial system in the world operate like this? Give an example!
The absolute rule of monarchs, pharaohs and dictators is a good historical reference. North Korea’s Kim jun Un decides what the law will be. Birthers love fascism.
You take me far too literally. The actual percentage is less than 100% but almost certainly in excess of 99%. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE LEGAL TEXTBOOK WHICH STATES THAT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN MUST HAVE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS. Not one.
As to the rest of your comment, you obviously have no understanding or appreciation of how jurisprudence works in the United States.
In my reading and observations, I have found that foreigners and recent immigrants do not easily understand Americans tolerance of ambiguity, our appreciation for the existence of grey areas. It is these grey areas that allow the Constitution to last far longer ith relatively few changes than, I believe, any of the creators ever thought possible. Even through our darkest moments, the basic constructs of our Constitution remain, and would have even remained if the CSA had continued (their constitution was not greatly different). Our Constitution allows society to adjust they thinking over the years without needed to start over every time.
The vagueness and supposed uncertainties in the Constitution and even in some of our laws, provide a balance even when parts of us go astray. In Anglican theology, the three authorities mentioned by Richard Hooker (referred to now as the three-legged stool) are Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Each of these authorities, instead of being absolute in themselves, both balance and provide enlightenment for the other. From time to time, we may lean more to one of the three, but the full authority comes from all three working in balance.
Our system of governments, follows some of the same approach but also adding various 3 legged stools. At the federal level we have the 3 part balance of Congress, Executive and Courts. Our system is dependent upon the balance this separation of powers provide. However, our system is fully federal and provides another 3 part balance between the federal, states and the people. All of this is wrapped up in another three legs of American thought as we are a people of tradition, laws and reason. Our tradition reminds us of the thought that created our Constitution, our laws allow the continued enforcement of that Constitution, and our reason allows us to apply those laws and traditions in the real and specific circumstances that arise from time to time. It is our reason that allows us to apply the meaning of the NBC clause and 14th amendment, but only when necessary to resolve a particular dispute (such as WKA).
That said, in terms of NBC, there never has been uncertainty except in the confused minds of the minority that are the Birthers.
Just a couple of little things here, foreigner…
How many “constitutional experts” are there? What qualifies someone to be one? How do we put someone in that category? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
18% of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Does that mean that there is a contraversy there? Or could it be that there actually is no controversy, and those 18% of Americans area actually wrong?
You are not very familiar with how the legal system in the United States work, now do you? No wonder people have found you to sound a bit like an ignorant birther. Sorry gsgs/foreigner, your musings fail to make any contributions of substance here. You’d better stick to PDF analysis as your understanding of the US political and legal system leaves much to be desired.
The system has worked quite well so far and even in this case, the system is working fine. It’s just that some foolish people refuse to accept this and believe that they have the right under our Constitution to challenge the eligibility of our President, unaware of what the Constitution has provided here.
Still waiting for the Supreme Court on that one..,
Except that the Fourteenth Amendment would most likely not have been ratified.
Or the 13th…
And the 15th! And possibly the 19th. The 18th is a toss up.
According to the American Bar Foundation, there are approximately 4200 tenured law professors in the United States. Herb Titus represents .000238 of them. Of course, not all of them are Constitutional experts, but it is clear that the number of Vattelist law professors is minuscule.
Wikipedia makes it 6:1, 83% , they don’t mention Titus :
Solum,Rotunda,Price,Volokh,Takaji,White vs. Chin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Academic_opinions
“not crazy”
Did you read your own link?
I already know the answer.
Please, go back and read your own link.
Heck, I doubt many of them have even heard of Vattel.
For obvious reasons…
Sigh… You’re really intent on looking foolish don’t you? Why not stick to something you have shown to understand such as the analysis of PDF’s?
Probably because Titus isn’t a serious constitutional scholar but a nut job with nutjob conspiracy theories.
I’m so sorry. 6:1 is 86%, not 83%. How could I be that silly.
Rickey,Steve, yes there are thousands which would qualify.
But only few of them gave a public opinion on this.
A poll among a larger random sample (~50 ?) would be interesting.
What is your major malfunction, foreigner? Are you just trying to make jokes that don’t translate well…or are you seriously that delusional?
On what rational basis would you even think that there are ANY serious legal voices out there that would back up the Birther bullsh*t??? Because that is what it is – complete and utter bullsh*t.
Think about it – if there WAS any real controversy, than MANY in the legal profession would have spoken up or debated the issue. The very silence on this issue speaks volumes – it tells you that this is NOT a matter worthy of serious debate at all. It would be akin to scientists wasting time debating whether water was wet…
Are you really that lacking in the ability to discern between actual credentialed, credible sources and wacky partisan hack nonsense???
There is ZERO controvery in these questions amongst any serious folks. Any larger poll sample you would take would just result in an increasingly higher and higher percentage telling you the same thing – that the Birther claims are unfounded and contrary to our actual laws. It would not take long for the percentages to make the very point that Rickey tried to tell you – or as we say in mathematics – the limit approaches zero and the wack-job faction of disagreement is nothing more than statistical insignificance.
Seriously, you come across as the worst Concern Troll ever with such ludicrous statements…
…and you wonder why you invite ridicule – your asinine inquiries are ridiculous on their face.
Well, you just were just that.
Just stop being a ‘devil’s advocate’ and stick to what you are good at.
I’m still not convinced any citizen could just walk up to them and say “hey King, please decide this for me in case I ever have to sue someone with regard to that matter”. Absolute rulers have even less time (and less tendency to indulge the whims of any peon) than the highest courts.
My point was that kings and dictators will decree the law all the time and anytime regardless of any citizen’s concern. The ruler has the final word – before, during and after.
Based on the concern troll’s comment:
“People must know what is law _before_ the cases arise
In the United States, the federal courts decide actual controversies, not speculative ones. However, that doesn’t mean that people don’t know what the law is. On various occasions the US Attorney General has been presented with questions and has responded with opinions. Attorney General opinions are considered precedential although the courts are not necessarily bound by them. The IRS issues opinions on tax law.
On the particular question of who is a “natural born citizen” we actually have an AG opinion on record. Attorney General Edward Bates issued an opinion in 1862 stating:
Very well put.
I make the point again for foreigner that the courts have the last word, not the first word.
Thus, matters only get to the courts, especially the Supreme Court, when someone with a recognized grievance effectively challenges the institutions with the first, second and third words.
Much of what seems to concern foreigner here is a result of our separation of powers.
If we were to give the courts the first word as he suggests, then we would have to give someone else the last word, and the dynamic that concerns him would remain basically the same. Avoiding speculative controversies allows everyone else their chance to resolve the matter within their domains; otherwise, there is no separation of powers.
Imagine if the Supreme Court in particular resolved speculative controversies as a matter of course. Every law would need their imprimatur before it ever got out the door. The Supreme Court would then be the de facto ruling body of the country (nine judges with lifetime appointments!), and the concerns people now have about activist judges would seem like child’s play.
In Germany, some claim this point has already been reached. The problem is that our parliament has become more and more negligent when it comes to checking the constitutionality of laws. At least for some time, their MO has been “let’s just pass the damn thing and leave it to the Supreme Court to check if it’s OK”. And the Supreme Court has become quite angry about the attempt to abuse it as some kind of acceptance institution (which consequently also tends to shift the blame about “why aren’t our politicians doing anything” to the courts, as in “we tried, but they keep striking down our laws”) – after all, it should be the lawmakers who should care whether laws are constitutional, and taking it to the Supreme Court should be a last resort.
It’s possible the court will stop giving advice how to formulate the law so that it will pass muster (as it used to do) to prevent this from happening in the future.
So, yes, I totally understand your concern in that regard. It’s not a good development if one branch of government somehow institutionalizes a lack of reponsibility (basically turning everything into a Somebody Else’s Problem).
Ah yes, the SEP’s. Douglas Adams wrote a lot about that… 😉
You need to read the Wikpedia entry again. None of the seven law professors cited say that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. All you have is Professor Solum stating that those who believe the two-citizen parent theory aren’t crazy. That is hardly an endorsement of the theory. In fact, he goes on to say “the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen.”
thanks. Indeed I mistranslated “concurred” and thought Chin opposed.
So 7 out of 7 scholars. Old legal texts also (born in USA–>natural born).
So it’s just Titus. Plus Apuzzo etc., but they are not “scholars”
Apuzzo is not a scholar. Titus is a scholar but that has to be understood in the context that he is also a right-wing nut job. He had a somewhat distinguished career early on was the founding Dean of the Regent University Law School (a private Christian school).
I think the Wikipedia article on Titus presents his career fairly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Titus
His right-wing nut job status is detailed here:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2910/gun_ownership%3A_%E2%80%98an_obligation_to_god%E2%80%99/
My article here embeds a Titus video.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/law-professor-nixes-obama/
To my knowledge, Titus is unique in his legal argument that Obama is ineligible, and that he has not endorsed the arguments of any of the other birther attorneys.
So, are you telling us that you are going through a language translator, to understand our english language?
…if that is the case, that might partially explain why you make so many confusing statements and take positions that are so baffling and nonsensical to the rest of us…if you are indeed, getting “lost in translation”
I was reading too hastily.The German “konkurrieren” means “to compete”
—————————
I once heard Titus on Wilmott’s radio. I was wondering why he didn’t say something
wrt. the agenda that Wilmott pushed during the show.
A false friend I wasn’t previously aware of. I still have a weak connection to “aktuell” (“current”) when I read “actual”, but I would never think of “konkurrieren” when I read “concur”.
Maybe because I’m heavily influenced by Latin, and “con-currere” means “run together” and does not imply a competition.