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??
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 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.
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 you’re not going to get anywhere pretending I’ve 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.
“There’s 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.