Pamela Barnett at the Obama Ballot Challenge web site is saying:
[On] September 24, the Supreme Court will hold conferences on the first two Obama state ballot eligibility cases that have undeniable standing. If the Supreme Court does not do the right thing and hear the cases on the merits then we pretty much will get a feel if the Supreme Court will continue with their tyranny to allow an ineligible fraudster to continue to destroy the country.
Just having standing doesn’t get a case heard by the Supreme Court. To my recollection, and I was at the original trial of both theses cases in Atlanta, standing was never an issue. The problem in Welden’s case was that he based his argument on the two-parent theory of presidential eligibility which is plain not the law and has been consistently rejected by courts in at least 7 states. The Judy case was lost because his evidence was garbage and his witnesses unqualified (or we could say that the Judy case was lost because Orly Taitz was his lawyer and Barack Obama was born in Hawaii). None of those problems can be fixed on appeal.
The Supreme Court has already refused 22 birther lawsuits. They don’t take a case unless there is something to settle. All the courts agree that the folks putting forward the two-citizen parent theory are wrong, and that this issue has been settled for over 100 years.
Just a little hint for court watchers: if there’s any chance the court is going to hear a case, they will ask for briefs from both sides before conference. They haven’t asked for briefs from Obama which means that the court won’t hear either case.
Docket entries:
Usually the list of cases the Court grants or rejects is published the following Monday, so you won’t have long for my “I told you so.”
Update:
Both cases were denied cert in orders published October 1.
I am confident the Supreme Court will hear both cases on the merits; the merits of the appeal, that is. Ms. Barnett, like Dr. Taitz, seems to think appellate courts are there for a do-over, rather than to make sure that the trial court handled the case properly, even if the result was not what the appellate judges would have reached.
The appellants never try to deal with the argument that only the Congress and the Electoral College can determine eligibility. Perhaps there is no remedy in the courts at all. That is not to say there is no remedy, but in an environment in which no member of Congress challenged the last results, and no member of the House having offered a bill of impeachment, one can easily conclude the the Constitutional protection we have against an unqualified President has worked just fine.
As to the two parent theory, it presents an argument of law only, as there is no real dispute over facts. Every court confronted with the question has ruled that there is no two parent theory. The Supreme Court doesn’t intervene when everyone is getting it right.
The only other argument which is presented is the forged birth certificate. Since Hawaii cannot forge its own documents, Judy and Welden can’t explain why the Supreme Court ought to be willing to overturn 200 years of reliance on basic state documents. They can’t and they don’t.
Add to that mix the constant accusation, for sure known to the Court, that anyone who disagrees with Dr. Taitz is a traitor who ought to be strung up, including Federal judges and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, just leaves the Court unwilling to visit Dr. Taitz’ craziness upon itself. The conservative Justices, those who disagree with Pres. Obama, surely know that inviting Dr. Taitz into their house (much like what just happened in Kansas) will result in ridicule for the Court and the Republican Party.
If it’s granted or summarily dismissed, we’ll find out in about five minutes @ 9:30 (special case for this conference only). Denials and delays will be announced next Monday.
Getting a case heard by any Supreme (State or Federal) is next to impossible. The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions each year and grant only a few of them, perhaps 50 or so. Any lawyer will tell you, don’t think you can win on appeal and petitioning the Supreme Court is a mighty high hurdle. For civil cases, the case is made at the trial level, and if lost, there is usually a 99% it will stay that way. (affirmed on appeal) Any lawyer should know that an oral hearing on the matter should be considered a GIFT and that a lawyer better be prepared and not screw up.
I would not agree with that statement as to state courts. Several state Supreme Courts have heard birther cases.
Six new writs of certiorari were granted.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092512zr5bc9.pdf
And, as predicted, the Birther cases are not amongst that list…
We’ll see them listed on the Denial list by Monday, which counts as being shot down by SCOTUS and will add 2 more to the loss column there. (I believe that would bring it to 24 straight losses at the SCOTUS level).
Since the Georgia cases specifically argued the 2 citizen parent nonsense, the denial of review by SCOTUS makes it 100% crystal clear that this “theory” is not the law in 2012. Now if Mr Godkin or Apuzzo want to argue that the law was different in 1788 or 1866 or some date in the past, they should feel free. However, since I live in 2012, frankly, I don’t give a damn, to quote Rhett Butler.
Actually, SCOTUS grants oral arguments in 75-80 cases per year and another 60-70 cases per year are ruled upon without oral arguments.
Of course, many of the appeals to SCOTUS are frivolous and are dead on arrival. The Weldon and Judy appeals fall into that category.
The Georgia Supreme court should hear the case but won’t. Clearly, the decision made by Judge Mahili was a corrupt and improper. First Mahili reached outside of the court record to render his decision, something that was completely improper. I say this for 2 reasons. First, the parties requested that the record be closed. It was an obvious attempt by Weldon and company to prevent exactly what Judge Mahili did, that reach out side the record and use facts and law not part of the record to render his decision. Judge Mahili did just that. Second, Judge Mahili actually advocated for Obama in rendering his decision. Judge Mahili stated that he thought the Ankeny decision was pursuasive. If this was in fact true, then it was reasonable to assume and argue that this case would have argued by Obama had he shown up for the trial. However, Obama DID NOT show up. But Judge Mahili gave Obama the benefit of a BEST DEFENSE. So not only did Judge Mahili reach outside of the record to render his decision (Something that was clearly and obviously improper given the parties request that record be closed) but Judge Mahili advocated for Obama and gave him the benefit of a BEST DEFENSE even though Obama was in contempt for not showing up (Judge Mahili openly acknowledged that he did condone Obama’s actions and Obama was clearly in contempt.)
For these reasons, Judge Mahili’s decision was frivilous one.
Please remember that Judy, Welden, etc. are appealing the superior court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The superior court didn’t affirm what the ALJ and Secretary of State did; it ruled the statute permitting challenges didn’t apply to presidential primaries.
Doc. C: Which state supreme courts have heard birther challenges? I can only think of two off the top of my head (California and Mississippi) and those were both somewhat different as they involved those court’s original (rather than appellate) jurisdiction.
When you say “heard” do you mean they had oral arguments? Is a State Supreme Court denying to hear an appeal count as being heard?
When you say “heard” do you mean they had oral arguments? Is a State Supreme Court denying to hear an appeal count as being heard?
No; no state supreme court has heard any oral arguments.
In California, the supreme court denied on the merits a petition for writ of mandate. It was a silent denial, of course.
In Mississippi, the supreme court appointed a special judge to hear the ballot challenge. (The case then removed to federal court, of course.)
I’m curious as to which cases (and courts) Doc C. is referring.
The Ankeny decision was appealed to the Indiana Supremes and denied. I believe Mario’s case in NJ was denied by the Garden State Supremes.
Legal nicities aside, there is no question that if this 5-4 US Supreme Court saw even a 1% chance that the 2 citizen parent crappola would prevail, they would muster the votes necessary to at least hear arguments. Given that they don’t exactly have warm feelings for this President.
Many birthers like to claim that there are three votes to hear the birther cases at the Supreme Court but thanks to “traitor” Roberts they can’t muster more than that. This was a favorite claim of Donofrio’s (combined with an erroneous claim that had Kagan and Sotomayor recused themselves like he demanded they’d only need three votes).
However, if such is the case, there’s little evidence of it – Scalia in particular has never (especially recently) been shy about saying what’s on his mind about Court business, and were he inclined to vote to hear a case and rule against the President, I doubt he’d have kept quiet about it. Any Justice can write a dissent to a denial of certiorari, even a dissent signed by a single Justice would cause a firestorm in the legal community.
As such, and given how settled the law is on this question, I can’t see the Court ever taking a case, no matter how much birthers plead.
So you would not include the Ankeny case or the New Jersey case? Both were denied review by their respective state Supreme Courts
So you would not include the Ankeny case or the New Jersey case? Both were denied review by their respective state Supreme Courts
The supreme courts of Indiana and New Jersey, as well California and Georgia, have denied discretionary reviews. Just as SCOTUS repeatedly has done in the past (and did with these cases).
Again, Doc C. seemed to think some state supreme courts have been more friendly to birther cases; I’m hoping he will expound on that thought.
Ok, I see the distinction. Thanks
Is Mississippi still a ballot challenge? It doesn’t seem like it will be heard until after the election.
Is Mississippi still a ballot challenge? It doesn’t seem like it will be heard until after the election.
Who knows! I mean, yes, the case originated as a ballot challenge to Mississippi’s primary election. It is doubtful that all parties will have been served and have filed a responsive pleading by the general election.
I’m sure Taitz will demand that her complaint be construed to a challenge to the general election. Which won’t go over well.
But the focus of the case is now Taitz’s RICO allegations. For which she will eventually be paying dearly.
Here is what the Judge actually said in the case, but hey, why let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
“As required by Georgia Law, Secretary of State Brian Kemp referred Plaintiffs’
challenges to this Court for a hearing. O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(b). A hearing was held on
January 26, 2012. The record closed on February 1, 2012. Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy,
Malaren, and Roth and their counsel Orly Taitz, Plaintiffs Carl Swensson and Kevin
Richard Powell and their counsel J. Mark Hatfield, and Plaintiff David P. Welden and his
counsel Van R. Trion, all appeared and answered the call of the case. However, neither
Defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.30(1) and (5). Nonetheless, despite the Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request.
By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct
or legal scholarship of Defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely
based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80422088/2012-02-03-Decision-From-Malahi-GEORGIA-ALJ-Obama-is-NBC
Awww, and he would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you pesky kids and your facts!
I didn’t mean to imply that they were friendly to birther cases in particular, but to cases in general. I don’t have good information on some of these appeals, but it appears that state supreme courts in the following states reviewed birther court decisions: Alabama, California, Hawaii, and New Jersey. Some of these cases are from 2008. I contrast this with zero with the US Supreme Court.
How dare a judge use facts and law to render a decision! Why, if all judges do that, no birther case will ever succeed in court!
John, do you even read what you write?
I’m convinced that John’s ramblings are the mental equivalent of dysentery. He has no control of what comes out, or how much of it.
First, that argument is factually wrong. The GA court did not find Obama in contempt of court, therefore he wasn’t. “Contempt of court” is a legal issue, not a layman’s term for “did something that annoyed the court”.
Second, that argument misses an important point. You do not need a defense where the law is on your side. If I sue you because you stole me the moon and you don’t show up, the judge will still not award me the moon simply because you failed to raise a legal argument why I could not have owned it in the first place.
There are some legal defenses which must be pled (I can’t speak for the US, but in my country, the statute of limitation is something the defendant must actively plead), but obvious legal facts must not.
If you sue me based only on the claim that I have no right to live, I do not have to show up to make the legal defense that the law says otherwise. Ius novit curia – the court knows the law.
You also constantly misunderstand that “in light most favourable for the plaintiff” or “plaintiff’s allegations have to be accepted as true” only holds for *factual* allegations, not legal ones. I.e. no court has to accept plaintiffs’ legal theories as true simply because defendant does not show up.
Apart from all that, you still ignore that the plaintiffs in the GA hearing failed to even make a concise case, something that is required if you want to win by default. You cannot win a case by default that doesn’t even have a leg to stand on.
You wouldn’t know improper if it bit you on your backside.
Problem 1. You don’t know what is meant by “the record.” Generally speaking, “the law” is not part of the record (there is some nuance here, but I’m going at it with a broad brush here). A court is always free to determine what the actual law is. Secondly, when there is no jury, a court is free to determine how much weight to give what one party submits to the record. Here, Judge Mahili determined what Orly submitted was a pile of garbage. It has no probative value, and none of her “experts” had established their qualifications to make the statements they did. So he pretty much had the birth certificate, that they entered into the record.
And as I mentioned above, there is nothing shocking about this. Every court is free (if not required) to determine what the law actually is. You see, to do otherwise, would give the courts the power to actually change the law (rendering a decision that has no support in the law, that another court can later cite to).
You should not use terms of art like “contempt” and “frivilous [sic].” It just points a giant spotlight on the fact that you don’t have the first clue about what you are talking.
(a court has to issue an order finding a party in contempt, before they are in contempt…never happened. And decisions are never frivolous. They can be in error, even clearly erroneous…but never frivolous. An Orly law suit however, is almost always frivolous.
Welden and Judy denied cert in orders published Oct 1. Article updated.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100112zor.pdf
As the list of Certiorari Denied is extremely long, I wanted to help readers find these entries.
David P. Weldon’s denial (12-5) can be found on page 47. Judy (12-5276) can be found on page 58.
So chalk up too more Birther cases before the SC that have officially bit the dust. As expected.
thanks G/doc – i have been waiting for the list –
i noticed this am: The Supreme Court won’t reconsider a decision stopping a Nebraska anti-abortion group from fighting for an abortion law that requires health screenings for women seeking abortions.
FYI, somebody has made site that collects all of the various conference and case information and also includes it in an RSS feed (beyond what SCOTUS blog does, since they tend to only look at cases that have a remote chance of cert).
https://certpool.com/
Hello… Van ydroustan… it is October 1… we await your LOL.
Apparently.. not enough.
Like I said:
… it is almost certain that the Supreme Court will avoid deciding and most likely will deny it without any explanation.
Elsewhere I explained why I think the Supreme Court is not likely to rule in favor of this case:
1. The Supreme Court is afraid of the consequences both to themselves and to the country if they take the case and apply the Constitution and rule the first black Marxist president ineligible.
2 The Supreme Court is an old elite group that, with the exception of Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito, believes the People are uneducated. I am referring to the progressive wing of the Supreme Court that does not respect the Constitution such as Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg..
3. This so called progressive wing believes generally that Truth has no meaning, that might makes right, that the founding fathers are irrelevant and that collectivism, not constitutional Republicanism is the correct form of government and consequently they undermine the Constitution. The progressive judges are: Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg… POS P(iss) O(n) S(otero)
First of all, Barack Obama was never an actual “Soetoro”. There is no evidence of either adoption nor official name change at all.
In regards to the rest of your crazyunsubstatiable speculation (and yes, that is all it is):
Re 1: Well, he’s certanly not a “marxist”. The stock market growth and his economic team of Wall Street types strongly favors capitalism, sorry. Nor is there any evidence of the SC being “afraid” to rule at all…that is just a lame excuse that you losers come up with. Methinks it is you people who wallow in irrational fear, not the SC. So all you are doing here is merely projecting your own problems onto the SC.
Re 2 & 3: All you’ve demonstrated here is that you have an extremely warped and unhinged conservative worldview that is disconnected from reality. Your twisted notions of others are just fictional caricatures and don’t actually exist, except in your fevered imagination. I feel sorry for you.
You forgot the another reason why they will not rule in favor of taking the case. They do have a nasty habit of following the Constitution from time to time. The Weldon case, did not.
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS – Oral Argument:
Any . . . day . . . now.
It only takes 4 justices to grant cert. Which means at least one of the four you named (Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito) is a closet progressive.
And it only takes 1 justice to require the defense to submit a response which means that that maybe all of them are closet progressives.
It’s always amusing when birthers come to this blog and put their ignorance on display for all to see.
I’m reminded of the time on CAAFlog when Dwight Sullivan told Apuzzo before the conference date that his cert petition had effectively been denied because no justice had called for a response. Mario was outraged, but we all know how that turned out.
A denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari has no precedential value whatsoever. The issue remains open to be revisited. The Supreme Court is PUNTING the hot potato down the line until after November 6, 2012 knowing what is about to happen, I stand by what I said. See you in November. LOL
No, but it shows SCOTUS sees no reason to take up the issue. Don’t you think if a lower court “ruled against standing SCOTUS precedent”, that SCOTUS would take the issue and remand it to said lower court?
Yes, just like the issue whether Earth is flat remains open until both SCOTUS and the World Science Council and the Pope have rendered a joint verdict.
You should realize that selectively accepting some SCOTUS decisions (Minor) while rejecting others (Wong Kim Ark, the denial of cert in every birther case etc.) is nothing to base a sound argument on.
Didn’t birthers claim already in 2010 that SCOTUS had already “decided in chambers” that Obama was ineligible and was just waiting a few more months to publish it? Whatever happened to that one?
I make a bet we won’t see *you* in November after Obama wins a second term. 😉
In this case, though, it has has significant presidential value.
The voters will vote. Romney will likely win. And we still be back in the Supreme Court after the punt. See you in November. LOL
Any . . . day . . . now.
If you really believe that, go to InTrade and buy 100 Romney contracts for $250. They will pay off $1000 on election night if he wins. 4x payoff in a month But I’m sure you don’t really believe the nonsense you are spouting.
Uh, wouldn’t the issue be moot if Obama loses?
Conviction and logic from a birther?
Is the Supreme Court usually in the business of deciding cases just for shits and giggles? You Birthers fail to grasp that a court decision has to resolve an issue and grant relief. They can’t just state an opinion. If the 5 members of the Supreme Court hit their head, came down with a terminal case of the stupids, and ruled that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen, what then? They can’t issue an order to have him resign. It’s not in their power. There are exactly three legal ways to remove a sitting U.S. President from power.
1) Elect someone else. We have the opportunity to do this next month, although the numbers don’t make that look likely.
2) Impeachment in the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. We tried this twice before, but never got the votes for conviction. Nixon probably would have been removed like this if he hadn’t resigned.
3) A vote of the Vice President and the majority of the Cabinet members as outlined in the 25th amendment.
“By a decision of the courts” is not in there, or anywhere in the Constitution. Simply put, the courts have no power to remove the President, and thus no reason to rule on his eligibility.
What do they care about what happens during the elections? These guys have lifetime appointments. That means unless they do something overtly criminal and get impeached, they’re justices until they die or retire. It’s set up this way explicitly so that justices will not be influenced by electoral pressures.
But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. If “They secretly agree with us, but the unelected appointed for life judges are too afraid of a backlash come election day to do anything.”, so be it.
I have not seen this Supreme Court ducking controversial issues — health care reform and Bush v. Gore come to mind. The simple explanation to why the Supreme Court doesn’t take these cases is the lack jurisdiction (which is the case for most of them that are dismissed) or that there is no hint of error in the lower court decision.
The Supreme Court grants cert in only a tiny fraction of the cases that come before them, and these birther lawsuits are certainly not worthy of their scrutiny. The eligibility of people like Obama has been settled law since 1898 when the Court ruled that the child born in the US to Chinese subjects was a citizen from birth. Further there has been unanimous agreement among the lower courts on this question (Arizona, New Jersey, Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Indiana and New Hampshire).There’s nothing for the Supreme Court to resolve.
I have to ask you about number 1. What specific consequences do you mean?
On 3. Sorry but John Roberts is no progressive. He has been with the conservatives on virtually every issue but health care.
A writ of certiorari only applies on the lower levels. It does not apply to the Presidency which is why those writs are going nowhere.
I sometimes wonder if Roberts really was, in his heart, with the progressives on the health care issue. If one of the 4 justices who voted to strike the law had instead voted to uphold, would he too have voted to strike? I get this feeling that he didn’t really want to uphold the HCR law, but felt that striking down a president’s signature piece of domestic legislation was overstepping the court’s bounds. Maybe the guy just didn’t want to be the next Roger Taney. Though in the eyes of some, his decision did just that.
So your opinion can be summed up as “those SCOTUS judges who happen to agree with me* are good and those SCOTUS judges who disagree with me* are evil lizard people”. Amazing.
(*) It should be noted that it is another birther misconception (and self-delusion) that SCOTUS is somehow 5-4 against birthers. Actually SCOTUS is 9-0 against birthers.
The way that the Supreme Court works is the following:
1. For a case to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, it doesn’t need a majority voting on whether or not they should hear it. It takes 4 Justices. So, your entire thing of “Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito” want to hear the case is completely false. There is, by rules of the court, at least one of them that voted against hearing the case. Which must mean that at least one of your great 4 Justices is a coward who believes that the Americans are stupid, according to your own definition.
2. If there is one justice who thinks that it should be heard, they can ask that the respondent to file a brief. So far, every respondent has declined to file a brief, and no Supreme Court Justice has asked that they file one. Which means that nobody actually supports your view and thinks that the case should be heard.
No, dunstvangeet, all 9 of the justices really secretly want to hear an Obama eligibility challenge. They want it more than a glutton wants to go to a smorgasbord. They want it more than a man wandering the desert wants a glass of water. They want it more than anything in the world! But they cannot hear an eligibility case. They are afraid of the dire consequences. What consequences? DIRE consequences.
You have said many foolish things in this thread, but that one may take the cake.
Let’s pretend for a minute that SCOTUS granted cert in the Weldon case. What would that mean in a practical sense? The issue before SCOTUS was not whether Obama is eligible to be President. The petition only raised two issues: Do states have to place on the ballot Presidential nominees of their political parties, regardless of qualifications? Is everyone born in the U.S, a natural born citizen regardless of the citizenship of the parents?
If SCOTUS had granted cert, the immediate effect would be – well, nothing. SCOTUS would first have to schedule oral arguments. Let’s go even further and assume that SCOTUS scheduled expedited oral arguments and then ruled in favor of Weldon. All that would then happen is the case would be returned to Georgia for further proceedings. By that time we would now be well past Election Day, and the issue of whether Obama should be on the ballot in Georgia would be moot and there would be nothing left to litigate.
You remind me of the birthers who breathlessly announced, back in 2008 when SCOTUS scheduled the Berg case for conference, that Obama would be forced to present his birth certificate at the conference. Birthers have a fundamental lack of understanding about how SCOTUS operates. And there is no possible rationale for SCOTUS to revisit the issue in the unlikely event that Obama loses to Romney.
Humourist. You wouldn’t know a Marxist if one bit you!
Obama is so much a centrist it is a joke – but of course if the people vote for a Marxist for President, then a Marxist will be President and those of your mind will just have to learn to live with it. There is no rush, however, since Obama is not one.
Well, not quite. By denying cert, they’re pretty much affirming the lower court. You see, when you stick the phrase “cert denied” at the end of a citation, it means the Court had the opportunity to change it, but passed on that opportunity, leaving the lower court ruling untouched.
I suppose in the sense that they could in theory re-examine it, as they could anything in the law….but it rarely happens. And when it does, it tends to be in the context of expanding civil rights (ie Brown v. Board over turning Plessey). But the book is closed on your two parent rule, as it has been for a very long time. The courts are 100% in agreement. There is no 2 parent rule.
Sure they are…whatever helps you sleep at night.
(sorry to burst your bubble…there’s nothing to punt….the Court just thinks your birther arguments are garbage….the sooner you start to accept that, the sooner you can start to heal).
Agreed.
This is nothing more than the typical “any…day…now” screed by the extreme denialist crowd. They never learn.
Author: Northland10
Comment:
ydroustan: Elsewhere I explained why I think the Supreme Court is not likely to rule in favor of this case:
You forgot the another reason why they will not rule in favor of taking the case. They do have a nasty habit of following the Constitution from time to time. The Weldon case, did not.
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS – Oral Argument:
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?
___________________
RESPONSE BY ydroustan to all the relevant comments:
I tried to answer in one comment many responses. ‘Ad Hominen’ attacks need not be replied, and will be ignored as fallacious, irrelevant, ilogical and unintelligible.
The issues involved remain undecided by the Supreme Court:
Issue 1:
Does the right to associate force states to accept any candidate from political parties for presentation on state primary ballots when such a candidate does not meet the minimum legal qualifications for the office sought, thereby negating state election laws and state control of elections?
Issue 2:
Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II “natural born citizens” regardless of the citizenship of their parents?
Those issues remain very much alive and are not moot. The Wedon case, may not. So, long as the Supreme Court has not decided on the substance, nothing has been decided by the Supreme Court. Nothing has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Everything remains subject to future determination by the Supreme Court. In order for a case to be affirmed, the Supreme Court must first grant certiorari, hear the case on the merits, and then affirm the lower court. A denial of a petition for writ of certiorari is of no effect whatsoever. It is not even reported. The issues, Question 1 and 2 above can be brought back again, and again, at any time when the proper case arises.
Jus soli. Refers to the place of birth as the basis for being a citizen as distinguished from jus sanguinis; Issue 1. above whether “all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II “natural born citizens” regardless of the citizenship of their parents?, has not been answered by the current Supreme Court and is not in any way inconsistent with jus soli. Read the brief of Wedon and the case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 if you will. The law as understood by the framers required both jus soli and both parents to be “citizens.” One can be a citizen by virtue of jus soli and not be a “natural born citizen”, if both parents are not citizens, on the other hand a natural born citizen is not a “natural born citizen.” It is a simple question of undivided loyalty required of the man or woman who could start a nuclear war, the commander in chief of the army of the United States – paraphrasing John Jay, founder and framer of the constitution.
When you say that the court has a nasty habit of following the constitution, you need to view matters from the point of view of the Supreme Court, an elite group that has life tenure and is not indebted to anybody but their own personal life understandings and innate ideological beliefs. The group made up of Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito, definitely love the Constitution the way the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution envisioned it as a Constitutional Republic. As a Constitutional Republic the voice of the people, through the electoral process, needs to be respected. So, the Supreme Court avoids as much as possible making a decision that would infringe on the rights of “We the People”. And, when you are but 35 days away from November 6, 2012, the date the people through the electorate college elect their president, what do you expect? If the Supreme Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, or request a response from the appellee, that is a clear signal to the people that Obama may not be legitimate. The Supreme Court would then be accused of being partisan and taking sides in the political debate thereby destroying the legitimacy of the judicial branch of the Federal Government. It will not only destroy the Judicial Branch but it may end the Union, thereby destroying the inherent structure of the Constitution as understood by the founding fathers and the framers. The easy solution for the Supreme Court is to wait until after the people have spoken. If Romney wins, case resolved, and Obama is just a footnote in history. If Obama wins, new cases will come back up with the same ‘issues’, the Supreme Court will then be in a position to decide them anew, and more than likely Obama will again become a footnote in history.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Obama wins, the Supreme Court does nothing and 4 more years elapse with Obama bringing “wealth redistribution” to the USA or as some would argue a “Muslin Caliphate.” Some of you apparently don’t call this Marxism or Socialism or a theocracy. I call it “socialism of the American pattern” combined with bureaucratization and interventionism with elements of anti-Catholicism and Islamic theocracy resulting in government control similar to that of the Soviet Union, Cuba and the Euro-zone system; we see the consequences in Greece and Spain and in the ‘de facto’ and actual state and city bankruptcies in California and Florida; it will not be a Constitutional Republic as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, nor will it be an economy as a social system of production but an inefficient hampering of capitalism, lack of social coordination, capital consumption, famine, and government repression. Thus, the two obvious choices are: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, i.e., no wealth redistribution, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. It is either capitalism or socialism like the Austrian economist would say. I submit that Obama is for “wealth redistribution” as he has very clearly stated.
So, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito, do not grant certiorari because there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. The progressive wing of the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, deny certiorari for different reasons, not because they want to protect the court or the country, but because they believe in collectivism and socialism and don’t believe in the founders constitution to begin with.
I am not sure about Chief Justice John G. Roberts, however. His decision in Obamatax shows that he believes in the absolute power of the State through the taxing power and he is not a defender of “We the People.” His decision in Obamatax totally disregards the origination clause of Article I, Section 7 of the constitution: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; …” So, is he either unfamiliar with Article I, Section 7 or is he acting intentionally? Also, I don’t know if he is afraid of the consequences both to the court and to the country, or whether he is he simply playing devil’s advocate? On the other hand if there was an error in the briefings, as some have suggested and having read the full briefs, I do not see any such the error.
For the above reasons, in my opinion, whether intentionally or not, SCOTUS is merely ‘punting’ the issue down the line, and the issues will keep reoccurring regardless of what happens November 6, 2012. LOL
That is an issue, the answer to which appears to vary state by state, and if any real controversy arose in the context of a presidential election that hinged on that point, I think the Supreme Court might hear the case.
As to your second issue, 7 courts at least have said quite specifically that this issue is well-settled as far as the law is concerned for over 100 years.
Dr. Conspiracy
“As to your second issue, 7 courts at least have said quite specifically that this issue is well-settled as far as the law is concerned for over 100 years.”
7 states may have ruled but the current Supreme Court has not. The denial of the petition for the writ of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits of that issue. The states don’t settle Supreme Court case law.
I take this opportunity to correct a typo in my comment.
In the paragraph beginning Jus soli, …..Please correct the sentence reading:
…. , on the other hand a natural born citizen is not a “natural born citizen”…
to read:
“…., on the other hand a naturalized citizen is not a “natural born citizen” …”
The SCOTUS rarely wastes time ruling on settled law. They have much better uses for their time. It’s not like birthers would accept any ruling other than the one they want anyways.
Your problem is that your case has no merits. Merit is not decided at the Supreme Court level. If a case is so meritless that it cannot even get past the initial merit of standing, then SCOTUS isn’t going to bother with it. Foot stomping and breath holding notwithstanding.
ydroustan: And, when you are but 35 days away from November 6, 2012, the date the people through the electorate college elect their president, what do you expect?
how many times have the supremes DENIED CERT?
While I think everything you wrote is pretty preposterous- how exactly do you envision that will happen?
The Supreme Court has ‘punted’ as you insist on calling it Birther cases for the last 4 years- why would they change that?
And lets say that the Supreme Court for some inexplicable reason decided to hear one of the cases- what do you think the Supreme Court could do?
We know that the Supreme Court can affect elections before the results are decided- but afterwards?
The Supreme Court has no authority to do anything to a sitting President. If some Birther used his sekret mind control ray and had all the Supreme Court vote that Obama is a Sekrit Muslim Ursurper” it would mean nothing.
Congress would have already sworn him in. And only Congress could remove him. After Congress and voters chose him.
Do you people really believe this crap?
The courts have consistently ruled that Minor v. Happersett does not mean what you believe it means.
I’ll offer up a challenge to you which I have made to numerous birthers. If you can, please cite a single history textbook, civics textbook, or Constitutional law textbook which says that to be a natural-born citizen you need to have two citizen parents. Heck, just show me where the two-citizen parent requirement has ever been cited in the syllabus at an accredited school.
You can’t do it, because the citations which would support your argument do not exist.
So it appears that what you are saying is that Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito, love the Constitution so much that they have not wanted to upset the will of the people as declared by the 2008 election, but after this next election if President Obama is re-elected, they will out of the love of the Constituion overturn the will of the people.
‘Ad Hominen’ attacks need not be replied, and will be ignored as fallacious, irrelevant, ilogical and unintelligible. So names like birther or crap are unworthy of your logic and intelligence. LOL
The Supreme Court has not yet reviewed or overruled Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 and only the Supreme Court can settle the law.
I don’t know how many times has the Supreme Court denied certiorari and it makes no difference.
There is no such thing as “Supreme Court case law”. There is case law, which is made by courts at all levels and which is the law unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. The law books are filled with cases from state and lower federal courts, which are cited all the time. You sound like a fool.
If you are found guilty of a crime and appeal to the Supreme Court and are denied cert your case is not “unresolved”. You are guilty. The prisons are fillled with jailhouse lawyers writing “appeals” to the Supreme Court.
The matter is closed, over, finished, done. Have a nice life,.Goodbye,
The holding in Minor was overturned by the 19th Amendment. That was what Minor was about, women voting. It was not about citizenshp or presidential eligibility. Nothngto do witth them at all. You are hanging your hat on a case that said women can’t vote. I’m sure your mother would be proud of you…..
‘Ad Hominen’ attacks need not be replied, and will be ignored as fallacious, irrelevant, ilogical and unintelligible. So names like birther, crap, fool, or mentioning my mother are unworthy of your logic and intelligence. LOL
Minor v Happersett was about women’s suffrage and the holding was overturned. I don’t care if you reply. Your reply cannot change the facts. SPQR, VDT, PTSD
Please quote, and provide link to the quote, of any framer saying this, or anything like it. If you can’t you will need to withdraw your assertion. Note that John Jay does not say anything about parents.
Only thing to say to this point is *Bush v. Gore.* Not only did we survive that insertion of the Supreme Court into the electoral process at the most critical moment, most people, most Democrats, accepted Bush as the President. Not happily, but in fact. Not everyone, but most. The point being we survived, and more to the point the Supreme Court didn’t hesitate.
I would be one who does not call it that, correct. I would call it democracy, or more basically, constitutional and republican democracy, according to the wishes of the founders.
To whit:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1…
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”
Notice the constitutional Congressional power of “wealth redistribution,” which includes providing for the general Welfare.
Be that as it may, you can call it whatever you want, the founders were all for it. The cry was “no taxation without representation,” not “no taxation.” They also provided for *limited* intellectual property rights, meaning patents and copyrights revert back to *society* after a limited time. Not exactly pure capitalism there.
To which point I add, that for all its benefits and strengths, capitalism is not the same thing as democracy. Capitalism is not the top dog. Well, it is, but that is about corruption and raw power, things that you don’t seem to like. It is not supposed to be the top dog. Because corporations are creatures of the state, not the other way around. Capitalism is a tool. Our country is about creating a better society, a “more perfect union.” Capitalism is about profit.
Government cannot exist without wealth redistribution, otherwise known as taxes. So you are trying to suggest that the only two options are no government or totalitarian government.
And yet, the creation of the republican democracy known as the United States was based on neither option, and indeed went with a third option, called in shorthand form, “checks and balances.” In other words, they created a republic, with practical political power centered in a state, checked and balanced, with the mandate for wealth redistribution, but as ultimately reflective of the will of the citizens, however mediated. The founders were not friends of mobocracy. But they also did not want monarchy.
As just mentioned above, they supported taxation with representation, allowing for a voice in the how and what of wealth redistribution, as you call it. So if you want to argue against certain expenditures or argue for less taxes, go right ahead. But you have no constitutional right to rail against all expenditures and all taxes, otherwise known by your term, wealth redistribution.
You are arguing for a different country than was created, or which we have ever had. You can argue for that if you like, just don’t base it on our constitution.
As the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act did indeed originate with the House, you need not worry about Justice Roberts’ familiarity with the constitution on this point.
yydroustan: I don’t know how many times has the Supreme Court denied certiorari and it makes no difference.
you wrote: And, when you are but 35 days away from November 6, 2012, the date the people through the electorate college elect their president, what do you expect?
implying that this was the first time the supremes denied cert ….. what would we expect so close to the election
perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the birther scorecard and be mindful that it has not been updated since september 10th
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22707260/Birther-Scorecard-String-Cite-Birthers-Win-O-Lose-150-Pending-6-Total-156-Updated-September-10-2012
That’s fine. Now deal with the the responses that don’t involve such attacks or language.
gorefan
So it appears that what you are saying is that Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito, love the Constitution so much that they have not wanted to upset the will of the people as declared by the 2008 election, but after this next election if President Obama is re-elected, they will out of the love of the Constituion overturn the will of the people.
____________
One of the purposes of the most important purposes of the Constitution is to preserve the Union. If I were In the position of Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel A. Alito I would seriously consider denying the petition for writ of certiorari if I thought it may destroy the Union. The nearness of the election on November 6, 2012 makes granting of the Petition almost a certainty to provoke a fracture and possibly cause a Constitutional crisis whereas the denial of the petition at this time reinforces the Republican Constitutionality concerning the will of the people.
Issue 1. Does the right to associate force states to accept any candidate from political parties for presentation on state primary ballots WHEN SUCH A CANDIDATE DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS for the office sought, thereby negating state election laws and state control of elections? is the route by which the eligibility of Federal officials will be challenged in the future. Also if it is proven that BHO is not a natural born citizen, the issue will be raised in the Supreme Court again even if Obama wins. It would also be raised, even if Romney wins since it is one way to challenge the validity of laws signed by Obama while he is president.
I nonetheless reserve the right to use the word “crap.” And probably most of the other words, too. As succinct, relevant, logical and intelligible when dealing with *unresponsive* birther fools peddling crap. None of which applies here, I would hope.
yydroustan: Also if it is proven that BHO is not a natural born citizen, the issue will be raised in the Supreme Court again even if Obama wins.
AGAIN the birther scorecard includes the cases with natural born citizen findings
por ejemplo:
on page 3 ankeny v daniels finding obama is NBC
page 12 fair v obama
page 13 farrar v obama
and on
It’s an interesting state of mind you’ve set up there. “The four Supreme Court justices I like agree with me, because I say so, and the fact that they’ve not publicly said so just means they’re keeping their agreement a secret.”
In other news, did you know that Mitt Romney secretly favors ethnic cleansing of Hispanics and homosexuals, supports single-payer health care, and is actually a Socialist? It’s true, but he doesn’t say it because it would cost him the election.
Incorrect. See the de facto officer doctrine. Here is Chief Justice Rehnquist on the subject in Ryder v. United States:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-431.ZO.html
>>>The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.<<<
Aside from the de facto officer doctrine, there is also the fact that laws don’t require the President’s signature. It says so right there in the Constitution.
I already pointed out that the healthcare law actually did originate with the House, but I should point you out to the specifics, because you may be relying upon any of 10,000 blogs incorrectly stating otherwise (including The Daily Paul).
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Legislative_history
Right and declaring President Obama ineligible halfway through his second term would not create a Constitutional crisis.
That’s the beauty of America everyone is entitled to their own delusions.
Hey Scientist…Don’t play with your food! He’ll never guess what you mean…the poor guy. Besides, Misha is the one with the cat.
Oh, that’s just another one of the liberal judges… so they don’t have to be believed.
‘Ad Hominen’ attacks need not be replied, and will be ignored as fallacious, irrelevant, ilogical and unintelligible. So names like birther, crap, fool, or mentioning my mother are unworthy of your logic and intelligence. I will be extremely busy for the next 36 days and cannot waste any more time with inconsequential “Ad-Hominen” attacks. So please feel free to discuss this among themselves.and have lots of fun. LOL
Regarding John Jay that somebody mentioned the following concerns the issue of “natural born citizen” and founder John Jay:
If Osama Bin Laden’s mother had taken advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Saudi Arabia (or any other foreign country) to have a baby born in the United States she might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,” but consider that the mother and child returned to Saudi Arabia and raised the child. The child does not learn to speak English and does not learn anything about U.S. history or culture. Yet at age 35, the child returns to the U.S., spends the necessary years here to meet the residency requirements under Article 2, Section 1, and runs for president.” This will no doubt raise concerns over the loyalty of Osama Bin Laden to be the commander-in-chief of the US army and such concerns were raised in a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington who together with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton drafted the Constitution.
“The Law of Nations,” a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, contained the ‘natural law’ applicable at the time of the writing of the Constitution and was read and applied by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of law later established in the Constitution.
Vattel specified that a natural-born citizen is born of two citizens and made it clear that the father’s citizenship was a ‘loyalty’ issue.
MY QUESTION: IS OSAMA BIN LADEN ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?
This argument has nothing to do with Sheriff Joe Arpaio Maricopa County, Arizona official government finding of fraud and forgery as to the alleged birth certificate of President Obama; nor does it address the “The Vetting: Barack’s Love song to Alinsky” as disclosed by Andrew Breitbart prior to his passing; nor does it reiterate the fact that President Obama, the son of a foreigner from Kenya, is a man of obviously divided ‘bowing’ loyalty who lacks undivided love for this country as evidenced by his repeated verified failures to salute the flag, his efforts to incite class and racial conflict and institute ‘wealth redistribution’ i.e., socialism, contrary to the free market principles and natural rights incorporated in the constitution; nor does it address his disregard for the separation of power between the legislative and judicial powers, the war power in particular, or his attacks on the Christian principles of the Catholic church and separation of church and state; Nor does it address his encroachment on private property and excessive fiscal spending bankrupting the country; nor his fraudulent Solyndra and ‘fast and furious’ scandals; or his appointment of communist and convicted felons as proletarian Czars, and finally but not least his lack of transparency in failing to provide access to his original birth certificate, school, social security and passport and other records. Thus, I will limit myself only to the issue of eligibility under the US Constitution, and the legal standard for interpreting Supreme Court decisions grounded on the need for loyalty by the commander-in-chief of the army and the weakening of our security, and in particular the case of Minor v. Happersett.
Finally, I do not expect any sensible answer from Ad-Hominen shouting anti-constitutional ‘progressive’ ultra leftists.
The question is this: Is it necessary that a person be born of a father who is citizen in order to be a natural born Citizen? The case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark is inapplicable as that case does not address, or even mentions, who is or is not a “natural born citizen” under Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution holding merely that a person born in U.S. soil was a citizen but not holding that he was a “natural born citizen”;
The case of Perkings v. Elg is not applicable as Marie Elg was a “natural born citizen” because her parents were both, at the time of her birth, naturalized U.S. Citizens.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) involved the question of whether a Missouri constitutional provision which limited the right to vote to male citizens denied equal protection of the laws to female citizens otherwise eligible to vote. Other states did not so restrict the right to vote. The case has never been overruled by the Supreme Court and the case stands today for the same proposition it did in 1874, although with the passage and ratification in 1920 of the 19th Amendment the issue of female vote has no further force.
In the Happersett case however, in the course of reaching its conclusion, the Court articulated the now-famous quote frequently cited 88 U.S. at 167-168: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that at common law, [as that term is understood in September 17, 1787], it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Thus, the Court (and inferentially, the Founders) acknowledged that a “natural born Citizen” is one born of two citizen parents, consistent with the teachings of Emmerich de Vattel in Sec. 212 of The Law of Nations essentially concluding that children follow the condition of the father (Think of ‘Dreams of my Father’, by Mr. Obama).
Emmerich de Vattel ‘The Law of Nations’ was of critical influence on the Founding Fathers. De Vattel is the international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the revolution. I J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826). In 1775 Benjamin Franklin acknowledged receipt of three copies of a new edition of Vattel’s Law of Nation and remarked that the book ‘has been continuously in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting…’ 2 F. Wharton, United States Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 64 (1889)…See U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 US.. 452, 462, n. 12 (1978). Further, James Madison’s notes document that various delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 cited de Vattel.
Finally John Jay’s letter to Washington, argues for higher eligibility requirements, that the president needs to be a “natural born citizen” rather than merely a citizen of the United States representing a sharp departure from the Committee of Detail’s recommendations, made on August 22, [1787; See Madison Notes, August 22, 1787];
Clearly the Founders would not accept a lower standard of merely being a citizen born in US soil, when a higher standard was available to assure clear and undivided allegiance and fidelity and guaranteeing the survival of the new nation, erecting as effective a practical barrier to the entry into the presidency of foreigners, securing our liberties on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis as possible.
They adopted a higher standard of a citizen whose parents were also citizens, and did not accept the lower criterion, like the politically correct progressive position argued by leftist-socialist-Marxist-progressive liberals, that any-one-who-is-born-here-can-be-president.
Under that logic, had Osama bin Laden been born in, say Honolulu to his vacationing Saudi national parents, Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden and his tenth wife, Hamida al-Attas and resided here for 14 years and was 35 years of age, he would be a “natural born Citizen” as contemplated by the Founders and would thus be eligible to the presidency. With due respect to the progressive-socialists, and the leftist liberal members of this forum, a compelling and documented argument can be decisively made that this is a result the Founding Fathers did not have in mind. Indeed, the record plainly discloses that such a result was one they intended specifically to foreclose by setting a higher presidential eligibility standard.
Until the Supreme Court of the United States review the above considerations the issue:
Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II “natural born citizens” regardless of the citizenship of their parents? is alive and not yet decided by SCOTUS.
Hasta la vista baby!
Because that tactic has worked so well? Hint: states do not get to decide who is eligible for Federal offices. See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
And how do you propose to prove it?
Sorry, there is no magic reset button. Of course, if there were a magic reset button you would have to dig deep to pay the back taxes you owe, because it would mean that the Bush tax cuts expired two years ago.
And there are some that exercise that right with wild abandon.
No, he’s dead.
Incorrect. John Jay did not raise such concerns. Try quoting him saying that. His concern was expressed in much more general terms. You are the one saying it needs two citizen parents, or such.
Incorrect. This has been covered thoroughly in many places on this site. And Vattel, additionally, was not a founder of this country.
You sure you won’t allow a small, tiny ad hominem attack? Just a little one? I mean, it’s tempting. But okay, let’s stay at the higher level of discourse, and just say, no. Why not? Because he wasn’t born here.
yydroustan: MY QUESTION: IS OSAMA BIN LADEN ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?
isn’t he a member of the “dead president’s society”?
I can’t speak for the other posters but those kinds of things aren’t unworthy of my intelligence. Like all birthers what you say is complete crap, and you’re a fool if you aren’t smart enough to figure out that everyone here–and I do mean literally everyone–is smarter than you.
Okay, now call me a Marxist-communist-socialist-liberal-doodyhead-meanie-McStinkyface. Pointless name calling is all you birthers can do at this point so you may as well get your fill.
You do realize that, if he were alive, in order to become president, Osama Bin Laden would still have to go through a little process we call “an election”, right?
Yes, well, why not stay closer to home, and stick with actual births, and note that Charles Manson was born here of two citizen parents. Timothy McVeigh also. Al Capone seems to squeak in, per your standards. Richard Girnt Butler (Aryan Nation founder) was born here of two citizen parents, even was an aerospace engineer, and he seems to have gotten involved in, or at least been accused of, trying to overthrow the U.S. government.
All eligible. But yet somehow none of them ever became president.
I may not be, don’t know, but more honest, that is true.
Like most birthers, I get the feeling that wouldn’t bother him as much.
That would expose his entire “argument” as one massive logical fallacy. We can’t have that now, can we?
You mean the James Madison who said:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”
Have you read my article?
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/the-framers-on-foreign-influence/
I’ll give you a straight answer, just this one time. But you need to promise to give me a straight answer to one question too.
IF OBL had been born in America under the bizarro world circumstances you describe, then yes, he would have been ELIGIBLE to be President. Absolutely. 100%.
He would not however be ELECTABLE (assuming the rest of his biography was the same as in the real world).
BIG DIFFERENCE.
The fact that he masterminded the murder of thousands of American citizens affects his ELECTABILITY, not his ELIGIBILITY.
Here’s another hypothetical scenario for you to ponder:
Suppose a kid is born Lockport, New York to two citizen parents who divorce when he is 10 years old and is then raised by his single father. Suppose the kid joins the Army and does well, but gets turned down by Special Forces on psychological grounds. When he gets out of the Army, he decides the Government has planted a tracking device in his butt, and moves to Arizona because he thinks it won’t be subject to nuclear fallout. He quits the NRA because they are too soft on gun rights. He meets a like-minded friend and the two of them are offended by the Waco tragedy and they start collecting ammonium nitrate fertilizer and nitromethane racecar fuel. When they have 5000 pounds of the stuff, they put it in a rented moving van, park it outside a crowded Federal office building and blow it up. They kill 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injure 450 others.
Now, remember, this guy is a unquestionably a Native Born Citizen, even by birther standards. He is born on American soil to two citizen parents. Yet he has committed a treacherous act of terrorism against the American People, killing and injuring hundreds of men, women, and children indiscriminately, and unapologetically.
MY QUESTION: IS TIMOTHY JAMES MCVEIGH ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT?
Have you considered taking a vitamin supplement? I suggest “One a day plus irony.”
Since the attorney in the Weldon case was once affiliated Southern Legal Resource Center, which was co-founded by an attorney whose marriage ceremony was officiated by Richard Butler, I suspect you are correct.