Mississippi Democrat party running scared

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??

“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.

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. :)

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"???

“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.

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.

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?

"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.

“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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

"Eventually became"!! You finally got it!

Now look back at what you were responding to -- it was my comment that "your view has no impact on what current law actually is."

And you seem to agree. You are hoping that the law will eventually become what you want it to be.

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."

You admit that current law is against you. And that's exactly what I've been saying.

“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!

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.”

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?

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.

You've expressed them. Now that you realize how indefensible they are, you are attempting to distance yourself from them.

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.

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.

“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 doesn’t 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?

Now look back at what you were responding to -- it was my comment that "your view has no impact on what current law actually is."

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.

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.