Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mississippi Democrat party running scared
scribd ^ | 05/06/2012 | edge919

Posted on 05/06/2012 12:21:36 PM PDT by edge919

The Mississippi Democrat party just filed a motion to dismiss a ballot challenge in from Orly Taitz on behalf of a couple of Mississippi voters. The motion, which is more than 200 pages contains a citation and copies from every known so-called "birther" case that has been filed. Also, in this challenge, they they seem to think this satisfies the Federal Rules of Evidence in regard to self-authenticating documents. The actual idea behind that rule is to submit certified copies of records to the court so that the documents can be inspected by all parties to ensure they contain the required certification elements. Also, they rely on out-of-court claims made on various websites to “verify” the legitimacy of said documents, when nothing in those statements contains an actual legal verification. The MDEC includes a ballot challenge in Illinois in which a photocopy of the printed PDF was submitted. Again, none of these items actually satisfies the FRE. The MDEC seems to be relying on a strategy of overwhelming the plaintiffs with everything they could find, plus the kitchen sink, ignoring that out of all the cited cases, not one time has a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate ever been submitted in any legal action. Out of the 200 plus pages in the Motion, an actual certified copy of Obama's alleged long-form would be compelling ... and Obama has TWO such copies, he alleges, so certainly he could loan one to them??


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certificate; eligibility; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-114 next last
To: Triple
Is it true in a court of law that if a copy is submitted (by Obama’s side) as evidence, then the other side can demand the original.

Did Obama’s side submit the photocopy?

I'm not sure what the law is about such a submission, but in this situation, the photocopy is submitted within copies of filings from previous so-called birth cases. The MDEC lawyers didn't independently submit a photocopy of any birth, but instead direct the judge to the White House and HI DOH websites.

21 posted on 05/07/2012 7:22:35 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

“It flies in the face not only of the cautionary words of the Founders (Paine, Jay et al) but of logic itself.”
__

And, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

But your opinion is of no legal consequence; neither is mine. That’s why the Mississippi memorandum goes to great lengths in Exhibit B to cite all the recent court decisions on the matter. There are twelve of them, and they are unanimous, like the one that says that SCOTUS precedent “fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President” and the one that says that “we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Not a single court has ruled differently. You can apply your own logic to whatever quotes of Paine and Jay you care to cherry-pick, but until the courts agree with you, your argument remains a loser.


22 posted on 05/07/2012 7:57:13 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

The problem is the the Supreme Court precedent does NOT fully support that Obama is a natural-born citizen under the Constitution. A citation of dicta from a state appeals court decision is NOT a Supreme Court precedent, especially when the state appeals court admits by footnote there is no Supreme Court precedent that supports their conclusion. The ONLY precedent that court actually cited does NOT support that Obama is a natural-born citizen. As for the “recent court decisions,” they are all over the road in terms of how each arrived at their decisions.


23 posted on 05/07/2012 8:52:39 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: edge919
"The problem is the the Supreme Court precedent does NOT fully support that Obama is a natural-born citizen under the Constitution."
__

And that, too, is your opinion. But that is not how a single court has ruled.

Of course, you can believe that the courts have ruled incorrectly. That's commonly seen among those on the losing side of court cases. But you've got a tough road to hoe -- it's not like these judges are all of the President's political party, or only represent a certain geographical segment of the country, or have insufficient judicial training or experience to render credible decisions. There has simple been not the slightest indication of a single judge agreeing with the "heritage-based" (two citizen parent) theory of natural born citizenship.

Notice that the first decision in this series, Ankeny v. Daniels, was issued (unanimously, of course) by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs did not like the ruling and appealed it to the Indiana Supreme Court, which refused to hear it. That set the stage for an appeal to SCOTUS.

Remember what happened? The plaintiffs didn't even file the appeal. They let the deadline expire and they allowed the decision to stand. And this was supposedly the case that would finally have given the birthers the SCOTUS decision they were looking for.

You can vote President Obama out of office. You can lobby for a Constitutional amendment to dismantle the currently existing laws concerning birthright citizenship.

Or you can continue to complain that all the judges are getting it wrong and keep hoping that some judge will see it your way. But, frankly, it doesn't look like your chances of succeeding that way are very good.
24 posted on 05/07/2012 9:09:01 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
And that, too, is your opinion. But that is not how a single court has ruled.

I just explained that these courts ... and there have only been a couple ... have gone by completely different jsutifications. One says Minor proves the NBC definition is outside the Constitution (without actually acknowledging what that is) while another says they arrived at a conclusion from Wong Kim Ark that wasn't actually used as a legal precedent in the Wong Kim Ark decision. That latter court also admitted that there was a precedent in Minor, except that they mistakenly claimed that it wan't a comprehensive definition, which is completely false.

There has simple been not the slightest indication of a single judge agreeing with the "heritage-based" (two citizen parent) theory of natural born citizenship.

This would mean something if they could agree on a reason NOT to agree with the definition in Minor. And this is wrong, because the Ankeny court did acknowledge this precedent from Minor. They argued that Wong Kim Ark provided guidance for an explanded definition of NBC, except they had to admit that Wong Kim Ark provided no legal basis for this conclusion. It was simply a feint to try to ignore the issue.

Notice that the first decision in this series, Ankeny v. Daniels, was issued (unanimously, of course) by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

A three-justice panel in a state court doesn't outweigh 18 Supreme Court justices. Besides, the Ankeny decision was not on the basis of natural-born citizenship. They only created a "conclusion" of what NBC might mean in order to justify their real decision, that being that they didn't have to accept the plaintiffs claims as true. At the time, the plaintiffs did NOT rely on Minor for their definition of NBC. They should have. The Indiana Supreme Court simply allowed that the governor couldn't be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates. That's the only thing the Ankeny case decided.

25 posted on 05/07/2012 10:24:23 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: edge919

You keep telling us why you think the court decisions are wrong. That’s very nice, but you need to convince judges of that, and so far you’ve accomplished absolutely zero in that regard. I’m not sure what you mean by “there have only been a couple,” since the memorandum cites twelve decisions, and they have all ruled the same way.

All of your arguments have been tried at one point or another, and they have all failed. No judge has shown the slightest sympathy to any of those arguments.

So, as I’ve said, you can continue to claim that your understanding of Supreme Court precedent is superior to that of the wide variety of jurists who have flatly ruled against you, but it just comes across as a lot of posturing. Every reputable authority so far has considered this to be a matter of settled law.


26 posted on 05/07/2012 11:08:38 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
Not a single court has ruled differently. You can apply your own logic to whatever quotes of Paine and Jay you care to cherry-pick, but until the courts agree with you, your argument remains a loser.

I disagree with this analysis. Till the courts agree with what is factually the truth, it is they who are the losers. That courts can get things completely wrong is obvious with cases such as Wickard v. Filburn and Roe v Wade.

27 posted on 05/07/2012 11:32:40 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"Till the courts agree with what is factually the truth, it is they who are the losers."
__

If you mean some people will disagree with what a court holds, I think you've got that right. Courts rule on facts as well as law, and they can make mistakes in either regard.

But court decisions are the law until they are overturned. If nothing else, the recent spate of decisions in favor of the jus soli interpretation of natural born citizenship completely demolishes the claim that President Obama should know that his father's lack of U.S. citizenship represents a bar to his eligibility, since he is clearly qualified under the prevailing interpretation of the law. It's possible (though highly unlikely) that a future SCOTUS ruling will overturn Wong Kim Ark, but that would not apply retroactively to elections already held under what is currently regarded as settled law, any more than overturning Roe v. Wade would criminalize abortions performed in the past.
28 posted on 05/07/2012 11:46:59 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
You keep telling us why you think the court decisions are wrong. That’s very nice, but you need to convince judges of that, and so far you’ve accomplished absolutely zero in that regard.

He is not arguing with a judge, he is arguing with you, or rather you are arguing with him. So far your argument seems to be "The powers that be say so, so that settles it! " Which in my mind is a pretty non compelling argument, especially for someone who is a member of a website called "Free Republic."

Where did Americans get such notions that because someone in power says so, it must therefore be so? You take a cowardly way out; Relying on a blind faith in the knowledge and wisdom of others rather than verifying the truth for yourself. A modicum of research reveals that these judges are incorrect in their understanding of the law.

I’m not sure what you mean by “there have only been a couple,” since the memorandum cites twelve decisions, and they have all ruled the same way.

A majority often means that all the fools are on the same side. Ignorance and false knowledge seemingly infuses large swaths of the modern legal system. Nonsensical results such as "citizen anchor babies" are the consequence of these ridiculous interpretations.

29 posted on 05/07/2012 11:47:29 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“He is not arguing with a judge, he is arguing with you, or rather you are arguing with him.”
__

Yes, and that’s just what I’m pointing out to him. There’s no point in arguing with me, as I don’t get to make rulings carrying legal authority, and neither does he. Judges do.

And as much as you hate the idea of respecting the decisions of “people in power,” our judicial system is based upon precisely that principle. If you don’t like what one judge says, maybe you can find another that says differently, or maybe you can get the legislature to pass different laws, or get the States to amend the Constitution.

Judicial interpretations, until overturned, are considered law. And citizens like you are perfectly within your rights to denounce them as “ridiculous interpretations.” That doesn’t change the fact that they are the law.


30 posted on 05/07/2012 11:57:12 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
If you mean some people will disagree with what a court holds, I think you've got that right. Courts rule on facts as well as law, and they can make mistakes in either regard.

I mean that any court which does not weigh evidence is unable to have produced a sensible decision. I mean that we should not blindly accept the pronouncements of a court which will not examine the evidence. You are falling for the fallacy of Argumentum ad verecundiam.

The courts are answerable to the people, not the other way around. The courts likewise do not have the power to overrule the document which created them in the first place.

But court decisions are the law until they are overturned. If nothing else, the recent spate of decisions in favor of the jus soli interpretation of natural born citizenship completely demolishes the claim that President Obama should know that his father's lack of U.S. citizenship represents a bar to his eligibility, since he is clearly qualified under the prevailing interpretation of the law.

We have yet to see any proof that Obama even qualifies as a citizen under that doctrine. His document comes from a state that seemingly has a habit of giving away birth documents to people who were not actually born there, and his current offered document appears to be fake. Even were you to accept the notion that "anchor babies" are qualified to be President, Obama hasn't even demonstrated himself to be as qualified as an anchor baby.

It's possible (though highly unlikely) that a future SCOTUS ruling will overturn Wong Kim Ark, but that would not apply retroactively to elections already held under what is currently regarded as settled law, any more than overturning Roe v. Wade would criminalize abortions performed in the past.

Wong Kim Ark can be interpreted in such a way as to not contradict the distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen." As has been pointed out, Justice Gray conspicuously left out the words "Natural born" in his decision. (As did the 14th amendment, upon which the decision was based.)

The previous court decision in Minor v Happersett specifically looked at the 14th amendment and then exclaimed "The Constitution (meaning the 14th amendment) does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." This observation is either a complete contradiction of Justice Gray's later Wong Kim Ark decision, or Justice Waite and Justice Gray were referring to two distinctly different classifications of citizenship.

Does it make sense that Justice Gray could find "in words" within the 14th amendment where it says who shall be "natural born citizens" when Justice Waite could not find such a thing?

Really?

31 posted on 05/07/2012 12:11:13 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

LOL! You’re arguing with me! That won’t do you any good.

So you think these courts have failed to “weigh evidence” and have been “unable to have produced a sensible decision.” And you think that Hawaii is “a state that seemingly has a habit of giving away birth documents to people who were not actually born there.” And that ‘Wong Kim Ark can be interpreted in such a way as to not contradict the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”’

That’s fine! You’re entitled to your opinions. Now, present them in a legally acceptable form, backed up by legally competent evidence, and make your case in a forum that has the legal authority to rule on it. Simply making unfounded assertions on a blog isn’t going to accomplish anything.

Of course, you’re aware that those same claims have been repeatedly rejected by all the courts that have considered them.

But by all means, you’re free to keep trying.


32 posted on 05/07/2012 12:20:08 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
Yes, and that’s just what I’m pointing out to him. There’s no point in arguing with me, as I don’t get to make rulings carrying legal authority, and neither does he. Judges do.

Oh, but there is a point to arguing with you. Convince enough people, and the earth will move under the judges. Perhaps we will not convince you, but others with a more open perspective will likely be persuaded by the facts of our evidence and the reasoning of our arguments.

And as much as you hate the idea of respecting the decisions of “people in power,” our judicial system is based upon precisely that principle. If you don’t like what one judge says, maybe you can find another that says differently, or maybe you can get the legislature to pass different laws, or get the States to amend the Constitution.

I interpret it differently. Having the status of "judge" gives you the power to order the men with guns to enforce your will, but it does not make you "correct."

Judicial interpretations, until overturned, are considered law. And citizens like you are perfectly within your rights to denounce them as “ridiculous interpretations.” That doesn’t change the fact that they are the law.

They are what the men in charge of the guns calls "the law." They would do the same thing for a King, which by the way reminds me, our Legal system is itself a leftover relic from the age of Monarchy. Referring to a Judge as "your Honor" and sitting him upon a "throne" in front of a "court" and having people "plead" with him in increasingly groveling tones seems to be quite inconsistent with the principles of American Freedom and Independence.

I dare say some judges fancy themselves as rulers of their own little Kingdoms. They ARE an arrogant lot.

33 posted on 05/07/2012 12:26:59 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

‘Having the status of “judge” gives you the power to order the men with guns to enforce your will, but it does not make you “correct.”’
__

Now, let’s be honest. I never said that any judge’s decision was necessarily “correct.” I said it was the law until overturned.

And so it is. Under current law, abortion is legal and Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the Presidency.

I am not arguing for the “correctness” of either position. I am simply pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who understands our legal system.


34 posted on 05/07/2012 12:38:06 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
LOL! You’re arguing with me! That won’t do you any good.

More so than you think. It satisfies an urge to challenge untruths in open debate. It promulgates arguments that may grow with repetition by others. It allows us to hone our skills in responding. I assure you, i've become much better informed for having argued with the "supporters of Barack's legitimacy" in the past.

So you think these courts have failed to “weigh evidence” and have been “unable to have produced a sensible decision.”

Yes. They are "misinterpreted precedence" zombies.

And you think that Hawaii is “a state that seemingly has a habit of giving away birth documents to people who were not actually born there.”

Yes, and I have three pieces of evidence to support this conclusion. First of all, it says in Hawaii's own statutes that they will issue a birth certificate to the child of a Hawaiian resident, regardless of where born. Secondly, the Cold Case Posse of Maricopa county Arizona has stated that they have numerous examples of Hawaii having done exactly this, and thirdly, This man (Penbrook Johannson)claims to have a Hawaiian Birth certificate despite being born in Brisbane Australia.

And that ‘Wong Kim Ark can be interpreted in such a way as to not contradict the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”’

Either that, or Chief Justice Gray was too stupid to add the words "natural born" to his decision. (And So was John Bingham, Principle Author of the 14th amendment.)

That’s fine! You’re entitled to your opinions. Now, present them in a legally acceptable form, backed up by legally competent evidence, and make your case in a forum that has the legal authority to rule on it.

The courts have no interest in hearing any evidence. They believe in their simpleminded way that they know so much that no one need bother them with any contradictory facts. That leaves the court of public opinion which we are even now arguing before. It is the final court in any case.

Simply making unfounded assertions on a blog isn’t going to accomplish anything.

That is just the point. They are not "unfounded assertions" they are very well documented and logically demonstrable claims regarding the true and correct meaning of Article II and how the current legal system is corrupted by a doctrinaire orthodoxy of ignorance.

35 posted on 05/07/2012 12:52:10 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“They are not “unfounded assertions” they are very well documented and logically demonstrable claims regarding the true and correct meaning of Article II and how the current legal system is corrupted by a doctrinaire orthodoxy of ignorance.”
__

Well, once more, we are facing what you personally consider to be “very well documented and logically demonstrable claims” and what you see as the “true and correct meaning of Article II,” and you acknowledge that your views are opposed to the holdings of the “current legal system.”

And I am not arguing with you. I am simply pointing out, as I did a bit earlier, that regardless of your opinion that the legal system is corrupt, it is our legal system, and its conclusions are our laws.

Some people are unhappy about that, as you obviously are, but the law is what it is until it is changed. And that means that Barack Obama is, according to our legal system, Constitutionally eligible to be President, your opinions notwithstanding.


36 posted on 05/07/2012 1:02:23 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
That’s very nice, but you need to convince judges of that, and so far you’ve accomplished absolutely zero in that regard.

Well, no, this is a discussion site, so I don't have to convince judges of anything.

I’m not sure what you mean by “there have only been a couple,” since the memorandum cites twelve decisions, and they have all ruled the same way.

They haven't been ruled the same way. The Ankeney decision wasn't based on natural-born citizenship. I've addressed that already. One case cited Ankeny's non-precedent-supported dicta. Another case says that their definition of NBC is "well-established" without citing legal precedent. One said the case was frivoulous without citing a legal precedent. A couple cite a Georgia administrative hearing ... using a connect-the-dots argument, that again has no legal precedent. One says the birth certificate, which was never presented, legally establishes his eligibility. Only a couple of these actually reviewed Minor, and two of them admitted it was the only legal precedent, but simply ignored what that precedent says.

All of your arguments have been tried at one point or another, and they have all failed. No judge has shown the slightest sympathy to any of those arguments.

Sorry, but this simply isn't true. Again, Ankeny admits that Minor is a legal precedent, but upheld the lower case ruling on a different issue. No one has cited Ankeny's error to support Obama's lack of eligibility, but they certainly could ... plus Ankeny makes a few more errors on top of that.

So, as I’ve said, you can continue to claim that your understanding of Supreme Court precedent is superior to that of the wide variety of jurists who have flatly ruled against you, but it just comes across as a lot of posturing. Every reputable authority so far has considered this to be a matter of settled law.

Not so much. They've certainly found creative ways to punt the issue.

37 posted on 05/07/2012 1:04:49 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“Well, no, this is a discussion site, so I don’t have to convince judges of anything.”
__

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were trying to accomplish something within our legal system. That’s where you need to convince judges, and that’s the arena in which you’ve “accomplished absolutely zero.”

But of course if your goal is to post on a discussion site, then you’ve certainly accomplished it, and I imagine you will continue to do so!


38 posted on 05/07/2012 1:10:20 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

Here’s a question: If the “legal precedent” was all that strong as cited in all these cases, why is there a need to cite all the challenges and not just the legal precedent itself?? The only citation should be directly to Wong Kim Ark and not to appeals court dicta or ballot-hearing dicta.


39 posted on 05/07/2012 1:18:29 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
I am not arguing for the “correctness” of either position. I am simply pointing out what should be obvious to anyone who understands our legal system.

And my point is that their understanding of what is the actual meaning and intent of the law, is incorrect. Despite this, their decisions are imposed on the rest of us. They have effectively changed the law by judicial fiat. This is not the manner in which the system was intended to function, it is a byproduct of Judicial activism that has been left unchecked.

Abortion and Citizenship actually have a great deal in common. There are two consistent schools of thought on this subject.

Abortion is the consequence of the argument that a child is not a "person" until they are born, while the Jus Soli argument is that a child is not a citizen until they are born in a certain place.
(Status by the rules of man.)

The Pro-life/right-of-blood position is that a child's status as a person or a citizen is inherent in it's nature and does not depend on the conditions of it's birth to be one thing or another.
(Status by Nature.)

Of the two, only one position is consistent with the concept of being "natural born."

40 posted on 05/07/2012 1:23:08 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson