Skip to comments.Mississippi Democrat party running scared
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 Obamas 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??
That judges don't agree with me is a matter of reassurance from my perspective. I regard the legal system as having been corrupted by Liberal ideology due to the influence which Roosevelt and Truman exerted on it for 20 years, thereby transforming the Federal Judiciary from a careful deliberative body into a collection of activist loons.
This is a common belief among conservatives, and it is only people of liberal persuasion that finds this perspective disconcerting. Conservatives have come to respect the legal system very little. It has become a collection of ideologically corrupt idiots that among other things, permit the slaughter of innocent children because previous idiots in their profession told them to.
It is a system which is ill, and it needs to be healed. One way to heal it is by exposing it's fallacies and ridiculing it. And to that end you are assisting us.
“I understand your purpose is to try to deflect this issue, but you’ll need to do a much better job.”
Your understanding of my purpose reminds me of your understanding of the law!
Every decision has gone against you. Every single one. You can cherry-pick quotes that you think give you a thread of support — so, good, use it on appeal! See if you can parlay some of that word play into a favorable decision.
So far you are batting zero, but hey, take your best shot!
Yes you have, every bit of it is implied by your context. What other conclusion can be drawn from your naming off how many people agree with a position?
Youre simply setting up straw men, and youre not going to succeed in getting me to defend points of view that Ive never expressed.
You've expressed them. Now that you realize how indefensible they are, you are attempting to distance yourself from them.
Ive simply said that that the judges rulings represent the current state of the law, and nothing youve said seems to counter that in any way whatsoever.
It represents the unconsidered opinion of a Judge parroting precedent in absence of a weighing of evidence. The law is quite clear to those who know how to read. You keep trying to equate what is the "law" as being the same as what is a judge's opinion.
I have read the debates on the 14th amendment. (The basis for the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and without which it wouldn't exist) and it is quite clear that they had no intention of regarding anyone born under the 14th amendment as a "natural born citizen".
Their entire purpose was to grant former slaves the right to be a citizen under the only legal theory by which they could do so without specifically referring to their former status as slaves. They could NOT appeal to jus sanguinus because former slaves could not claim jus sanguinus.
It has been dishonest in the extreme for those of your mindset to equate an amendment to grant freed slaves citizenship as repealing the article II requirements that the President be a natural citizen. Former slaves were NOT natural citizens, they were "naturalized" (adopted) by the force of the 14th amendment.
Sorry, but this is logical fallacy. A so-called consensus of stupidity doesn’t make these judges right. Talk about the actual issues if you understand them. I already pointed out that the MDEC is making this same fallacy by trying to argue quantity rather than quality.
He is just a "scarecrow" for which we "crows" have little concern. :)
He is just a tacit opposition. Verbal filler if you will.
“What other conclusion can be drawn from your naming off how many people agree with a position?”
I hope most people draw the obvious conclusion.
The fact that every single judge who’s looked at the issue has come to the same conclusion is strong evidence that there is an overwhelming consensus in the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted. Whether that interpretation is “correct” is a totally different issue, one on which I have expressed no opinion.
I don’t think that’s a difficult concept to understand, and I’m not going to keep repeating it.
“Sorry, but this is logical fallacy. A so-called consensus of stupidity doesnt make these judges right”
Sorry, the fallacy is your own. As I’ve said over and over, the consensus doesn’t prove they’re right. I never said it did.
I said that the existence of the consensus indicates that an understanding of the current state of the law is widely shared among judges. I have taken no stand on its correctness.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding that?
And you seem to agree. You are hoping that the law will eventually become what you want it to be.
You are apparently unaware that John Brown opposed actual laws, not Judges opinions of laws. Laws regarding slavery were deliberated and voted on by the legislatures of the several states, and therefore were duly enacted legislation. i.e. "laws."
I am not acknowledging that what judges cause to occur constitutes the same thing as an actual law.
And who knows, maybe it will. All I'm talking about is what the law is now -- which, by your own admission, is not what you want it to be, because you said it yourself -- "we mean to force the laws to change."
I am not confining myself to just this one issue in regards to "the laws." There are many actual laws that need to be changed, not just this widespread misinterpretation of Amendment 14.
Well, it looks like we agree on more than we might have thought. Nice chatting with you.
The consensus is the premise behind your posts. Why are you afraid to own that?? There’s no point in bringing up the consensus unless you think it proves correctness.
You sound like Chief Justice Taney's cheer leading squad during his Dred Scott v Sanford decision! "Take that you D@mned Slave! Every case has gone against you, so therefore you are WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! "
Sorry, not very persuasive from my perspective. Washington lost most every battle till he finally won. This battle won't be won in the courts, it will be won in the court of Public Opinion. That the courts have been all over the place in their decisions is more a cause for hilarity than anything else.
Whodathunk they would make up such silly crap to justify their rulings? :)
"New Jersey doesn't require proof to get on the ballot." HA HA HA HA HA!
"Georgia : We have no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, but on that basis we will rule him eligible!"
They should write a Saturday Night Live skit for this. It's just that funny!
“Every case has gone against you, so therefore you are WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! “ “
Ooops, there you go again! I never made a judgment as to right or wrong. That is a straw man of your own invention, and you just can’t seem to let go of it.
I dont think thats a difficult concept to understand, and Im not going to keep repeating it.
All the physicists in the world had bought into the "Aether" theory until Einstein came along and demonstrated that it was rubbish.
Let me try once more to acquaint you with the fallacy of your presentation.
The “consensus” was already brought up in the OP. Again, I already pointed out that the MDEC is trying to argue QUANTITY over quality. There’s no point in regurgitating anything about concensus unless one thinks it reinforces correctness. The part that is hard to understand is the lack of honesty.
Then why do you keep repeating numbers?
I said that the existence of the consensus indicates that an understanding of the current state of the law is widely shared among judges.
Or a misunderstanding is widely shared among judges. Given the evidence available, this is the more likely scenario.
How anyone could regard an amendment grating citizenship to slaves means we must accept foreign citizens as President is just a stretch too far for a sensible man.
I have taken no stand on its correctness.
Sure you have. By equating falsity and truth as a matter of opinion you have taken a stand for falsity.
Would you be so confused as to the correctness or incorrectness of slavery?
You are wrong in equating "correctness" as being proportional to the numbers of people who agree.
Your argument keeps summarizing as "This group of people say you are wrong, therefore you are wrong." Rather than saying you are wrong because (for example) "John Bingham clearly stated, and the Congress clearly inserted the words "Natural born citizen" into the 14th amendment."
They didn't, but if they had THAT would be an example of you providing evidence to support your (by the proxy of the judges) claim.
You keep trying to deflect the argument back to "nobody in power agrees with you, therefore you are wrong." You simply chose not to argue the issue on the merits (same as the judges) probably because you know that on the merits the argument of regarding "anchor babies" as citizens can easily be taken apart.
You are right that there is a great difference between science and law. In science, if an experiment keeps yielding ridiculous results, it is regarded as a failure and is therefore null and void. Not so in law in which there is such a worship of procedure, that the results are actually irrelevant as long as "procedure" was followed! Legal people tend to be "Procedure Nazis."
But laws do change. Slavery was once legal; it is not legal now. Abortion was once illegal; it is legal now.
Really? When did the Congress or any of the State legislatures pass a law legalizing it? Last I heard it was a collection of jackasses that made up a bunch of phoney bullsh*t regarding the 14th amendment, and then declared laws against it void.
You may regard this as an imprimatur of legitimacy, but from my perspective this is anything but. It is a case where a nation that was very much against something, out of respect for the institution of law, tolerated the edict of Authoritarian judges shoving something down their throats against their will.
The court soiled themselves with that ruling. (among others.) Even when they revisited it back in the 90s, the best justification they could come up with was "because we say so." (Stare Decisis) Even Liberal legal critics regard it as bad precedent and bad law.
One may disagree with that decision. But it is the law, and I am able to state that it is the law with absolute assurance without having to take any position on whether I feel that law is a good or a bad thing.
It is not the law. It is judges opinions which has come to be accepted as the ruling edict of today. People CALL it "the law." But it was not duly enacted by the consent of the governed. That people accepted it does not make it legitimate.
The Nazis made laws about Jews. The fact that they could do so did not make their laws legitimate, as they eventually found out.
Sorry, have no more time to waste on this today.
The only one moving goalposts is you. I've already address this "widespread agreement" claim by showing that the decisions actually use a variety of inconsistent arguments. Many of these decisions are based on lower court dicta, not WKA interpretations. And you're STILL using a concensus argument. Just admit it. It's still a fallacy to do so.
“And you’re STILL using a concensus argument.”
I am certainly speaking of the consensus that exists, based on the fact that all of the judges who have ruled on the matter have come to the same conclusion. Not one has lent any support to the argument that the lack of two citizen parents precludes natural born citizenship. Not one. Nada. Zilch. There is a complete consensus on the conclusion, even if you want to quibble over the details of how they got there.
What I have not said is that I regard the consensus as evidence of correctness and, despite your insistence, you have still been unable to provide a quote in which I did so.
"I have taken no stand on its correctness."
You certainly seem to have taken some pains to avoid appearing to do so, but a careful reading of your commentary suggests otherwise. At #22 You (BG22) stated:
"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.
1. Straight-up Alinskyite bs. Explain how my logic is flawed or retreat from your supposition.
2. Show where I even cited a specific text by Paine or Jay, let alone where I "cherry picked" any quotes by them. Or are you instead suggesting that any quotes by Paine or Jay et al will perforce be "cherry picked?" Definite bias showing there.
3. "Your argument remains (and by extension, you also remain) a loser." Nice.
A trifecta in a single sentence. Impressive. And a fair attempt at subtlety in that last.
Nice try, but you’re missing the obvious.
Until the courts agree with you, your argument remains a loser. Once they agree, you’ve got a winner.
Couldn’t be clearer. It has nothing to do with what I consider correct or incorrect — I’m speaking simply of success or failure in court, and my conclusions are completely self-evident.
Thanks for playing.
Nazis, Slavery, Abortion, it's all the same thing really. The only question is, are you a supporter of evil or not? When you have the National Socialists in your corner, odds are you are on the side of evil.
The notion that "Laws" should override morality is completely wrong. "Laws" are nothing but codified morality, the only question is Who's morality will be the root of the law?
Me too. I hope they come to the obvious conclusion that our Legal system is full of stupid and corrupt people who need to be excised from it as quickly as possible.
The fact that every single judge whos looked at the issue has come to the same conclusion is strong evidence that there is an overwhelming consensus in the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted.
Yes, they all seem to be beyond hope. Oh well, a new broom sweeps clean!
Whether that interpretation is correct is a totally different issue, one on which I have expressed no opinion.
Again with the lying. Of course you've expressed an opinion. The very act of responding to our comments is intended to express an opinion on the subject.
You see, we find that most people who have no opinion on the subject don't bother discussing it. Those that do fall into two categories. Those trying to protect Obama's claim to legitimacy, and those of us who've actually read the history and the law, and know that he is not a legitimate President.
You have come here to play your sophistic games, and you aren't fooling anyone. I've scanned through your messages. Since you've got here you've done nothing but challenge anyone asserting Barack is illegitimate.
Your style if full of legalistic crap, and closely matches the style of the Fogbow crowd that we have all had to wipe off of our shoes. Give my love to Sterngard Friegen.
There is no need to quote you. Virtually every response has been the same. "This group of people disagree, therefore you are wrong." Since this is clearly your mantra, it is pointless to remind you of what you have just written.
Truth is immuned to consensus.
You other two already know this stuff.
As I thought, you are not disputing the fact that I stated and are still arguing opinions.
Thanks for proving my point.
Thanks for proving my point.
You write words, but their meaning escapes me. It is starting to resemble gibberish.
Yes, I've noticed that. Let's try again.
It is the nature of thoughts that a poor selection of words can be ill suited to convey them.
"I have stated an obvious fact: Every court so far has ruled against the heritage-based theory of natural born citizenship, and that indicates that there is a broad consensus in the judicial community on that subject."
I don't think I've disputed that there seems to be a "consensus" as to their conclusions. Certainly there has not been a consensus of reasoning arriving at their conclusions, but they all get to a "consensus of outcome" notwithstanding their fallacious reasoning. My point has consistently been that a "consensus" is not the same as truth, and that the belief that it is constitutes a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. (also Argumentum ad vericundium is related.)
The more interesting question is why you think there is any purpose to harping on it? I've given you a link that pretty much explains the most common sentiment regarding the judiciary and why they cannot seem to get anything right, and yet you still seem persistent that the opinions of ill informed people ought to matter for something just because they are in positions of authority.
We don't get our truth from the propaganda tap around here. We are free thinkers and don't respond well to attempts to push us into official orthodoxy, regardless of who is doing the pushing.
You want to sway opinions here? Bring facts, not votes.
You really ought to read that link. It will answer the questions you seem intent on asking.
Judges are just spouting their religion as decreed by their elder priests. Their decisions are based on faith, not on reason.
The "fact" that you bring is that a bunch of people (judges) have all voted the same way. Again, this is not proof that they are correct, all the mores so because their reasoning is all over the place.
You keep presenting a consensus as proof of something, and we keep telling you that the actual laws and historical facts disagree with their conclusions.
“The “fact” that you bring is that a bunch of people (judges) have all voted the same way. Again, this is not proof that they are correct”
And I agree. I’ve never said anything different, despite all your posturing on the subject.
Maybe someone else would like to have that fight with you. But you’re not going to get anywhere pretending I’ve said things and then arguing with them.
Maybe someone else would like to have that fight with you. But youre not going to get anywhere pretending Ive said things and then arguing with them.
If it is not salient to your point, why bring it up?
Again, this was already addressed in the OP when I said they are trying to use a quantity over quality argument. The lack of “quality” is that, in the quanitity of “consensus,” the legal reasoning has NOT been consistent in these cases. I already explained this too. There’s no reason to regurgitate the point unless you think the consensus is based on a “correct” interpretation, which it demonstrably is not. The most widespread legal reaction has been to deny legal standing to private citizens who have challenged the Kenyan coward, but again, this hasn’t even been consistent from a legal rationale standpoint.
“Theres no reason to regurgitate the point unless you think the consensus is based on a correct interpretation”
I’ve already told you many times that’s not what I think. If you don’t believe me, too bad. Maybe your reading comprehension will improve with time.
Best just to drop the argument since you aren't fooling anyone.
“Sorry, but you were busted flat out in this post.”
As I said in my reply to that post, nice try. Work on that reading comprehension some more.
It was more than a "nice try" ... you were busted flat out. The problem is not reading comprehension, but your lack of honesty. Reading comprhension supports that you were busted. The rest of your response was more of the same consensus fallacy. Time for you to move along.
I think the most significant one is that it shows that what the consensus represents -- the rejection of the "heritage-based" requirement for natural born citizenship -- is currently the prevailing view in the judicial community.
Again, that does not mean it is in any sense "correct." But it does mean, for example, that even if a future SCOTUS ruling were to change the picture, and render ineligible a future Presidential hopeful on heritage-based grounds, it would have no effect on the 2008 election, because those grounds were not in effect under the law prevailing at the time.
It's similar to what I said the other day. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, it would not criminalize abortions performed yesterday.
Slavery is wrong today and it was wrong before it was abolished. But it was legal then, and people who practiced it were not considered legally accountable for something they did that was legal under the prevailing law of the time.
Yes, that's a very elegant tap dance you have done around the point. You mention the consensus, not to prove it correct, but just to prove it has consequences, eh?
You miss a greater point. The end goal is not the legal system but the culture itself. History needs to reflect that this man was not legitimate, and is just a further degradation of one more in a long line of Democrat garbage presidents for whom we have to thank for the deaths of millions and the massive economic and cultural destruction of our society.
It is important to keep hammering the fact that the man has gamed the political system via exploiting the corruption of the legal system, and that judges cannot be counted on to represent or defend the interest of the people.
From my perspective, it is our DUTY to call into question the legitimacy of our courts. They have long since stopped performing their rightful role, and they have taken on the appearance of petty despots.
I think perhaps if a few of them get hanged in the oncoming social collapse, it may focus the minds of those remaining to pay closer attention to the duty of upholding the principles that might have prevented it. If not, the tree of liberty could always use some more decorative fruit.
Barack needs to go down in History as a false president, and one that is undeserving of respect. His name should be synonymous with traitor as is Benedict Arnold. His supporters likewise need to pay a horrible price for their role in his deceit. America, History, and the World need to know the truth about this man, and the only way that is going to happen is if he keeps being shown to be the illegitimate bastard that he really is.
He should be a source of humiliation to those people who have enabled him, not just to decent people.
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.