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 1-5051-100101-114 next last
Second, this motion, of course, ignores that 18 Supreme Court justices agreed on a definition of natural-born citizen the precludes Obama from being Constitutionally eligible. Nothing they cited (CRS memos and state appeals court rulings) outweigh the SCOTUS precedent: “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” If nothing else, the MDEC created a mountain of paperwork for Orly Taitz to defend against, but it should only take ONE document to win this case ... and that's a document the Kenyan Coward refuses to submit in court. Hopefully the judge won't fall for this smoke and mirrors trick.
1 posted on 05/06/2012 12:21:43 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: edge919

Mark...


2 posted on 05/06/2012 12:32:23 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

God bless Orly, even if she is always tripping over her own feet.


3 posted on 05/06/2012 12:33:59 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Anyone but Taitz. It would be nice if anyone else would bring these cases.


4 posted on 05/06/2012 12:34:24 PM PDT by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wiggen

Something is going on here. In other states, they basically got away with the so-called “empty table/empty suit” defense by doing little to respond and forcing the judges to make excuses for the Kenyan Coward. By contrast, this is very highly detailed motion against a plaintiff who hasn’t had a successful time challenging Obama.


5 posted on 05/06/2012 12:40:59 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: edge919

You mean, in behalf of a plaintiff?

Maybe... it isn’t just Orly cranking out the legal paperwork this time. Maybe she got a partner with a clue.


6 posted on 05/06/2012 12:51:29 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wiggen
Anyone but Taitz. It would be nice if anyone else would bring these cases.

**********

No one else in the whole eligibity furball...
--Has remained on task with the same tenacity as Orly Taitz...

Just sayin'

7 posted on 05/06/2012 1:35:37 PM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wiggen
Anyone but Taitz. It would be nice if anyone else would bring these cases.

**********

No one else in the whole eligibity furball...
--Has remained on task with the same tenacity as Orly Taitz...

Just sayin'

8 posted on 05/06/2012 1:35:54 PM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind

And no one else has the ability to piss off state judges quite the way she seems to manage it.

She needs a local presenter anywhere she goes. IANAL, but I did watch her presentation here in GA live, and it’s on that plus reading similar comments about her style elsewhere that I base my comments.


9 posted on 05/06/2012 1:41:00 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind

No doubt but i read article after article (which i find nowhere but here) where she makes a misstep.


10 posted on 05/06/2012 2:32:11 PM PDT by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: onyx; DrewsMum; Tupelo; mstar; jdirt; Vietnam Vet From New Mexico; wardaddy; KLT; montesquiue; ...

Ms ping


11 posted on 05/06/2012 2:49:57 PM PDT by WKB (There are too many coincidences in this world...... for this world to be a coincidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edge919

‘...the SCOTUS precedent: “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.”’
__

Of course, if that were a SCOTUS precedent, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.


12 posted on 05/06/2012 5:22:55 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

>> You mean, in behalf of a plaintiff? <<

Orly may not know the difference.


13 posted on 05/06/2012 6:13:04 PM PDT by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn

LOL I half believe it.


14 posted on 05/06/2012 8:08:12 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind

Trouble is she keeps on covering the whole ball with fur.


15 posted on 05/06/2012 8:09:11 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Mitt! You're going to have to try harder than that to be "severely conservative" my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Mississippi Democrat party running scared

Hardly...they're laying a solid foundation for future birther lawsuits.

This document reads like a classic FR birther thread. They articulate the Taitz claim, and then rebut it.

Sloppy birther legal strategery is helping establish anti-birther precedent. These folks are using numerous previous losses to buttress their case... and "RICO" may have been the last straw. I think they want to put an end to Orly's antics once and for all. Besides...the Dems would love to have her in California running against Feinstein.

16 posted on 05/06/2012 9:51:48 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Hardly...they're laying a solid foundation for future birther lawsuits.

There have already about 100 so-called birther lawsuits. It's taken this long for someone to lay down a "solid foundaton"??? ... and sorry, but the motion reads like a classic Fogger and Faither disinformation website. The "anti-birther precedents" have been all over the road ... one assumes Obama was born in Hawaii ... with no legal evidence to support the assumption ... another simply says that proving his place of birth is irrelevant ... another says that the NBC precedent is in Ankeny ... another says it's in Minor, but only for defining NBC outside of the Constitution, which is true, but undermines the conclusion made by the judges. There's certainly sloppy strategery, but it's not just on the part of so-called birthers.

17 posted on 05/06/2012 10:24:46 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WKB

I’m no lawyer, and I don’t pretend to play one on teevee.

However, I hope and pray that the truth will eventually come out, and will be exposed to everyone to the point where there is nothing in dispute.


18 posted on 05/06/2012 11:59:07 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (This hobbit is looking for her pitchfork...God help the GOP if I find it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22; edge919
"Of course, if that were a SCOTUS precedent, we wouldn’t be having this conversation."

By all means, let's have just such a conversation. Nationally.

Any definition of Natural Born that doesn't act to reinforce the likelihood that the presidential aspirant has loyalty to, and loyalty ONLY TO the US is a flawed definition, no matter how many times Jus Soli adherents posit to the contrary.

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

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

That is a part of the holding in a unanimous SCOTUS ruling that has never been overturned.

Born on US sovereign soil to parents who are themselves citizens represents the Gold Standard in citizenship as applies to, and only to eligibility to assume the office of President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. No person who can claim dual citizenship should be legally eligible to aspire to our nation's highest office. It's a matter of presumed undivided loyalty.

Notice that the relevant language in Minor states "were natives, or natural-born citizens" rather than "include." Lawyers and judges are very, very careful about each and every word that they pen when handing down a ruling.

You can bet that this wording was intentional and is a good example of judicial restraint.

19 posted on 05/07/2012 1:51:37 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: edge919; David

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?


20 posted on 05/07/2012 4:18:48 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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]

To: edge919

“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??”
__

That’s a question I think you have to address to Messrs. Begley and Tepper, or at least to some other experienced litigator.

My guess? They would like to emphasize the point that the judicial community overwhelmingly reads WKA to say what they think it says.

Of course, your side is equally free to show how other judges view the matter differently. The more judicial support Team Obama can show, compared to what you have, seems to me to strengthen their argument enormously.

But that’s just my opinion. Feel free to ask them.


41 posted on 05/07/2012 1:34:10 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
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.

Well, see here is where we disagree. He is NOT a legitimate president, but the people in our legal system are desirous that we pretend that he is. Not for actually weighed legal reasons, but out of the fear that if he is ruled illegitimate, it would results in urban riots across the nation. He is even getting a form of affirmative action from the Legal system.

I think it serves the country's interest for people to keep repeating that he is illegitimate, and in as many places as possible. Repetition works as well with the truth as it does with lies. Say it often enough, and it will eventually become the consensus.

It may take awhile, but eventually we may convince enough people that he is ineligible so that safeguards will be implemented to prevent another such occurrence. Apart from that, it is my hope that we may be able to eventually put him in prison for playing us so falsely.

Hopefully we will be able to put some of his enablers in Prison as well. I personally think we could save a lot of time by locking up all the Democrats. :)

42 posted on 05/07/2012 1:35:20 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
That’s a question I think you have to address to Messrs. Begley and Tepper, or at least to some other experienced litigator.

What??? I asked you. Can you not focus on a simple question. I've already said this is a discussion site. You can't form your own opinion???

My guess? They would like to emphasize the point that the judicial community overwhelmingly reads WKA to say what they think it says.

That's not a very secure viewpoint. It takes 12 citations from other cases, plus 100 overall so-called "birther" cases to show that a legal precedent from a Supreme Court case is "overwhelming"???

43 posted on 05/07/2012 1:37:15 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“And my point is that their understanding of what is the actual meaning and intent of the law, is incorrect.”
__

Yes, I understand. You are arguing “correctness” or the lack of it. I am not.

I am simply pointing out that, under currently prevailing law, abortion is legal and President Obama is Constitutionally eligible. I understand that you view both holdings as erroneous, but your view has no impact on what current law actually is.


44 posted on 05/07/2012 1:38:18 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
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!

We don't have to convince the judges. We have to convince the Judge's Masters, i.e. "We the People."

Convince them, and the Judges will bow and obey.

45 posted on 05/07/2012 1:38:48 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
My guess? They would like to emphasize the point that the judicial community overwhelmingly reads WKA to say what they think it says.

You may feel that facts are decided by consensus, but I will point out that Lister was correct when the entire medical community was wrong. Same thing with Einstein.

Numbers of people in agreement with each other are meaningless in regards to what is the truth. Rather than say "we outnumber you, ergo we are correct" ( a variation of "might makes right.) why don't you explain why their argument is valid?

46 posted on 05/07/2012 1:44:47 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: edge919
"You can't form your own opinion???"
__

LOL, read on. I clearly stated my opinion.

"It takes 12 citations from other cases, plus 100 overall so-called "birther" cases to show that a legal precedent from a Supreme Court case is "overwhelming"???"

And read more carefully, please. I didn't say that the precedent is overwhelming. I said that judicial interpretation of Wong Kim Ark overwhelmingly supports the jus soli point of view rather than the "heritage-based" one. I find your objection to that to be quite baffling, other than the fact that it upsets you that none of the judges agrees with you in the slightest.
47 posted on 05/07/2012 1:45:46 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“Rather than say “we outnumber you, ergo we are correct” (a variation of “might makes right.) why don’t you explain why their argument is valid?”
___

Oh, that’s a simple one. Haven’t you been reading what I’ve been posting?

I haven’t said anything remotely resembling “we are correct,” nor have I claimed that their argument was valid. I haven’t once taken the position that “facts are decided by consensus.” You’re simply setting up straw men, and you’re not going to succeed in getting me to defend points of view that I’ve never expressed.

I’ve simply said that that the judges’ rulings represent the current state of the law, and nothing you’ve said seems to counter that in any way whatsoever.


48 posted on 05/07/2012 1:52:47 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
I am simply pointing out that, under currently prevailing law, abortion is legal and President Obama is Constitutionally eligible. I understand that you view both holdings as erroneous, but your view has no impact on what current law actually is.

No more than John Brown's views on Slavery had an impact on what the laws eventually became.

I don't think you understand, we mean to force the laws to change, so yes, our opinions matter towards this goal. I am going to keep repeating that Obama is illegitimate, and that the legal system is full of idiots. (A basic tenet of Conservative doctrine.)

It is you liberal types that have faith in the rulings of Judges because most of the time they can be counted on to rule in an activist manner (authoritarian) such as you prefer.

We know our arguments are having an impact, because "ObamaConspiracy" types keep coming over here to Free Republic to troll against us. If there is no fire, why keep bringing the water?

49 posted on 05/07/2012 1:55:59 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
LOL, read on. I clearly stated my opinion.

LOL, then someone has a hard time getting to the point.

I said that judicial interpretation of Wong Kim Ark overwhelmingly supports the jus soli point of view rather than the "heritage-based" one.

Only for citizenship through the 14th amendment. The Ark clearly said that natural-born citizenship isn't defined by the 14th amendment.

I find your objection to that to be quite baffling, other than the fact that it upsets you that none of the judges agrees with you in the slightest.

Then you aren't showing much in the way of reading skills. I said "another says it's in Minor, but only for defining NBC outside of the Constitution" in post 17 ... this is where a judge agrees with me "in the slightest" and I also said, "That latter court also admitted that there was a precedent in Minor" (the latter court is Ankney) ... which also agrees with me. They said Minor defined NBC, except they claimed that the court didn't consider scenarios when both parents are aliens (which they contradict themselves on anyway).

I understand your purpose is to try to deflect this issue, but you'll need to do a much better job.

50 posted on 05/07/2012 2:01:15 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-114 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