What exactly is NOT simple about submitting a document that is self-authenticating in a motion to dismiss that would respond directly to all or at least part of the legal challenge??
As a defendant, Zero doesn’t have to prove his eligibility, plaintiffs have to prove his ineligibility.
This proposes that a plaintiff should prove a negative or an "absence of evidence." Under most states' ballot nomination procedures, candidates only provide a signature. It's pretty easy to point this out in court or point to the newspaper stories that reported Obama was Kenyan-born. Without any legal evidence to show otherwise, this would be sufficient to put the burden of proof back on Obama ... unless, of course, he successfully dodges the issue by hiding behind legal standing.
The fact remains that McCain and the RNC did not submit a birth certificate in evidence in Hollander v McCain. They too went for a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
McCain's birth certificate was irrelevant to the legal question, although it's interesting to note how that plaintiff had no problems getting copies of birth certificates while no plaintiffs have been able to get copies of Obama's. McCain's MTD made several arguments based on being born within U.S. territory/sovereignty to TWO citizen parent in order to meet the definition of NBC. A birth certificate wasn't necessary because McCain didn't dispute the location of his birth.
Why play a high hole card on the first round of betting?
To ensure a better chance of winning. Why hold it back unless that document doesn't help??
“What exactly is NOT simple about submitting a document that is self-authenticating in a motion to dismiss that would respond directly to all or at least part of the legal challenge??
This proposes that a plaintiff should prove a negative or an “absence of evidence.” Under most states’ ballot nomination procedures, candidates only provide a signature. It’s pretty easy to point this out in court or point to the newspaper stories that reported Obama was Kenyan-born. Without any legal evidence to show otherwise, this would be sufficient to put the burden of proof back on Obama ... unless, of course, he successfully dodges the issue by hiding behind legal standing.
McCain’s birth certificate was irrelevant to the legal question, although it’s interesting to note how that plaintiff had no problems getting copies of birth certificates while no plaintiffs have been able to get copies of Obama’s. McCain’s MTD made several arguments based on being born within U.S. territory/sovereignty to TWO citizen parent in order to meet the definition of NBC. A birth certificate wasn’t necessary because McCain didn’t dispute the location of his birth.
To ensure a better chance of winning. Why hold it back unless that document doesn’t help??”
Either a plaintiff has Article III standing or he doesn’t. The defendant doesn’t decide that, the judge does.
Every standing dismissal was upheld on appeal. That’s 21 appeals that were dismissed.
It is the responsibility of those challenging in a civil action to present plaintiffs who can demonstrate injury in fact.
The issue presented in the Syllabus for Hollander v McCain was stated as: “Issue: Whether Senator John McCain is a “natural born citizen” and eligible to be the President of the United States under the provisions of Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.”
I count 74 Obama lawsuits dismissed in original jurisdiction courts, Obviously “standing” has been a successful legal strategy that has been duplicated over and over again.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
“What exactly is NOT simple about submitting a document that is self-authenticating in a motion to dismiss that would respond directly to all or at least part of the legal challenge??
This proposes that a plaintiff should prove a negative or an “absence of evidence.” Under most states’ ballot nomination procedures, candidates only provide a signature. It’s pretty easy to point this out in court or point to the newspaper stories that reported Obama was Kenyan-born. Without any legal evidence to show otherwise, this would be sufficient to put the burden of proof back on Obama ... unless, of course, he successfully dodges the issue by hiding behind legal standing.
McCain’s birth certificate was irrelevant to the legal question, although it’s interesting to note how that plaintiff had no problems getting copies of birth certificates while no plaintiffs have been able to get copies of Obama’s. McCain’s MTD made several arguments based on being born within U.S. territory/sovereignty to TWO citizen parent in order to meet the definition of NBC. A birth certificate wasn’t necessary because McCain didn’t dispute the location of his birth.
To ensure a better chance of winning. Why hold it back unless that document doesn’t help??”
Either a plaintiff has Article III standing or he doesn’t. The defendant doesn’t decide that, the judge does.
Every standing dismissal was upheld on appeal. That’s 21 appeals that were dismissed.
It is the responsibility of those challenging in a civil action to present plaintiffs who can demonstrate injury in fact.
The issue presented in the Syllabus for Hollander v McCain was stated as: “Issue: Whether Senator John McCain is a “natural born citizen” and eligible to be the President of the United States under the provisions of Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.”
I count 74 Obama lawsuits dismissed in original jurisdiction courts, Obviously “standing” has been a successful legal strategy that has been duplicated over and over again.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”