Main Menu

Birthers waste millions in taxpayer dollars

You’ve heard, I’m sure, the claim that Obama has spent some large amount of money (since the amount is a wild guess, specifics vary widely) keeping his birth certificate a secret. Those who follow these questions know that nothing Obama can do will make the Conspiracy Theorists withdraw. If he was born in Hawaii, then he’s not a natural born citizen anyway. If a court rules the against them, it just means the judge is traitor. If nothing Obama can do (short of resigning) will have any effect on birther activity, then it is certain  that the birthers bear all of  the responsibility for all the public funds spent in dealing with birtherism.

What are those costs?

  • Members of Congress are flooded with emails, letters and phone calls asking questions and making demands related to birther theories. Their staff read and answer the mail.
  • State officials, including secretaries of state, are pestered with birther questions.
  • FOIA requests (which in most cases are free to the requester) have been filed, and must be researched and responded to
  • The state and federal courts have been flooded with cases (at least 60 actions!) and many of the plaintiffs have asked that the filing fee be waived.
  • Many of the cases involve government defendants (state secretaries of state, Nancy Pelosi, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Elections Commission, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Clinton, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Gates, various military commanders, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate — not to mention Barack and Michelle Obama). All of these are defended at public expense.

Add up the time and effort of congressional staff, judges, law clerks, state officials and federal agency staffers. It’s got to be in the millions. Birthers are not harmless.

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

288 Responses to Birthers waste millions in taxpayer dollars

  1. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida September 25, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

    Millions wasted, all for the Birthers’ desire to tilt at windmills. As good a reason for “Loser Pays” as any.

  2. avatar
    misha September 25, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    Obama’s long form original birth certificate is in a safety deposit box in Andorra.

  3. avatar
    John September 25, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    And Obama can cut down on much of this so-called Taxpayer’s Waste by simply releasing his Birth Certificate. I think it is clear his Birth Certificate with Hawaii is a sham. As I look at the actions of Obama and evidence, it seems more clear with each passing day that Obama was born in Kenya.

  4. avatar
    John September 25, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    As I put it,

    Something Smells rotten in Demark!

  5. avatar
    eguia uria maria luisa September 25, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    Eh people! you remember another president who though that he could lie under oath and laught at the American People?
    But you forgive him anyway because he was one of yours.
    Did yo forgive the Watergate affaire?
    No! any people thinking they are the good guys , the perfect guys continue citing that affaire even after the president resigned.

    I am not a republican and I am playing devil’s advocate……
    But still

  6. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    My goodness they are all coming out from under the bridge today aren;t they?

  7. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    And Obama can cut down on much of this so-called Taxpayer’s Waste by simply releasing his Birth Certificate.

    No he can’t. Many, many claims have these birther suits are unrelated to the birth certificate; releasing it wouldn’t dispose of the claims raised.

    I think it is clear his Birth Certificate with Hawaii is a sham.

    Because an “expert” (with no actual training or expertise) told you so?

  8. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 3:29 pm #

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/14462699@N00/376628565/

  9. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/itslefty/1168737175/

  10. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/23166258@N03/2514858087/

  11. avatar
    richCares September 25, 2009 at 3:39 pm #

    hey John, Hawai currently only supplies one type of BC, that’s the one Obama released, so your question is out of line as he has released his BC. I tried to get long form for my daughter born in Hawaii 1965, they told me they only supply the short form. So stop the stupid “make Obama release his BC”, that just proves your ignornace.

  12. avatar
    richCares September 25, 2009 at 3:40 pm #

    hey John are you from Denmark?

  13. avatar
    jenne September 25, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

    How many millions has Barry wasted in trying to conceal it? Why not just produce it? There has never been a single president who has worked so hard to conceal his true birthplace before..

  14. avatar
    racost September 25, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

    so John, you are saying that the Republican head of Hawaii’s Dept of Health lied when she said Obama was born in Hawaii. Either initiate charges against the liar or drop this idiotic claim, which is it?
    Birhets are really stupid!

  15. avatar
    Oh yeah September 25, 2009 at 3:47 pm #

    A certified copy of the original is required for a passport or to sign up for Social Security or Medicare.

  16. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 4:00 pm #

    How many millions has Barry wasted in trying to conceal it?

    Zero. You have evidence to the contrary?

    Why not just produce it?

    He has much important thing to do than attempt to appease the unappeasable.

  17. avatar
    racost September 25, 2009 at 4:00 pm #

    he did release his BC and Hawaii officials confirmed he was born in Hawaii. Is that too dificult for a Birther to understand? Stop repeating your stupid talking points, get a brain.

  18. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 4:05 pm #

    Funny how that isn’t mentioned on the web sites for those government services.

  19. avatar
    Black Lion September 25, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

    No…He believes a convicted felon forger Lucas Smith and convicted felon Larry Sinclair over the President. I find it hilarous and dissappointing that some people would rather believe those felons over the President of the United States. Even with no evidence to support their claims, they hate the President so much that they would say that “it is clear his Birth Certificate with Hawaii is a sham.” There is a state certified COLB, a statement by an official of the state of HI, but that is not enough. Thankfully we are talking about less than 1% of the population of the US.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 25, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    It’s not what I intended.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 25, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    Which lawsuit will go away with a birth certificate? Name the one.

  22. avatar
    sarina September 25, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    “there has never been a single president who has worked so hard to conceal his true birthplace before..

    I have never heard Congress, Supreme Court or even the “Republican” governor of Hawaii saying that Obama was working hard to conceal his birthplace. Have you seen the Bushe’s Reagan’s Clinton’s bc?
    Why the birthers were not clamoring their birth certificates? Why Obama? Because he is black and he doesn’t have an American name?

  23. avatar
    sarina September 25, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    John did you know that other states only issue short forms? Missouri for example, only issue short form. Vital Statistic in Hawaii went paperless in 2001 so no more long forms only electronic short forms are available.

    Why nor Congress, the Supreme Court, Fbi, NSA or CIA are not asking for Obama’s long form? only the birthers, can I ask you why? hmmmm..

  24. avatar
    SFJeff September 25, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

    “As I look at the actions of Obama and evidence, it seems more clear with each passing day that Obama was born in Kenya.”

    What are these actions and evidence?

    I mean I am convinced that all the evidence shows that Glenn Beck is an agent provacteur of a foreign power, but that isn’t exactly evidence that he is.

  25. avatar
    SFJeff September 25, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    “Why not just produce it? There has never been a single president who has worked so hard to conceal his true birthplace before..”

    President Obama has been very open that his true birthplace is Hawaii, so I don’t see him workin hard to conceal that.

  26. avatar
    Daniel September 25, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    I am not a birther, but I would like to be fair about all this.
    I suppose the president was born in Hawaii and don’t much care if he wasn’t.
    But as far as I followed the question, to the best of my knowledge he had not exhibited a standard full birth certificate which lists the hospital and attending physician.
    I don’t know why such a document was not given to the public, and I believe that displaying a copy of it would have stopped the birther movement.
    Of course there are others (are they birthers?) who question the president’s citizenship qualifications, based on his schooling in Indonesia in a school in which his parents may have listed him as an Indonesian citizen in applying to it.
    I do not believe that the way his parents listed him as a child is germane to his ability to serve as president, so I have no great interest in this objection.
    However I do know from personal experience that “U.S. birth certificates” are routinely issued to children born abroad who are adopted in this country, under their adopted names, to save them bureaucratic difficulties when they get older.
    Thus the kind of birth certification published a while back about the president does not actually prove anything about the president’s place of birth, and actually added fuel to the birther controversy.
    When assessing the costs of the controversy it is only fair to keep this in mind.

  27. avatar
    richCares September 25, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH only issues a Certification of Live Birth. (COLB)

    This Certification of Live Birth is legal and binding as an official record and can be used to obtain passports and/or other records.

    So stop lying “Oh Yeah”!

  28. avatar
    John September 25, 2009 at 5:29 pm #

    You can be sure that the harassment and lawsuits will continue as long as there are people who can do it until Obama release his proof that he was born in Hawaii. While this might not completely satisfy all birthers, Obama releasing 100% conclusive and coorborating proof of his Hawain birth will minimize the birther movement. Until then, Senators and Congressman will continued to be harassed over this issue at every opportunity and the lawsuits will continue to be filed.

  29. avatar
    Jim September 25, 2009 at 5:32 pm #

    Dude, just because you repeat the lie that he’s already issued a birth certificate still doesn’t make it true. The fact is, he has never released his actual birth certificate.

    WHY?

    You’re reasoning is that he must have “better things to do”. Yet he employs three entire law firms to fight these 60 (and counting) lawsuits. If he truly had better things to do he’d just release the $12 certificate and be done with it.

  30. avatar
    SFJeff September 25, 2009 at 5:34 pm #

    Daniel, your post was a reasonable measured point, and I want to reply similarly.

    You mention he hasn’t shown his full birth certificate, but why is this the President that you think the full Birth Certificate is necessary?

    And you are aware aren’t you that there were two birth announcements in Hawaii that back up the BC, and that the Hawaii Director of Health(?) has publicly announced that he has seen the records that show President Obama was born in Hawaii?

    And finally, do you believe in our system of government and justice? Barrack Obama was approved to be on the ballot, was elected by a large majority of voters, confirmed by the Electoral College, and confirmed by the entire Congress. So he is legally our President. Our system of justice says the accused doesn’t have to prove his case, the accusers do- and the accusers have nothing but speculation- no evidence that would be accepted by any court.

    So do we want our Presidents in the future to be held up by small cadres of strident and vocal ‘birthers’ lacking any evidence? I say, let the accusers produce some evidence- real evidence- of wrong doing or fraud or anything else before we take them seriously or question our President.

    Evidence…..is good.

  31. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 25, 2009 at 5:36 pm #

    Funny. I took a short-form birth certificate from Oregon in to get a passport, and had no problems getting a passport. So, either the person working the passport desk at my local county did not know what they were doing (unlikely), or you’re lying…

    The short form birth certificate has no more information than what Obama’s has. Instead of races of the parents, it has birthplace of the Parents. Neither is required by the state department for evidence of birth.

  32. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 5:43 pm #

    You can be sure that the harassment and lawsuits will continue as long as there are people who can do it until Obama release his proof that he was born in Hawaii.

    Have you not seen the COLB that Obama released?

  33. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 5:46 pm #

    The fact is, he has never released his actual birth certificate. WHY?

    He released his COLB, which satisfied the vast majority of Americans, as it is legally equivilent to the birth certificate.

    Yet he employs three entire law firms to fight these 60 (and counting) lawsuits.

    The vast majority of these lawsuits are defended by state and federal governments. There has been very little work done by private firms.

    If he truly had better things to do he’d just release the $12 certificate and be done with it.

    It is $10, and that wouldn’t end this nonsense at all, as there are numerous back-up claims that in no way reference the birth certificate.

  34. avatar
    John September 25, 2009 at 5:47 pm #

    What will Satisfy a birther?

    Production of Obama’s birth records showing the name of the hospital and the identity of the doctor who delivered him.

    Absense this….A CREDIBLE account from person who witnessed Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

    As for the “Natural Born” citizenship requirement….

    A compelling argument that a person with split allegiance can act as the Commander In Chief as well as the POTUS in traditional intent of the founding fathers.

    Forget all the arguments about “Natural Born” citizen thus far. They are irrelevent because they concern ordinary citizens and NOT citizens who the POTUS.

  35. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    But as far as I followed the question, to the best of my knowledge he had not exhibited a standard full birth certificate which lists the hospital and attending physician.

    Hospital and attending physician are irrelevant to eligibility.

    However I do know from personal experience that “U.S. birth certificates” are routinely issued to children born abroad who are adopted in this country, under their adopted names, to save them bureaucratic difficulties when they get older.

    And these amended birth certificates would list their actual place of birth. Foreign-born children do not get a birth certicate listing their place of birth as “Honolulu”; you have to be actually born there for that to happen.

  36. avatar
    nbc September 25, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

    Production of Obama’s birth records showing the name of the hospital and the identity of the doctor who delivered him.

    And the relevance of this is what exactly?

    A compelling argument that a person with split allegiance can act as the Commander In Chief as well as the POTUS in traditional intent of the founding fathers.

    So the birth certificate really does not matter? I thought so. As to the latter, the term natural born and allegiance are well understood by looking at English Common Law.

    You really should make some effort to understand how allegiance may differ from how you may have interpreted it.

  37. avatar
    nbc September 25, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    Forget all the arguments about “Natural Born” citizen thus far. They are irrelevent because they concern ordinary citizens and NOT citizens who the POTUS.

    Nonsense, the term does not change meaning just because someone is POTUS. Ordinary citizens, born on US soil are natural born, with minor exceptions when they are not under full jurisdiction of the US, such as is the case with children born to foreign dignitaries and invading military.

    But you must surely already be aware of these facts?

  38. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 5:54 pm #

    When someone sues you, you must respond. If you don’t respond, the plaintiff wins. No one can get through the most frivolous suit without incurring some legal fees. The majority of the suits against Obama before the Inauguration ended in dismissal without the defense needing to file any response because in those suits, he was not the defendant. Since Jan 20th, President Obama has been defended on the taxpayers’ dime because he is President.
    You reveal your ignorance when you say “why doesn’t he just show the thing.” When you sue someone, you, as the plaintiff have the burden to prove. The person you accuse has the benefit of assumption of innocence. That means as defendant in these suits, President Obama has no obligation to produce anything. In addition, Pres Obama can only produce the copy of his birth certificate that the State of Hawaii provides. He did that by scanning it and putting it on his website so the most people could see it. Did you expect him to order one for you personally? If you were sued, your attorney would tell you that attempts to make you feel like it could all be ended by you just providing proof of your innocence were nonsense. Our judicial system doesn’t work that way. I can assure you the US Attorneys would never advise their client the President to “just show the thing sir.”

  39. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 5:54 pm #

    Production of Obama’s birth records showing the name of the hospital and the identity of the doctor who delivered him.

    Absense this….A CREDIBLE account from person who witnessed Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

    Neither of which are required by the U.S. Constitution.

    And: If the birth certificate was ever released, it’ll be nanoseconds before the first cry of “FORGERY!” was heard.

    A compelling argument that a person with split allegiance can act as the Commander In Chief as well as the POTUS in traditional intent of the founding fathers.

    There’s not a “compelling” argument. But, more importantly, the current POTUS is a citzen of United States and no other country; where’s the split allegiance?

  40. avatar
    Per Son September 25, 2009 at 5:56 pm #

    I’ll support the birthers when they can do the following:

    Demonstrate that there are citizenship categories beyond naturalized and natural-born. The mysterious third category (citizen at birth, but not naturalized) appears to be made out of whole cloth.

    Demonstrate whether someone can be a natural born citizen if they can automatically become a citizen of another country (e.g. Jews).

    Answer this question: if Palin becomes president, and Kenya passes a law automatically making her a Kenyan citizen – must she resign?

    Most important, what do birthers know that apparently every single state secretary of state, Congressperson, electoral college voter, the FEC, Cheney, state election boards, Judge Land, Judge Robertson, Judge Lazarra, and very soon Judge Carter do not know?

  41. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 5:56 pm #

    You just keep showing your ignorance John. President Obama is the defendant, he has the benefit of the assumption of innocence. When you say “all he has to do is show the thing.”, you show you lack of knowledge of the basics of your own legal system.

    Birthers who say “just release the records”, might as well be saying, “I’m a dumbass.”

  42. avatar
    nbc September 25, 2009 at 5:57 pm #

    Let me help you

    Allegiance is defined by Coke to be a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his sovereign. It is correlative with protection and so ceases when the sovereign can no longer dejure protect his subjects, thus allegiance is changed by conquest or by cession of territory under a treaty. It is not governed by locality but clings to the subject wherever he is nemo potest exuere patriam. And it is indefeasible its obligation is for life. This was the earlier common law doctrine as to allegiance but it has been much modified by modern legislation. Allegiance may now be renounced or acquired and is regulated by the Naturalization Acts of 1870 and 1872 33 & 34 Vict c 14 35 & 36 Vict c 39.

    Quite straightforward really.

  43. avatar
    Randy September 25, 2009 at 6:03 pm #

    I was missing JTX until this trollvalanch, now not so much.

  44. avatar
    SFJeff September 25, 2009 at 6:14 pm #

    “Production of Obama’s birth records showing the name of the hospital and the identity of the doctor who delivered him.”

    “Absense this….A CREDIBLE account from person who witnessed Obama’s birth in Hawaii.”

    Wow John- so let me get this straight- all Presidents must be able to show either:
    a) Birth records that show the name of his hospital and name of his doctor or
    b) a credible account of a witness of the birth.

    Damn, now I am not eligible to be President! My BC doesn’t show the hospital name and the name of the doctor. My mom was actually on drugs when I was born(like most women in the 50′s), so her testimony wouldn’t be considered credible, the doctor isn’t alive and not much chance I could ever find any of the other delivery room

    What I really find amusing is that even though I ‘witnessed’ my own daughters birth, I doubt the attending obstetrician or RN would be able to testify now- only 10 years later- that could identify my daughter as being born that day. Eyewitness testimony 40 years after the fact of a baby’s birth is practically meaningless.

    Oh the tortured lengths you folks will go. I am rather sad I am not eligible for President anymore.

  45. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    HAHAHA!! Good try Daniel! Anyone who comes here and starts a post “I am not a birther but…” ALWAYS turns out after about 3 posts to be the most rabid birther. John’s a good example. Sally Hill, the worst, most racist birther ever to venture here. Bot came here saying “Oooo, you know, I’m not really a birther, but” If you don’t accept the identification that Barack Obama has presented to date, you are a birther.

  46. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 6:22 pm #

    My good friend is an obstetric nurse. Every other week someone comes up to her in the grocery store and says ” you were the nurse when my XXXX was born”. She smiles and nods is pleasant, but she rarely remembers them. She is present for the birth of 20-30 babies a week. She sees them for maybe a day, just one of hundreds. But she laughs that they know her because her picture is on hundreds of “Our Baby’s Birth” scrapbook pages.

  47. avatar
    John September 25, 2009 at 6:27 pm #

    One more hint Obama was born in Africa (Kenya):

    “Libyan leader Moamer Gaddafi praised President Barack Obama on Wednesday for being the first black US leader. “We Africans are happy and proud that a son of Africa” is president of the United States, Gaddafi told the UN General Assembly, demanding patience from his audience because of the length of his unprepared speech..”

    Also recall that Gahna several months ago referred to Africa as the “Continent of his Birth (Obama).”

    Of course, Gahna changed their story when they “Got Caught”.

  48. avatar
    per son September 25, 2009 at 6:33 pm #

    You are wacky and cannot spell Ghana. So you rely on Ghadifi for the truth. Guess you think no Libyans were connected to Lockerbie as well.

    The “son of” can mean many things. My Rabbi says that Jews are the sons and daughters of Abraham. Guess I am not really Jewish since my dad’s name is Marty.

  49. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 6:34 pm #

    Please describe Gaddafi’s first-hand knowledge of Obama’s birth. Was he in the delivery room in Mombassa?

    (And does “metaphorically speaking” ring any bells? Is a “son of a gun” an offspring of a firearm?)

  50. avatar
    John September 25, 2009 at 6:38 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zjXN9mvGDs
    Manning Report

    Ghadifi refers to Obama as “Kenyan-Born”.

  51. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    Don’t feed the troll.

  52. avatar
    Sally Hill September 25, 2009 at 6:41 pm #

    You people amaze me. Do you honestly think Uncle Sam knows so very little about each and one of us? Come on – surely you are not serious when you say this stuff.

    The government KNOWS where, when, who, how, and why you were born. There are records, trust me. You may only have a COLB that states the bare minimum, but there IS a long-form somewhere. And to think otherwise, is just totally naive.

  53. avatar
    Sally Hill September 25, 2009 at 6:45 pm #

    Wouldn’t one of Palin’s parents needed to have been a Kenyan citizen for their auto law to make any difference? And wouldn’t their law needed to have been in effect AT the time of her birth?

    And you seriously believe that anchor babies are NBC? I live in Texas and let me assure you – you do NOT want that to be true. So when INS comes around and rounds up mom and dad to deport them – you think little Jr. gets to stay because he is NBC? Guess again.

    Where do you people get these ideas?

  54. avatar
    per son September 25, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

    John:

    You believe Ghadifi? Ok. Why do you believe him over Obama?

    If they are both liars, what is special about Ghadifi-that makes him more reliable and believable to you. The deference to Ghadifi is funny, do you offer the same to Putin, Mugabe, and Chavez?

  55. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 6:51 pm #

    No one said there was no “Long form” in Hawaii for Barack Obama. What we have said from the beginning is there is nothing on that form that’s relevant to his eligibility for President. May I also add you are the dirtiest filthiest racist birther troll to ever post here.

  56. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    “So when INS comes around and rounds up mom and dad to deport them – you think little Jr. gets to stay because he is NBC? Guess again.”

    Yes, Junior has the right to stay. That’s why if both parents are arrested, one of them stays. INS doesn’t deport US Citizens. You are really ignorant Sally Hill. And a dirty filthy southern racist too.

  57. avatar
    Sally Hill September 25, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    “If he was born in Hawaii”

    IF? He WAS born in Hawaii.

    “If a court rules the against them, it just means the judge is traitor.”

    Or maybe it means the judge ruled against them and there was nothing sinister about it.

    “If nothing Obama can do (short of resigning) will have any effect on birther activity, then it is certain that the birthers bear all of the responsibility for all the public funds spent in dealing with birtherism.”

    You’re not really serious are you? There is nothing Obama can do about not being NBC – he needs to take that up with his mom for having a child with a Kenyan national. It was and is out of Obama’s hands. There simply is nothing he can do. But to blame the fact that he KNEW he was not eligible to be POTUS and still ran anyway inspite of it, flies in the face of laying this at the feet of the ‘dualers’ or ‘birthers’ as you call them.

    That’s like saying it is the jury’s fault that I’m spending so much money on my defense of robbing a bank, when I knew it was wrong at the time I committed the crime.

    Really – what could I do to make that right? How about NOT commit the crime in the first place!

    You are again sounding quite desparate; grabbing at straws – and it doesn’t become you.

  58. avatar
    SFJeff September 25, 2009 at 7:00 pm #

    “The government KNOWS…why you were born”

    Well when a Mommy and a Daddy love each other very, very much…..

  59. avatar
    misha September 25, 2009 at 7:03 pm #

    Sorry Sally, but anchor babies ARE NBC. It’s in the 14th Amendment. And some day, one of those anchor babies will be elected president.

    I know you are unhappy about this, so write to your congressman and senators, and try to get the 14th changed, with another amendment.

    That’s our law.

  60. avatar
    SFJeff September 25, 2009 at 7:12 pm #

    “But to blame the fact that he KNEW he was not eligible to be POTUS and still ran anyway inspite of it, flies in the face of laying this at the feet of the dualers’ or birthers’ as you call them.”

    I am sorry- I missed the President’s announcement that he knew he wasn’t eligible. Matter of fact, he stated just the opposite when he accepted the nomination and filed his paperwork.

    And why did the majority of voters vote for him if we all knew he was ineligible? Why did the electoral college all cast their votes? Why did all the Republican’s of Congress ignore this clear cut mandate?

    Because it doesn’t exist Sally. Nobody believes it except for a few thousand people, about the same number of people who believe income taxes are unconstitutional and think Dred Scott was good Justice.

    Really, I would much rather have an ‘anchor’ baby who is raised here in the U.S. by good parents and who is loyal the U.S., be our President than a Timothy McVeigh.

  61. avatar
    misha September 25, 2009 at 7:20 pm #

    I have a BC issued by NYS. It does not list the hospital, nor the physician, nor the time of day. All it says is my name, city, day and year. There is a small note that my surname was changed when my mother remarried – but there is no statement if I was adopted by my step-father.

    I used it to obtain a passport and driver license. I do not know the physician, and the only reason I know the hospital is because my mother told me. The only thing my mother told me is that she chose the physician because he was skilled at circumcision – she did not want a bris at home, by a mohel.

    Sorry to throw cold water on your story.

  62. avatar
    misha September 25, 2009 at 7:26 pm #

    Kimba: bravo!

  63. avatar
    misha September 25, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990? I’m not saying he did it, but why won’t he issue a denial? Instead, he has spent $1M on attorneys to sue websites that ask this question.

    In 1990, Beck was in an alcohol and heroin haze. What was he doing then? He can’t account for his years then.

  64. avatar
    misha September 25, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    I think John smells rotten.

  65. avatar
    kimba September 25, 2009 at 7:35 pm #

    I’m taking the rest of the night off. Maybe the weekend. Stoopid trolls and racist birthers suk.

  66. avatar
    Randy September 25, 2009 at 7:36 pm #

    Sally Hill: Where do you people get these ideas?

    Here in Texas I believe the 14th amendment is still the law of the land, yes natural born citizen.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 25, 2009 at 7:43 pm #

    Daniel: I am not a birther, …

    You may not technically be a birther but you certainly share their typical store of misinformation.

    For example, can you offer any reason for your belief that “standard” birth certificates need have hospital names on them, or what legitimate complaint any has to one without this item, especially since Hawaii doesn’t issue such a thing?

  68. avatar
    misha September 25, 2009 at 8:20 pm #

    My daddy was a pistol, and I’m a son of a gun.

  69. avatar
    misha September 25, 2009 at 8:33 pm #

    “I am not a birther”

    I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet.

  70. avatar
    IzMeBee September 25, 2009 at 8:40 pm #

    Oh my..

    Look what the cat drug in.

    A whole pail of fail in some of these peoples posts. I didn’t open all the hidden comments but I am shocked no one has mentioned the “2 million” President Obama has spent on hiding his records or the Presidential order he signed on the first day of his presidency. (buh buh WND says its so)

    On posts like these when I first get here and see 68 comments I so do wish for a “Go to First Comment” clicky thing.

    Hint Hint Hint Dr. C.

  71. avatar
    Greg September 25, 2009 at 9:53 pm #

    Sally Hill: There is nothing Obama can do about not being NBC – he needs to take that up with his mom for having a child with a Kenyan national.

    Right, because she should have known that having a child with a … shhhh …. black man, that her son would not be a real American.

    Your sheet is showing again, Sally.

  72. avatar
    Whatever4 September 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    We’ve already had at least one sort-of anchor baby run for president — Bill Richardson. His American Citizen dad who was living in Mexico City sent his Spanish/Mexican wife to California so Billy would be born in the USA. Bobby Jindal is on the horizon as a candidate — his mother was here on student visa. Get used to it.

  73. avatar
    BlackLion September 25, 2009 at 10:36 pm #

    per son, remember these are the same people that believe a convicted felon forger Lucas Smith and a convicted liar in Larry Sinclair are telling the truth as long as they are saying what the birthers believe. So there is no surprise that they would believe Ghadifi.

  74. avatar
    Catbit September 25, 2009 at 10:36 pm #

    SALLY HILL SAYS: “And you seriously believe that anchor babies are NBC? I live in Texas and let me assure you – you do NOT want that to be true.”

    And herein lies the heart of the Birthers – they do not WANT it to be true – that a mixed-race child can have the same citizenship status as they do – that a black child can grow up to be President. You see, that ‘third’ status of citizenship (besides ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’) is not ‘natural born citizen’ – it is WHITE. Not black, brown, yellow, red – those can be citizens – but WHITE. Pure white. That is what gets you the ‘Natural’ born part.

    just sayin’

  75. avatar
    Mary Brown September 25, 2009 at 10:59 pm #

    Absolutely. And if they can really expand their little scenario to “14th amendment citizens” they won’t ever have to worry about anyone except whites holding any power ever again. And Sally can continue to tell her grandchildren how superior they really are. Yes, Sally I believe that if you are born here you are a Natural Born Citizen. It isn’t a matter of what I want or do not want or what you do or do not want. Condidering the quality of elected officials from Texas, you would be better off with an anchor baby.

  76. avatar
    Bruce September 25, 2009 at 11:31 pm #

    Misha, please show me where it says that anchor babies are born NBC in the 14th amend. I believe it is you that should be writing to your congress person to make it so, because it ain’t so now.

  77. avatar
    Bob September 25, 2009 at 11:38 pm #

    Wong Kim Ark; reaffirmed in Plyler v. Doe.

  78. avatar
    Mary Brown September 26, 2009 at 12:06 am #

    Sally, this is wishful thinking. He is a natural born citizen. Congress, including every conservative member voted to validate his election. They all knew about his father, all of them. They had the option to write and object to the election based on your premise and then to be recognized.An objection requires one and only one Senator and two Representatives. Not one did. Not one. Not Senator Kyl, DeMint, Representative Bachman or anyone else. All had that opportunity and all declined. Why? They did not and do not believe your premise to be valid. You can daydream about this, continue to support fantasy or not. But for the next three years or perhaps more, the President of the United States is a mixed race male who is both intelligent and complicated. I believe he understands the nature of this society as a whole better than either those on the right or left. I would remind you that Texas and its culture represent only a part of this vast and diverse society. One of the best parts of being a military spouse was the privilege of living in various states. We are truly one from many and that is a gift. Obama is part of that gift.

  79. avatar
    NBC September 26, 2009 at 1:19 am #

    Simple, any child born on US soil is born subject to the jurisdiction thereof. As such he is a citizen and by virtue of being born a citizen, a natural born citizen.

    What’s so hard to understand here?

  80. avatar
    NBC September 26, 2009 at 1:21 am #

    Plyler

    Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not “persons within the jurisdiction” of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a “person” in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as “persons” guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). [n9] [p211]

  81. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 1:25 am #

    Thank you, Mary.

  82. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 1:41 am #

    Jindal IS a full-fledged anchor baby, AND he is NBC, and is planning to run for president. I don’t like his beliefs, but he is entitled to run.

    I am a life long progressive democrat, raised in the home of my socialist Russian-Jewish grandfather.

  83. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 1:44 am #

    One more thing: liberals believe in the ballot box. Conservatives believe in legislating away your rivals.

  84. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 1:49 am #

    Like Gov. Rick “secession” Perry?

  85. avatar
    Mary Brown September 26, 2009 at 2:07 am #

    Yes. The one who took money from the dreaded Federal Government to cover budget shortfalls and then bragged that Texas did not have a recession and was so good at managing its finances. Or something like that. The man is so out there I really can’t seem to grasp the thread of his logic.

  86. avatar
    Mary Brown September 26, 2009 at 2:17 am #

    You are right, Misha. I would like to see the Governor show some courage on this issue and speak to the arguments being made by some of his fellow conservatives.

  87. avatar
    Mary Brown September 26, 2009 at 2:19 am #

    Ghadafi? The man is not known for being a fountain of knowledge about anything. Now you are really being funny. Ghadafi as an authority on where the President of the US was born? You are really funny. Ghadafi?

  88. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 2:36 am #

    Bruce: what planet do you live on?

  89. avatar
    Lupin September 26, 2009 at 3:07 am #

    Morning here and I just read the entire thread and…

    Wow! Oh wow!

    What do we have here:

    – a perfectly ordinary Birth Certificate, backed up by State Officials;

    – contemporary announcements;

    – a Constitutional Amendment;

    – tons of legal precedents;

    – and, a contrario, opposite theories that are either plainly false (the twofer bit) or don’t make sense (the dual allegiance bit).

    This is not rocket science; I’ve dealt with net profit participation clauses that were a zillion times more complicated to decipher and analyze than this.

    I feel really really really sorry for you, reasonable, sensible, dare I say “normal” Americans who have to put up with such a mob of raving lunatics foaming at the mouth.

    This is sort of what I imagine a mob of illiterate Russian moujiks coming to do a pogrom on the Jews must have sounded like.

    I don’t know what’s worse: the obviously naive and sincere, but racist and delusional mob — or the calculating schemers like Mario who cunningly stir up the mob for their own ends.

    (Like the Tsar’s Okhrana writing the Protocols to stir up antisemitism.)

    In fact, I can’t think of any western world country with such a phenomenon… Certainly not in France, Germany, England, Italy, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Holland… None of the countries I know…

  90. avatar
    sponson September 26, 2009 at 3:26 am #

    There is now a “birther” informercial running in 7 southern cities: link here. It seems the usual attempt to make money by a “religious” huckster, however barriers are being crossed. It’s reminiscent of the highly-publicized claims of a “murder list” by the Clintons.

  91. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 5:57 am #

    My mother told me her mother was saved in a pogrom by being hidden in a trunk, in the attic. My paternal great-grandparents perished in Treblinka.

    What’s so sad, is that Europe learned and said never again. Here in the States, we have Nazi admirers stirring up trouble. Just a few days ago John Batchelor, a conservative with a radio platform, wrote glowingly of Father Coughlin and Robert Welch. And he was serious!!

  92. avatar
    Lupin September 26, 2009 at 6:15 am #

    I wrote a post here a few days ago in which I said that, while I admire and respect your First Amendment, we have a more cautious view of toxic ideologies here in western Europe.

    I fully realize it’s not a clear-cut argument, but I’m not unhappy when our Governments can go after neonazi speech, or are trying to close the so-called Church of Scientology.

    Right now, there’s this vile antisemitic “comedian” named Dieudonné who’s being prosecuted for supporting one of the Holocaust deniers; the Public Prosecutor is asking for a year suspended and 10,000 euros fine (it’s not his first offense).

    Again, I understand the notion of freedom of speech, but if Benedict Apuzzo or Bedsheet Donofrio were hounded into bankruptcy, I wouldn’t shed a tear.

    PS: While I’m not old enough to have known WWII, my parents were and their personal experience with German occupation left them with some indelible scars.

  93. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 6:23 am #

    Mary: Jindal, like all conservatives, is winking at the birthers, because it hurts Obama. He doesn’t understand they will go after him next.

  94. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 6:33 am #

    My best friend in college was raised by survivors; they are Ukrainian Catholic. The Nazis considered Slavic people sub-human. His mother survived Auschwitz. His father was a med student at the Sorbonne, when the Wehrmacht invaded. He was tortured by the Gestapo. He was disfigured. My heart skipped a beat when I first met him.

  95. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 7:17 am #

    I went to the link. Typical evangelical.

  96. avatar
    kimba September 26, 2009 at 7:37 am #

    I can’t even look anymore. I ran out of brain bleach. Now they’re calling some event by doctors in DC “the million med march”. These dopes don’t even realize there aren’t 1 million doctors in the entire US.

  97. avatar
    Adrianinflorida September 26, 2009 at 7:50 am #

    You know it won’t end with the “Long Form”. Firstly, the birfers will demand more (parents birth, marriage, divorce, death records, kindergarten thesis, etc). But, mainly, he has already provided more than is legally required of any other candiate, his offical Hawaii cert. That he posted last year.

    John: And Obama can cut down on much of this so-called Taxpayer’s Waste by simply releasing his Birth Certificate.I think it is clear his Birth Certificate with Hawaii is a sham.As I look at the actions of Obama and evidence, it seems more clear with each passing day that Obama was born in Kenya.

  98. avatar
    Adrianinflorida September 26, 2009 at 7:55 am #

    Because it will open the floodgates and a precedent to have to release everything sow to copies of Michelles annual Pap Smears if a birther with a filing fee gets the gumption to file a suit. The President is doing the correct thing. This ends here.

    jenne: How many millions has Barry wasted in trying to conceal it? Why not just produce it? There has never been a single president who has worked so hard to conceal his true birthplace before..

  99. avatar
    kimba September 26, 2009 at 8:15 am #

    It’s Gary Kreep’s infomercial. ( Yeah, I looked. Pass the brain bleach.)

  100. avatar
    Adrianinflorida September 26, 2009 at 8:33 am #

    Actually, Sally, if there are legal resident relatives in the US for “little JR” to stay with, that is perfectly acceptible under Immigration law for him to stay here, as he/she IS a US citizen, natural born

    Sally Hill: Wouldn’t one of Palin’s parents needed to have been a Kenyan citizen for their auto law to make any difference?And wouldn’t their law needed to have been in effect AT the time of her birth?And you seriously believe that anchor babies are NBC?I live in Texas and let me assure you – you do NOT want that to be true.So when INS comes around and rounds up mom and dad to deport them – you think little Jr. gets to stay because he is NBC?Guess again.Where do you people get these ideas?

  101. avatar
    BlackLion September 26, 2009 at 9:55 am #

    Leo is really starting to stir up a hornet’s nest against the State of HI. Now with his psuedo-legal theory, he has another so called individual threatening to file a lawsuit regarding “index data” and whether or not Okubo and Fukino were lying in their responses regarding the privacy of President Obama’s “vital records”.

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/okubo-refuses-another-citizens-request-to-comply-with-hawaii-law/

    What you are going to see is a bunch of birthers filing useless lawsuits to try and intimidate or scare the state into releasing this information. I hope some monetary sanctions are in order for anyone that files these suits after the first one is thrown out.

  102. avatar
    BlackLion September 26, 2009 at 10:03 am #

    I was waiting for the hook. Usually every scam has a bait and a hook. And once this guy mentioned the “so called $30 donation” to Gary Kreep’s Justice Foundaton, there it was. The birthers are so stupid they fall for these scams. I had to give up watching the lies halfway in. What I found really interesting is that they repeat the standard birther lies. For instance where the “host” claims that the COLB is not an official birth certificate for the state of HI. Or when he says “all we want is for the President to release his real BC”. And it was nice how they imply that he may have been born in Kenya with no evidence other than the claim that his “grandmother said so”…This is worst than the informercial for the “Snuggie”…

  103. avatar
    BlackLion September 26, 2009 at 10:07 am #

    Great response Mary…

  104. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 11:25 am #

    John: “it seems more clear with each passing day that Obama was born in Kenya.”

    Was Glenn Beck involved in a rape and murder in 1990? I’m not saying he was, but he never issued a denial. All he has done is hire lawyers to sue websites that ask this question. Why? All he has to do is issue a simple denial like “I was not involved in the rape and murder of a girl in 1990,” and this will all go away.

  105. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 11:31 am #

    Jenne: “There has never been a single president who has worked so hard to conceal his true birthplace before.”

    There has never been a person like Glenn Beck who has refused to issue a denial about a rape and murder in 1990. All he has done is hire lawyers to sue websites that ask this question. We just want him to issue a simple statement like “I was not involved in a rape and murder of a girl in 1990. I am sure, even though I was in an alcohol and heroin haze.” Why is he stonewalling? I’m not saying he was, I just want a simple denial.

  106. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 11:38 am #

    Sally Hill: “Where do you people get these ideas?”

    Where do people get the idea that Glenn Beck was involved in a rape and murder in 1990? I’m not saying he was, but his car was parked within the same state. Coincidence?

  107. avatar
    Bob September 26, 2009 at 12:43 pm #

    Taitz seeks leave to file a surreply in response to the government’s two replies filed in Barnett.

  108. avatar
    kimba September 26, 2009 at 2:11 pm #

    I think one of Orly’s traits we are seeing here, and in Rhodes case is she can’t stand to not get the last word in.

  109. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    Says you.

  110. avatar
    BlackLion September 26, 2009 at 2:24 pm #

    I guess the post mail is another WND for the birthers…If you read the following article it seems to refute what the Sec of NH had stated last week….

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/rappaport-dismisses-sentinel-editorial-as-inaccurate/

    From the article…It seems like common sense is not something the birthers have a lot of…

    “Mr. Rappaport, however, has in a lengthy email, criticized the Editorial by Shira Schoenberg as inaccurate:

    To my knowledge, all lawsuits have been dismissed on technicalities – nothing has ever been adjudicated (both arguments heard by a court).

    The “birth certificate” online is nothing but a “certificate of live birth” issued by the State of Hawaii and obtainable by anyone willing to lie. The “long form” birth certificate, signed by the delivery doctor is not there. Personally, I don’t accept a certificate of live birth as proof.”

  111. avatar
    Mary Brown September 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    Our dad (who was Slovak) taught us about racism by measuring our sculls. If we were longer than wider we were Aryan, wider than longer we were half human. I was half human (as he defined it for us), my sister was Aryan. How stupid he would say, and then tell us that was how evil was. I cannot in anyway ever say to Jews especially, but African Americans, Armenians or others that I get it as they do. But my beautiful father taught us something in a personal way. Yes, I would love to go after these folks for their words, but Lupin, the moment they act in any way on them authorities can get them. We just have to hope it is quickly.

  112. avatar
    Mary Brown September 26, 2009 at 5:43 pm #

    Says me too.

  113. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 7:10 pm #

    Demagogue

  114. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 7:13 pm #

    Lupin,

    Gauging from your writings, you do not know anything about “occupation.”

  115. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    Kimba,

    You’re counting the wrong people.

  116. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 7:20 pm #

    Misha,

    Why do you no stop your nonsense. Obama wants to be President. He has got to be eligible for the job. The People are his employer.

  117. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 7:21 pm #

    misha,

    You’re comments are pure nonsense.

  118. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    misha,

    You’re nonsense just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

  119. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 7:24 pm #

    Do Glenn Beck and Joseph Farah “know” barnyard animals? I’m not saying they do. I just heard on the internet that ruminants become skittish when those two are around. I just wish they would put this rumor to rest.

    Instead, Beck has spent over $200K on lawyers fees, suing websites that ask to see his criminal record abstract. What is he hiding?

  120. avatar
    Mary Brown September 26, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    Who is funding this? I mean gave them the funds for production and distribution. The racial virus is still alive and well in parts of Dixie.

    Mario Apuzzo: Lupin, Gauging from your writings, you do not know anything about “occupation.”
    </blockquo

  121. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    Yes, I know I am Obama’s employer. I am very satisfied with his job performance so far, and I am putting him down for a raise, and promotion to team leader. I believe he has management potential, and he should be given a gold star.

  122. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    As are yours.

  123. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 7:32 pm #

    This coming from someone who cites Dred Scott to bolster crackpot theories.

  124. avatar
    nbc September 26, 2009 at 7:47 pm #

    I am glad to see you are focusing on more important issues that your fascinating interpretation of Wong Kim Ark and the meaning of natural born.
    What a reality check that must have been ;-)

  125. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 26, 2009 at 8:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Obama wants to be President. He has got to be eligible for the job. The People are his employer.

    Reality check Mario,

    Obama is president. Congress has decided he is eligible. You want to unseat him, but you have no standing to object (and no case if you did).

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 26, 2009 at 8:44 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Demagogue

    Are suggesting the title of an article for this blog?

  127. avatar
    nbc September 26, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    You are about 9 months too late. Obama is the President and he has been found to be qualified by Congress per XII and XX Amendments. In fact, the people elected him through the electoral college.

    You are now trying to remove a duly elected and qualified President, which the US Constitution assigns solely to Congress through the concept of impeachment.

    Lack of standing will preclude your arguments from being heard in court. You may consider yourself fortunate.

  128. avatar
    Mary Brown September 26, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    What is your point? My four year-old preoperational kids understand rule governed behavior better than you do. Congress removes a sitting President. Write your Congressman and demand he see your evidence. Ask him to write Articles of Impeachment. People really might listen to you then.

  129. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    A man can’t live by work alone.

  130. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 10:09 pm #

    Lupin,

    You must be really capable at dechiping those really complex net profit participation clauses. But I hate to say that this “natural born Citizen” stuff is just a bit more complex and probably out of your league. Better stick to what you know.

  131. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 26, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    I suppose that Ghadifi could be the one funding Orly Taitz…. I had not thought of that before.

  132. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    Am I to understand that because there are some people in America who are racists, which includes both blacks and whites, we are supposed to let Obama trample on the Constitution by now showing us that he is eligible for the Presidency?

  133. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 26, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    Mario, how many cases in Constitutional law have you tried?

  134. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 10:18 pm #

    misha,

    Thw more you speak the deeper you dig. First, you alone are not the People. Second, what kind of an employer are you, giving out raises to your employee for having done nothing so far?

  135. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 10:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    You are wrong. I neither want to unseat Obama nor do I have to do that. He still not in the chair.

  136. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 10:22 pm #

    nbc,

    You only impeach a legitimately elected and qualified President which is not Obama. Hence, we do not need to impeach him.

  137. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    Adrianinflorida,

    I cannot imagine any such floodgates. I do not see any other sensible individual trying to pull a stunt like Obama did, run for President and hide all your papers while doing it.

  138. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    misha,

    Now that you have opened your mouth, why do you not publish here so the whole world can see it what I said about Dred Scott?

  139. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 26, 2009 at 10:42 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: I neither want to unseat Obama nor do I have to do that. He still not in the chair.

    “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.” Clay D. Land, United States District Judge.

  140. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 26, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    How is it not racist to require black presidents to “show” that they are eligible, and not to require white presidents to “show” that they are eligible? How is it not racist to say that the black presidents “trample the Constitution” while white presidents do not trample the constitution, when both are doing the same thing?

    I am deeply offended by this “showing us that he is eligible” language because I know it’s disingenuous. You know perfectly well that you are using the phrase to create animosity towards Obama, and not because you believe any such requirement exists.

    Which is worse: to be a racist or to cynically use racism as a tool? I think the second.

  141. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 26, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    Please tell us which papers Obama has “hid” and explain what overt act he made to “hide” them. I hope you aren’t starting to believe the birther rhetoric.

  142. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 11:24 pm #

    Mary Brown,

    Yes, I agree with you. I do not understand how someone could just keep giving money when there is no more money to give.

  143. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 11:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I would really (honestly) like to see you takle an article on this blog on demagoguery.

  144. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 26, 2009 at 11:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Your are the master guru of this most enlightening blog, a champion in defense of constitutional egaliatrianism and of all that is pure and good for the human race. I have most certainly tried more constitutional cases than you have. Then what does that make me?

  145. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 26, 2009 at 11:38 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Then what does that make me?

    Someone who can’t give a direct answer to a simple question.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 26, 2009 at 11:39 pm #

    I will keep that in mind when I come up with something worthwhile to say on the subject.

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 26, 2009 at 11:50 pm #

    As best I can tell, all that Mr. Apuzzo has said about Dred Scott is that it is “sound law”. If it indeed was “sound law”, the Congress and the people of the United States did not like that law, since it was overturned by the 14th Amendment.

  148. avatar
    misha September 26, 2009 at 11:53 pm #

    “I hope you aren’t starting to believe the birther rhetoric.”

    Too late.

  149. avatar
    Greg September 27, 2009 at 12:04 am #

    Citation please? Honestly, Mario, legal arguments really do sound more credible if you can cite something that might support it.

  150. avatar
    Greg September 27, 2009 at 12:26 am #

    As to the “natural born Citizen” clause, the Court said: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights. Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857). As can be seen from the quoted language, the Court actually removed from the Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” thus showing that it is not just one parent (the father) that needs to be a citizen, but the “parents,” i.e., both mother and father….This understanding of Vattel is not only correct but also binding upon us.

    I put some emphasis in that quote, Mario. Here’s Taney’s opinion. That’s the opinion of the court. Where in Taney’s decision, in the Court’s opinion, is the quote you cite?

    It’s not there, is it? You’re misleading any of your readers who might not be turned off by your citation of Dred Scott. What you cite is in no conceivable way the “Court” speaking. It’s a single justice, who had no other justices join his concurrence. No other decision endorsed his view of citizenship, did they?

    And, you’re outright lying when you claim that this single justice concurrence is binding on us! It is no more the opinion of the court on citizenship than Curtis’ dissent:

    Undoubtedly, as has already been said, it is a principle of public law, recognised by the Constitution itself, that birth on the soil of a country both creates the duties and confers the rights of citizenship.

    Now, in Daniel’s decision, he reasons that because of Vattel’s conception of citizenship, African Americans could NOT be citizens. We know that the 14th Amendment had the effect of overturning Dred Scott’s opinion of African American citizenship. How, then, is the rationale for denying citizenship to African Americans still good law?

    I simply do not understand how someone who claims to be a lawyer, and who claims to have tried Constitutional cases, can claim that the Court in Scott quoted Vattel, can claim that the single justice concurrence is binding and that reasoning used to support the non-citizenship of African Americans could, in any way, still be good law!

  151. avatar
    misha September 27, 2009 at 12:28 am #

    “having done nothing so far”

    Like W and Eisenhower?

  152. avatar
    misha September 27, 2009 at 12:37 am #

    “Citation please?”

    He read it on the internet.

  153. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 27, 2009 at 12:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: How is it not racist to require black presidents to “show” that they are eligible, and not to require white presidents to “show” that they are eligible? How is it not racist to say that the black presidents “trample the Constitution” while white presidents do not trample the constitution, when both are doing the same thing?I am deeply offended by this “showing us that he is eligible” language because I know it’s disingenuous. You know perfectly well that you are using the phrase to create animosity towards Obama, and not because you believe any such requirement exists.Which is worse: to be a racist or to cynically use racism as a tool? I think the second.

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    The Founding Fathers wanted to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Based on their study of the law of nature, the law of nations, and the English common law, the Founders understood that the natural act of a child being born on a nation’s soil and being born to a nation’s citizens produces for that growing child allegiance and attachment to those respective nations. Also based on their study of natural law and the law of nations, the Founders understood that the natives or natural born citizens were those born in the country of parents who are its citizens. They understood that one who is born in the United States under such circumstances will have from birth sole and absolute allegiance to the United States. The Founders wanted to preserve the new nation for Posterity and they saw that by requiring future Presidents to be “natural born Citizen” was the best way to accomplish that. They therefore included in Article II, among other things, that one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

    Obama does not meet this presidential eligibility requirement because when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen, making him subject to a foreign power and thereby lacking the birth status of sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States.

    Help me understand something, Dr. Conspiracy, where is the color or race in that argument? Now please, do not go off on some tangent or make some argument how you disagree with my definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is so that you can avoid answering this most simple question. You and your partners in demagoguery have accused me of being a racist which, for your information, is the first time in my life that anyone has ever said that about me. Having so accused me, you must now show me how I am a racist for arguing as stated above that Obama does not and cannot meet the Article II “natural born Citizen” eligibility test. Better yet, I challenge you to do a full-blown blog post so that the whole world can see how I am supposed to be a racist for making my argument.

  154. avatar
    misha September 27, 2009 at 12:42 am #

    Greg: thank you. I don’t have the patience.

  155. avatar
    misha September 27, 2009 at 12:45 am #

    “when there is no more money to give.”

    Like W.

  156. avatar
    nbc September 27, 2009 at 12:51 am #

    Obama does not meet this presidential eligibility requirement because when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen, making him subject to a foreign power and thereby lacking the birth status of sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States.

    You are wrong, he was a subject of a foreign power but not to a foreign power. In fact, he owed absolute allegiance since he was not born to invading military or foreign dignitaries. Finally, his loyalty is not determined by birth but rather by what he did once he reached the age of majority.

    You’re arguments are so far removed from fact and evidence my dear Mario.

  157. avatar
    nbc September 27, 2009 at 12:53 am #

    I love how you make up all these things the founders were supposed to have believed. Strangely enough, the facts not only fail to support this with much of any evidence, the fact that common law practices in the US were based on jus soli further undermines your wishful thinking.
    Does it not bother you that you have NO supporting evidence?

  158. avatar
    Greg September 27, 2009 at 12:53 am #

    Based on their study of the law of nature, the law of nations, and the English common law, the Founders understood that the natural act of a child being born on a nation’s soil and being born to a nation’s citizens

    This is just fiction. Creating this fiction for a black President, well, it certainly suggests racism. Going out of your way to misread and misrepresent Vattel, going out of your way to lie about what the court said in Dred Scott…

    It may not be racism, it may just be a deep-seated personal animus toward the Democratic President.

    But, it’s not law. It’s not a reasoned or principled defense the Constitution. Don’t even pretend, Mario.

  159. avatar
    misha September 27, 2009 at 12:56 am #

    “Someone who can’t give a direct answer to a simple question.”

    Touché.

  160. avatar
    NBC September 27, 2009 at 1:20 am #

    Well let’s see there is the right to remain silent, certainly an important constitutional concept….

  161. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 27, 2009 at 1:21 am #

    I guess we heard from the peanut gallery but not from Dr. Conspiracy, who is a big boy and who I am sure can answer for himself. Also, not one you lapers showed me how my argument is racist. Maybe the good master, Dr. Conspiracy, will do a better job than the lowly minions.

  162. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 1:52 am #

    An unintentionally hilarious comment (Mario’s specialty) since one of my regular diary features on Kos has been posting translations of remembrances of parents of friends etc who lived under the German occupation (and Allied bombings).

  163. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 1:56 am #

    Another unintentional hilarious comment.

    Considering the fact that Vattel was written in French, my mother tongue, you should have been the one sticking to what you know (ie English) instead of passing off a mistranslation.

    But then I don’t believe you’re misguided but are deliberately and willfully engaging in what basically amounts to sedition.

  164. avatar
    Greg September 27, 2009 at 1:56 am #

    You’re also a big boy. How many constitutional law cases have you handled before this Obama nonsense?

  165. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 1:57 am #

    A traitor to your country.

  166. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 1:59 am #

    “Sedition is the federal crime of advocacy of uprising or overthrow against the government or support for an enemy of the nation during time of war, by speeches, publications and organization. Sedition usually involves actually conspiring to disrupt the legal operation of the government and is beyond expression of an opinion or protesting government policy.”

  167. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 27, 2009 at 2:05 am #

    Greg,

    Don’t waste my time with your ad hominem adnauseam.

  168. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 27, 2009 at 2:11 am #

    How are you constitutional law professors going to explain to the U.S. Supreme Court that a 14th Amendment “citizen” is the same thing as an Article II “natural born Citizen?” And do not even try to peddle that English common law argument.

  169. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 2:11 am #

    That train has left the station a long time ago.

    One of the many reasons you will always lose in court (and I suspect you know it very well) is that there’s no possible remedy.

    Your cause (what there is of it) belongs in the legislative arena, ie Congress.

  170. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 2:13 am #

    Actually, Misha’s comments are an idle speculation about a private citizen while Meretricious Mario’s are seditious.

  171. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 2:17 am #

    I don’t think Mario believes in it at all. It’s all a game to him. Typical of a bottom-feeding shyster.

    I hope that eventually complaints are filed, sanctions are passed, etc.

  172. avatar
    NBC September 27, 2009 at 2:17 am #

    Seems Mario is having some trouble answering the question and is now calling it an ‘ad hominem’.

    Delightful

  173. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 2:18 am #

    It’s like looking at yourself in a mirror, eh?

  174. avatar
    NBC September 27, 2009 at 2:23 am #

    Why not ‘peddle this argument’ which is how the Constitution should be interpreted when terms are not defined.

    The fourteenth amendment strengthened the jus soli provisions of citizenship.

    It would be hard to argue that fourteenth amendment citizens are not natural born citizens.

    Read the relevant transcripts of Tuan Anh Nguyen v US for instance.

    or the following

    The Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” 1866 Act, § 1, 14 Stat. at 27. During the debates on the Act, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee stated that the provision defining citizenship is “merely declaratory of what the law now is,” and he cited, among other authorities, a quotation from William Rawle, whose constitutional law treatise was one of the most widely respected antebellum works: “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

  175. avatar
    NBC September 27, 2009 at 2:24 am #

    Calling Dr C a “big boy” and referring to other posters as “his lowly minions” seems far more ad hominem.

    Is that not right counselor.

  176. avatar
    SFJeff September 27, 2009 at 2:26 am #

    “Obama does not meet this presidential eligibility requirement because when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen, making him subject to a foreign power and thereby lacking the birth status of sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States”

    And yet a large majority of the voters who voted in the election- all of which knew by then his father was Kenyan- voted for him. The Electoral College, which knew his father was Kenyan, chose to cast their votes for him. The Congress confirmed the election without any dissent. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court- who I would think would be familiar with the concept of Natural Born Citizen- swore him in.

    Now what can we learn from this sequence of events? That nobody agrees with your theory Mario. That you are operating with the fringe that screams the Income Tax is unconstitutional.

    I tell you what else Mario- you can’t answer a straight yes or no question. You believe a defendent is obligated to prove his innocence in the U.S.

    Thats all I can do without getting into personal insults. But the facts are insulting enough.

  177. avatar
    NBC September 27, 2009 at 2:30 am #

    This is just fiction

    That’s the word I was looking for. Now if Mario had some Framers/Founders who actually expressed the sentiments he believes they held then at least one could grant his arguments some relevance. Until then it seems far more likely that the founders left the term undefined because it was so well known in English Common Law.

  178. avatar
    NBC September 27, 2009 at 2:34 am #

    Wow, did Mario really quote from an opinion other than the majority opinion and claim this to be binding on us.
    Perhaps the number of constitutional cases he presented may indeed surprise us…

  179. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 2:38 am #

    Greg — brilliant.

    You say: “I simply do not understand how someone who claims to be a lawyer, and who claims to have tried Constitutional cases, can claim that the Court in Scott quoted Vattel, can claim that the single justice concurrence is binding and that reasoning used to support the non-citizenship of African Americans could, in any way, still be good law!”

    But the truth is, Mario knows exactly what he is doing. He is lying deliberately; he is willfully distorting, misquoting, misinterpreting the record; he is quoting evidence that has been proven to be manifestly false.

    I hope complaints are filed, and sanctions are passed.

    Further, President Bush declared “We’re at war”. Newsweek:
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/76065

    The French have troops under NATO command in Afghanistan, just as you have. So in effect, we’re all in it together. And it is now my belief that what Mario is doing amounts to sedition, trying to challenge the legitimacy and disrupt the operations of your government at a time of war.

    After the 2000 election, it was pretty much established that, had SCOTUS ordered a full recount of Florida, Gore, not Bush, would have been President. Still, notwithstanding the sarcasm and jokes, I’m not aware of any organized movement from the liberal side of the aisle to unseat him by any means.

    The liberals sought to use the normal remedy: the ballot box. (And IMHO Bush won fair and square in 2004.)

    What Mario and his ilk are doing go beyond the expression of an opinion or protesting government policy. It is sedition.

    We had the OAS in France who tried to kill De Gaulle over the Algerian Independence (cf DAY OF THE JACKAL), and of course, you had the Kennedy assassination.

    I dearly hope that your Secret Service is vigilant, because, in the same fashion as twisted theoreticians like Alfred Rosenberg empowered the Nazis, people like Mario and Donofrio are empowering those who might try to kill your President to redress a completely imaginary wrong.

    In some respect (and this is your country, your President, not mine, so I apologize beforehand for the hubris), I think you’re treating things like that much too lightly.

  180. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 2:45 am #

    This is seditious rubbish which, if it were true, would render ineligible a whole class of US citizens who might, by parentage or marriage, be eligible for another citizenship.

    The clues to your racism, however, lie in you “presentation” of Dred Scott. That clinched it. The only thing missing was the bedsheet.

  181. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 2:50 am #

    I believe there is (Japanese?) saying: “If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by.”

    The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, but like Taitz, I think if we sit here long enough, you will be hoisted by your string of petards and we will eventually see you fined, sanctioned and (one might only hope) disbarred.

  182. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 2:54 am #

    Keeping things simple, there are really only two ways of looking at this:

    1) Jus Soli: Obama born in Hawaii = NBC (English Commin Law)

    2) Jus Sanguinis: Obama born to one US citizen = NBC (Vattel).

    There is no third category. This comprises the entire “universe” of citizenship.

    Either way, Mario’s willfully obtuse argument is rubbish.

  183. avatar
    Lynn September 27, 2009 at 3:52 am #

    So, you’re saying that the government KNOWS where and when President Obama was born, and, since I’m sure that the Republican party did NOT want him elected, there must NOT have been any information in the information the government KNEW about President Obama that would disqualify him for the position of POTUS.

    Thank you for clarifying and settling the birther issue once and for all. Now, if you could only convince the other that don’t believe he should be POTUS.

  184. avatar
    Greg September 27, 2009 at 7:12 am #

    We’d tell them to look at their long-established precedent that the 14th is declaratory of the common law.

    How would you convince them that everything they’d ever said about the 14th was wrong?

  185. avatar
    kimba September 27, 2009 at 7:54 am #

    Right Wing Presidential Standards.

    In the time of Ronald Reagan: The President is our revered Leader. Sainted conservative. Blessed savior of freedom.

    In the time of GW Bush: He is our President. He is our leader, he deserves respect. Criticizing our leader in time of war is treason.

    In the time of Barack H. Obama: The President? He is simply an employee of the people. “Fetch me another iced tea, boy.”

  186. avatar
    misha September 27, 2009 at 8:00 am #

    “I believe there is (Japanese?) saying: “If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by.”

    I believe there is a saying in Esperanto, “If you wait long enough, manure is put to good use.”

  187. avatar
    misha September 27, 2009 at 8:45 am #

    “Meretricious Mario”

    Dig that alliteration.

  188. avatar
    ballantine September 27, 2009 at 10:52 am #

    Not sure who you think you are convincing with this nonsense.

    “The Founding Fathers wanted to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.”

    Actually, some did, but many of the most influential founders like Madison were not very concerned and didn’t want additional citizenship requirements.

    “Based on their study of the law of nature, the law of nations, and the English common law, the Founders understood that the natural act of a child being born on a nation’s soil and being born to a nation’s citizens produces for that growing child allegiance and attachment to those respective nations.”

    Fact free assertion. All early authority, including Madison himself, and all early case law defined allegiance by place of birth in accordance with the English common law.

    “Also based on their study of natural law and the law of nations, the Founders understood that the natives or natural born citizens were those born in the country of parents who are its citizens.”

    Anither fact free assertion. Have you found any early authority yet defining “native” or “natural born” in accordance with that definition. Can you find one? Simply doesn’t exist. The native birth requirement was defined in the debates as a discrimination by place of birth and the delegates clearly thought themselves the be native as it was pointed out that some of the foreign born delegates would not meet the requirement. Cleary they wouldn’t have met the Vattel definition with British parents.

    “The Founders wanted to preserve the new nation for Posterity and they saw that by requiring future Presidents to be “natural born Citizen” was the best way to accomplish that.”

    Yes, and such was a term of art under the common law with no reason for anyone to connect to the Law of Nations. Any claim that you know they were translatin the french into natural born citizen is dishonest as you have no evidence to support that and it is preposterous as it clearly isn’t even a literal translation.

    The bottom line is you have shown no authority to support you theory other than claiming cases stand for things they don’t stand for or that well-known terms should be defined as you say because you say so.

  189. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 27, 2009 at 10:54 am #

    Lupin,

    I recommend that you put that bedsheet around you brain. It might help insulate your thinking process from your brain’s infectious properties.

  190. avatar
    ballantine September 27, 2009 at 10:56 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: How are you constitutional law professors going to explain to the U.S. Supreme Court that a 14th Amendment “citizen” is the same thing as an Article II “natural born Citizen?” And do not even try to peddle that English common law argument.

    The Supreme Court would read Wong Kim Ark honestly and see it made clear that both Art. II and the 14th amendment were to be defined by the english common law. Really pretty clear it one doesn’t have blinders on.

  191. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 27, 2009 at 11:11 am #

    NBC: Calling Dr C a “big boy” and referring to other posters as “his lowly minions” seems far more ad hominem.Is that not right counselor.

    We know that in honest and logical argument, we are not supposed to personally attack the adversary. The whole Obama defense including this blog is one ad hominem attack on those seeking to find out what is the truth about his hidden background. Those who use ad hominem attacks deserve the same in return.

  192. avatar
    misha September 27, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    “the truth about his hidden background”

    Are you serious? After a campaign that lasted 2 years? Government cannot keep military secrets. Remember the Pentagon Papers? And Obama is successfully doing what the Pentagon could not? Any reporter who could dig up dirt on Obama would be the next Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein – and no one could.

    Let go of it. I’ve asked you this before: what is your DWI win/loss record? I think that is pertinent.

  193. avatar
    Lupin September 27, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    You ask Meretricious Mario: “Are you serious?”

    No.

    SATSQ.

  194. avatar
    Bob September 27, 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    The whole Obama defense including this blog is one ad hominem attack on those seeking to find out what is the truth about his hidden background.

    This blog is filled with discussions about natural-born citizenship, Hawaiian birth certificates, court procedure, etc. A wide variety of primary and secondary sources are cited and discussed.

    The ad hominem is just for flavor. Besides, the best response to an ad hominem is being right.

  195. avatar
    NBC September 27, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    Funny how much one can learn about Mario in these moments.
    But your claims, as usual, are ill supported and even contradicted by the facts.

    I’d say that most of the arguments against your position where based on logic, reason and facts.
    Do you really believe that the behavior of your opponent can excuse your own behavior? Two wrongs do make a right?

    PS: You may take it personal when people on this blog and elsewhere show how your arguments are poorly supported, speculative, lacking in logic and reason, but that does not make the response ad hominem, it just means that the underlying foundation of your arguments was shaky.

  196. avatar
    Gordon September 27, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    I take that to mean none.

  197. avatar
    SFJeff September 27, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    Mario,

    You were more fun when you tried to argue the facts. But since people have been asking you to actually state your position in yes or no fashion, suddenly all you can say is that we are all making ad hominem attacks.

    Mario, its not an ad hominem attack to ask to you state yes or no whether the Plaintiff has the obligation to provide proof. Its not an ad hominem attack to ask you to demonstrate anybody else who agrees with your position.Its not an ad hominem attack to point out that voters overwhelmingly voted for him knowing his father was Kenyan, and all the rest that goes with that.

    Mario- its not an ad hominem attack to point out the facts that demonstrate you are wrong.

  198. avatar
    ImaForener September 27, 2009 at 5:09 pm #

    Maybe I am just a bad person, but when someone titles their website ‘A place to ask questions to get the right answers’ you may as well post a giant red flashing sign that says ‘Yo, ridicule me’. If you think that all your answers are right, then I would suggest that either you are a little too self-confident, naive, or perhaps a bit of both.

    Facts can be unpleasant when they don’t align with a person’s viewpoint. Safe to say that everyone has been in that position at times.

    The fact is Mr Apuzzo, your cases go nowhere. Your views are not being supported by Judges. You have that in common with Phil, Orly and Leo. The 4 of you, along with the other lawyers/ex-lawyers at the fringes of this case, seem to believe that there must be conspiracies afoot – because you are right, and if someone says ‘nope you are wrong’ then that in itself proves the conspiracy.

    The lot of you go on incessantly about the sanctity of the Constitution. The part that you always manage to leave out is that it is the sanctity of your particular view of the Constitution. Which of course is the right view, because you are all so in-tune with what the Constitution REALLY means. You are the fundamentalists of the Constitution. You cannot see beyond your own interpretation, and you use your views in a divisive, exclusionary manner that promotes and protects your own self-interests. It’s a very fundamentalist view of the world.

    And of course fundamentalist views have really served the world well over the years. Nope, no problems to report on that front.

  199. avatar
    milspec September 27, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    OMG he is an ambulance chasing DUI lawyer. I thought he was some high powered constitutional lawyer

  200. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 6:44 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: The whole Obama defense including this blog is one ad hominem attack on those seeking to find out what is the truth about his hidden background

    Could you please provide a list of the 232 articles (half plus one) on this blog that are ad hominem in nature?

  201. avatar
    misha September 27, 2009 at 6:56 pm #

    I thought everyone knew his stock-in-trade is DWI. He is as conversant with Constitutional law as I am with rocket science.

    The Three Stooges: Mario, Donofrio and Orly. You will notice they are all towering legal minds, right up there with Cardozo.

    Orly goes to gun shows, and makes incendiary speeches against Obama, trying to incite a lone wolf. To Orly et al: If anything happens to Obama, his blood will be on your hands. J’accuse.

  202. avatar
    milspec September 27, 2009 at 8:00 pm #

    I don’t get about the intertoob as much as I should.

  203. avatar
    Bruce September 28, 2009 at 12:00 am #

    #3 O’Bama born to one citizen parent and one alien parent,therefore dual citizenship and not NBC

  204. avatar
    NBC September 28, 2009 at 12:19 am #

    Nope, dual citizenship does not affect the natural born status.

  205. avatar
    Bruce September 28, 2009 at 12:22 am #

    Your ancestry explains your view of the world. As for my planet, it is the one where words mean just what they say.NBC and all the other ilk like him can read what they want into the 14th amend. but saying someone is a citizen does not make them NBC. If that were the case, then any enemy of the US could father or mother a child with a US citizen, have them born on US soil, then take them back to the native land of the enemy nation,raise and indoctrinate them against the US, then have that child return to the US when 21 as an agent. They then live here until 35 and using the money and public relations machine of their parent they could convince enough progressives like yourself that they should overlook their upbringing and vote for change. If I can think it,it can happen. The founders did not want to take that chance that’s why NBC and not any sort of citizen can be POTUS.

  206. avatar
    aarrgghh September 28, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    bruce said:

    any enemy of the US could father or mother a child with a US citizen, have them born on US soil, then take them back to the native land of the enemy nation,raise and indoctrinate them against the US, then have that child return to the US when 21 as an agent. They then live here until 35 and using the money and public relations machine of their parent they could convince enough progressives like yourself that they should overlook their upbringing and vote for change.

    and the real beauty of the plan, its sheer evil genius, is that the mindless public will never believe anyone patriotic enough to see through our diabolical plan.

    bwahahahahaha …..

  207. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 28, 2009 at 2:41 am #

    My work speaks for itself. The peanut gallery can do nothing but repeat the same asinine comments over and over again. You all get together and pat each other on the back. That gives you a sense of comfort and strength. But only a sense. Our legal debate will end only after the courts rule on the arguments that have been presented by me and by the defendants’ attorneys and after all appeals are exhausted. All your comments here about me are not going to change anything. I will have my chance and my adversaries will have theirs. All will be said and done at the proper time. I just have to wait for the court’s decision. The best thing that I can tell you all is that notwithstanding all the ridicule and hate (albeit with an occasional sprinkling of intellectual discussion) that you spew here, there is nothing that you can do to stop the process.

  208. avatar
    Lupin September 28, 2009 at 2:58 am #

    Indeed your work speaks for itself. I couldn’t have said it better.

    One can only hope that you will be sanctioned to the fullest extent afterward for having abused said process.

    What I suspect will prove amusing is to watch you flail as you never really get the “day in court” you so desperately seek.

  209. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 28, 2009 at 5:29 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: I will have my chance and my adversaries will have theirs. All will be said and done at the proper time. I just have to wait for the court’s decision.

    And when will be the proper time? When will some court decide that your argument is useless? My prediction: on Saint Orlita’s day. In other words: somewhere in May 2016, when Mr Jindal’s right to be the Republican candidate to succeed to Obama, will be contested by some wingnutter who will take you for a lawyer (deliberately ambiguous phrase, I know) because all the other renaissanceurs will be disbarred, in jail or Israil.

    Actually, the clue why you will not get your chance in court against Obama is in your own next sentence:

    Mario Apuzzo: not-with-standing

  210. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 8:01 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: there is nothing that you can do to stop the process.

    And Mr. Kerchner’s newspaper ads (which he calls advertorials, but I would call misinformercials) will not hasten the process either. I think the plaintiffs could hasten the process by writing shorter, concise complaints and not filing so many amendments.

  211. avatar
    Greg September 28, 2009 at 9:32 am #

    Bruce, your paranoid fantasies did not motivate the Founders. They were afraid that a foreign-born, as in someone born in a foreign country could come here and run for the Presidency. When they were talking about how to ensure that foreign influence wouldn’t corrupt the Congress, they addressed the same fear by requiring a certain length of residency here in the States. But, for the presidency, there were some who thought that no amount of time here would remove the taint of foreign birth, not the taint of having foreign parents!

    See, here’s the difference between my view of history and yours. I can find founders actually saying things that support my view, whereas you have only your personal paranoid fantasies. No founder EVER said ANYTHING that suggested they were afraid of the influence of having a foreign parent.

    And you sell the American people short and the foreign dictator short, if you think this nonsense would work.

    First, your theory relies on this Manchurian candidate convincing the American people that 14 years here outweighs the 21 years he lived with his father in the homeland being indoctrinated.

    Second, if our evil dictator wants to do this, why doesn’t he simply kidnap the child of two citizens? Or buy one from desparate junky parents? Or bribe the parents to move to his evil land?

    At its core, your paranoid fantasies boils down to sharks with lasers on their heads. Why not just shoot Austin Powers? No, I want fricking sharks with fricking lasers on their heads!

  212. avatar
    Bob September 28, 2009 at 11:27 am #

    My work speaks for itself.

    The peanut gallery can do nothing but repeat the same asinine comments over and over again.

    You all get together and pat each other on the back.

    That gives you a sense of comfort and strength.

    All your comments here…are not going to change anything.

    The best thing that I can tell you all is that notwithstanding all the ridicule and hate (albeit with an occasional sprinkling of intellectual discussion) that you spew here, there is nothing that you can do to stop the process.

    One day Mario will learn to say something not completely ironic.

    Our legal debate will end only after the courts rule on the arguments that have been presented by me and by the defendants’ attorneys and after all appeals are exhausted.

    …and then someone else will file yet another suit, as having not learnt anything from other people’s defeats.

  213. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 11:31 am #

    That’s what this blog has become…[Explicit sexual reference deleted. Doc C.] for left wingers. I have to wear protective clothing just to come here.

  214. avatar
    misha September 28, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    Actually, blood oozes from my USB port. It’s like one of those religious miracles, only mine is secular.

    Should I wear protective clothing, or should I just let it happen? Should I have the blood tested for organisms? Let me know.

  215. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 12:11 pm #

    Is that a threat?

  216. avatar
    SFJeff September 28, 2009 at 12:31 pm #

    So Heavy, I guess we have established that you look for websites that feature [Sexually oriented phrase deleted. Doc C.]? Really, I suspect there are more salacious sites than this out there.

  217. avatar
    SFJeff September 28, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    But Mario,
    We have to keep repeating, because you refuse to answer any honest questions.

    Yes or No- In the United States, under our Judicial System, is it the Defendents responsibility to provide proof of his or her innocence? See for most folks this is an easy question. But Mario, you won’t answer it. Why?

  218. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    No, [sexually explicit reference deleted. Doc C]. It is not what I seek, but it IS what this place has become. And this new rating system makes it even more obvious.

    You people are sick and twisted, but the reign of your savior will end soon. What will you do with your time then?

  219. avatar
    Bruce September 28, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    Really, on what authority do you speak. Our illustrious supremes, being the chickens that they are won’t render a decision because they are either politically correct, have no spine or are afraid of the consequences of their action. And for this we gave them a lifetime appointment. God help us all.

  220. avatar
    Bruce September 28, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

    Jindal is not natural born. His parents weren’t even citizens when he was born here. There, I’ve proved I hate all people of color whether they are Dem. or Rep. As for what Greg replied to my Manchurian candidate allegation, this sounds just like the life of B.O. He lived overseas with his supposed adoptive father and was educated in a madrass.Convincing gullible,guilty feeling whites to vote for him was the easy part,especially after the numbskull named Bush.As for the rest of your post I can’t even respond to that gibberish since the rest would all involve crimes and would be so much easier to uncover.Time for you to go play with the sharks(whoever they are).Oh,by the way there were plenty of Founders who spoke to the issue of why natural born was important for the POTUS, I will provide data in the future.I notice you didn’t list any names or quotes, just hallucinations.

  221. avatar
    Greg September 28, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    1. When is soon?

    2. Want to make a bet? Put your money where your mouth is. My $100,000 says no birther lawsuit will be successful in removing Obama by 2012 and $1,000,000 says no birther lawsuit will be successful in removing him by January 20, 2017.

    Do you have the courage of your convictions, Heavy? How about you, Mario?

  222. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    Two of Obama’s 4 years between ages 6-10 were in a Catholic school. The other two in a public school.

    Bruce: Oh,by the way there were plenty of Founders who spoke to the issue of why natural born was important for the POTUS, I will provide data in the future.

    While I am very skeptical you have come up with something not already seen, posted and discussed on this blog, we certainly welcome facts.

  223. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

    And Apuzzo thinks ad hominem argument is the basis of the Obot side. ROFL.

  224. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 28, 2009 at 1:42 pm #

    Easy, the 14th Amendment & the Supreme Court.

    Read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. They ruled that the citizenship law comes from English Common Law.

    Or, how about Smith v. Alabama. They ruled that the constitution was written in the language of English Common Law. English Common Law clearly defined the words to be anybody born in the realm.

    How about a U.S. Circuit Court case by the name of U.S. v. Rhodes?

    What about a New York Supreme Court case of Lynch v. Clarke (quoted extensively in Wong).

    There are dozens of Supreme Court cases that go directly against your position, Bruce.

    I have no doubt that if the Supreme Court was ever to hear your theory, it would be a 9-0 decision against you.

    I’ll tell you what. I’ll bet $1 million dollars. If Obama is thrown out of office by the courts, I’ll pay you $1 million. If he leaves office not because of this reason, you pay me $1 million. Deal?

  225. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    The rating system was added to deal with a particular problem, the troll AXJ who flooded the board with insulting comments. It turned out to be insufficiently effective and AXJ was eventually banned (our only ban).

    I have some personal reservations about the rating system, but it has proved popular and I have left it running. I hope that folks will rate-up those comments that are valuable and important to read–ones with information, good argument or humor. I hope folks will rate-down comments that are little more than insults designed to provoke angry responses. I personally don’t vote very often, but I have on occasion voted up a comment I disagree with, but that I think should be heard.

  226. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    Obama is a black man riding in an expensive car in the wrong neighborhood. That always requires proof of innocence.

  227. avatar
    Greg September 28, 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    Obama lived overseas from age 6-10. And not in the land of his birth father, but in the land of the guy who married his mother.

    So, where does your fictive rule leave you in the next case, where it’s John and Jane Natural (both 100% citizens), who have a kid, divorce, and Jane marries someone from Indonesia and the kid lives in that foreign land from age 6-10?

    Or, let’s say our EVIL dictator simply finds a couple of like-minded US Citizens with a child born on US soil? There’s Zero question that this child would be a natural born citizen, would there? Even if this child lives overseas from age 1-day until his 21st birthday.

    And, you know, generic quotes from the Founders that “natural born” is important for the Presidency aren’t going to cut it. That’s a given.

    You need to provide quotes from the founders saying that “natural born” required 2 citizen parents. Nothing less will do.

    You want names? Here’s just one: it was 1803 when George Tucker in his writings about Blackstone’s Commentaries and their use in the US Constitution wrote that “the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it” and “aliens by birth are all persons born out of the dominions of the United States, since the fourth day of July, 1776, on which day they declared themselves an independent and sovereign nation…” So, we now have to imagine Founders who were so completely incapable of making their intentions known that less than 15 years after the writing of the Constitution their intentions were erased – gone from the common knowledge such that a preeminent writer on the Constitution could give it no notice!

    The same thing when you look at ANY of the scholars who were there at the writing of the Constitution – Kent, Story, Rawle – they all, within a few years of the writing of the Constitution, defined natural born as born here without any reference to the parents’ citizenship!

  228. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    No, just proof of insurance!

  229. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 1:59 pm #

    Greg: 1. When is soon? 2. Want to make a bet? Put your money where your mouth is. My $100,000 says no birther lawsuit will be successful in removing Obama by 2012 and $1,000,000 says no birther lawsuit will be successful in removing him by January 20, 2017. Do you have the courage of your convictions, Heavy? How about you, Mario?

    Show me the money and you have a bet!

  230. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    Explicit sexual reference? Hmmm…

  231. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    Doc, why not edit this comment for religious reference? Where do you draw the line when you start to edit comments? Sounds like a very slippery slope!

  232. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    The FIRST thing they ask for is DOCUMENTATION!

  233. avatar
    misha September 28, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    “I have on occasion voted up a comment I disagree with, but that I think should be heard.”

    Hear, hear.

  234. avatar
    misha September 28, 2009 at 2:17 pm #

    “The FIRST thing they ask for is DOCUMENTATION!”

    Yeah, it’s gone from ‘Where’d you get that car, boy,’ to ‘where’d you get that house, boy.’

  235. avatar
    Whatever4 September 28, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    Bruce: September 28

  236. avatar
    misha September 28, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    I will pay $1M to anyone who can prove Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a girl in 1990. I will pay an additonal $1M to anyone who can answer “does Glenn Beck beat his wife?”

    I would like to know if Beck is sober this week, and if Beck and Limbaugh are off the junk this week.

  237. avatar
    Whatever4 September 28, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    Bruce: Jindal is not natural born. His parents weren’t even citizens when he was born here.

    Somebody better tell Jindal he’s wasting his time then, as he thinks he’s a NBC and interested in higher office, and some of the Republicans at the Value Voters Summit think so too. Well, 28 of them did…
    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/09/21/huckabee-wins-values-voter-straw-poll-palin-places-4th.html
    http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2009/09/stephanie_grace_louisiana_gov.htmlhttp://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Louisiana/Politics/Louisiana_Jindal_for_President_in_2012__7736.asp

  238. avatar
    misha September 28, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    I can’t wait to see what this mob does to Jindal. He’ll become a Democrat overnight.

  239. avatar
    Rickey September 28, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    Heavy: The FIRST thing they askfor is DOCUMENTATION!

    To be precise, they ask for your driver’s license, your vehicle registration card, and your proof of insurance.

    They don’t ask for your driver’s license application, or your vehicle registration application, or your insurance policy. The driver’s license is prima facie evidence that you are licensed to drive, the vehicle registration card is prima facie evidence that your vehicle is registered, and your insurance card is prima facie evidence that you have insurance. If, when faced with that evidence, a police officer still wants to cite you for driving without a license, or driving without valid registration, or driving without insurance, he or she has to have evidence that your driver’s license has been suspended, or your vehicle registration has been suspended, or your insurance policy has been cancelled.

    The same rules apply to you birthers. Obama’s COLB is prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii. If you want to disprove that, the burden to produce documentation is on your shoulders.

  240. avatar
    Nullifidian September 28, 2009 at 3:15 pm #

    Of course not! Misha is simply saying the birthers will have hell to pay. We all know that’s not a threat, right?

  241. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 28, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    Could this be the origin of the presumption “when the person is black, (s)he has to prove innocence”: Gobu v Gobu, North Carolina 1802? This case was about the question whether a dark man was a slave or not. The slave owner’s lawyer claimed that the onus of proof was on the negro, although in the past in NC (when there were still white slaves) the burden of proof that a person was a slave had always been on the slaveowner. The judge more or less concurred: “I acquiesce in the rule laid down by the defendant’s counsel with respect to the presumption of every black person being a slave. It is so, because Negroes originally brought to this country were slaves, and their descendants must continue slaves until manumitted by proper authority. If therefore a person of that description claims his freedom, he must establish his right to it by such evidence as will destroy the force of the presumption arising from his color.” Interesting phrase “And their descendants must continue slaves”. reminds one of “they are only 14th amendment citizens” …
    http://books.google.be/books?id=kezflCVnongC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=gobu+v+gobu+black+white&source=bl&ots=VJKcXTXJ6r&sig=31Bz6ODv6d910U-RTtFbE_jUw3A&hl=nl&ei=LwHBSsDsDpuhjAeWy9UZ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=gobu%20v%20gobu%20black%20white&f=false

  242. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    Oh, I know. We are working on it, officer.

    But in the meantime, they also ask you questions to see if there is anything else they should be looking for. Such as how fast were you going, do you know the speed limit, where are you headed, have you been drinking, etc. All to try to trip you up.

    Also, the driver usually does not have a team of lawyers present to answer those questions. Your point is moot and your logic faulty. But then, you ARE a liberal.

  243. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 3:33 pm #

    Nulli, put down the crack pipe. And yes, there WILL be hell to pay. You can take that any way you wish.

  244. avatar
    SFJeff September 28, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    Okay lets make sure about this again Heavy-
    You think that this site is all about certain sexual practices of liberals, and you seek out this web site every day to read about what we say, and tell us that we are wrong?

    Now those are good conservative family values.

  245. avatar
    Rickey September 28, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    Heavy: Oh, I know. We are working on it, officer.But in the meantime, they also ask you questions to see if there is anything else they should be looking for. Such as how fast were you going, do you know the speed limit, where are you headed, have you been drinking, etc. All to try to trip you up.Also, the driver usually does not have a team of lawyers present to answer those questions.

    None of which a driver is REQUIRED to answer. The Fifth Amendment, you know. Look it up, it’s in the Constitution.

  246. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    Yeah, I can see you refusing to answer those questions. Is that before or after you clean the mess you made in your pants?

    Officer: “Where are you headed?”
    Rickey: “None of your business.”
    Officer: “Have you been drinking?”
    Rickey: “You figure it out.”
    Officer: “Why do you refuse to answer?”
    Rickey: “I stand behind my 5th amendment right.”
    Officer: “Do you mind if I search your vehicle?”
    Rickey: “Yes, I do.”
    Officer: “Is that marijuana I smell?”
    Rickey: “I claim the 5th.”
    Officer: “Please step out of the vehicle, sir.”
    Rickey: “I have rights!”
    Officer: “Put your hands behind your back.”
    Rickey: “But I have RIGHTS!”
    Officer: “Yes, you have the right to remain silent…

  247. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    I cannot predict the future, but there are some hypothetical situations where there would be hell to pay:

    - Global warming causes sharp rise in sea levels displacing hundreds of millions of coastal dwellers
    - Orly calls the wrong judge a “traitor”
    - Some mentally unhinged birther takes a pot shot at Obama
    - South Carolina secedes from the Union again over Obama’s birth certificate

  248. avatar
    Greg September 28, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    The analogy sort of breaks down when you realize that Obama IS President.

    So, let’s modify the analogy.

    Obama’s pulled over by the cops and they let him go. This is the election.

    Now, some lawyer who fancies himself a traffic cop because he’s read a book about traffic patterns says, “Hey, Obama was speeding!”

    Does Obama have to show this lawyer/wannabe-traffic-cop his license? And his registration?

    Now, Obama, out of the goodness of his heart, puts a copy of his driver’s license on the internet. The lawyer/wannabe says, “No, that’s not good enough, I want to see his driving test scores, and his application for a driver’s license! And his kindergarten records! And his college applications!”

    You and Mario need to get it through the protective cover that has disengaged your brains that you’re not cops. You’re not private attorneys general. You’re crank litigants seeking to harass and annoy an individual who doesn’t have to keep proving to your satisfaction that he’s eligible.

    He is President, and you have the burden of proof!

  249. avatar
    Vince Treacy September 28, 2009 at 4:55 pm #

    Mario should know that there is nothing ad hominem in pointing out that parts of his lawsuit show abysmal ignorance of the Constitution. He is the one who named Cheney as a defendant.

    Cheney’s actions as President of the Senate are completely protected by Speech or Debate immunity, and cannot be questioned in any other place.

    Leo Donofrio made the same blunder when he asked for interrogatories and then depositions against Cheney and all Members of the House and Senate. When it was pointed out to him, he said the privilege applied only to spoken objections, not to written ones.

    The Government has made this defense in Mario’s case, and the court will sustain it.

  250. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    Wow! My scenario is based on FACT. No, I’m not a cop nor an attorney. I am an American citizen. That gives me the RIGHT to question anyone…Even you savior!

    Get used to it. Where there is smoke there is fire and this fire WILL be extinguihed.

  251. avatar
    misha September 28, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    I think Limbaugh and Glenn Beck should be extinguished – especially since you have refused to answer a simple question: did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?

  252. avatar
    Heavy September 28, 2009 at 5:22 pm #

    misha: I think Limbaugh and Glenn Beck should be extinguished – especially since you have refused to answer a simple question: did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?

    You clearly have some emotional issues to work through. I wish you luck.

  253. avatar
    misha September 28, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    Beck is an alcoholic and heroin addict. Limbaugh is also a junkie. They are the ones with emotional issues. I hope Beck gets help, before he blows all his money on dope and alcohol.

    I read on the internet that barnyard animals become skittish when Beck and Joseph Farah are around. It’s probably just a rumor, but I wish they would issue a denial.

  254. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 5:56 pm #

    Wow. I learn so much reading these comments.

  255. avatar
    SFJeff September 28, 2009 at 7:08 pm #

    Heavy: “My scenario is based on FACT.”

    Very funny Heavy, you have never posted anything based on fact here.

    Fact: President Obama was legally elected.
    Fact: It is the Plaintiff’s obligation to provide proof of their allegation.
    Fact: Plaintiff’s have failed to produce any ‘proof’

    Opinion: I think President Obama will be re-elected after 4 years, but with a smaller majority. And you will still be telling us that President Obama will be removed from office ‘soon’.

  256. avatar
    misha September 28, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    “I think President Obama will be re-elected after 4 years, but with a smaller majority.”

    I have been saying this all along. I predict the Repugs will run Romney and Cantor, and Obama will be re-elected. I further predict that Booker will follow.

    This is one Yid who fully supports Obama.

  257. avatar
    misha September 28, 2009 at 7:57 pm #

    “You think that this site is all about certain sexual practices of liberals”

    I thought those photographs of myself engaged in self love were password protected. How did Heavy break in?

  258. avatar
    Bruce September 28, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    To dunstvangeet, I never take sucker bets. I have little faith that any court in the land will ever have the balls to render an honest and clearly researched decision on this issue. As for some of your cites, Wong Kim Ark helps me not you. The Supreme Court ruled that Wong was a citizen even though born to two aliens, but they specifically stated he was not NBC.14th amend says citizen not NBC.Smith/Alabama was a state court decision which has little if any impact on this problem at the national level.Even though our framers all knew about Eng. common law they specifically wrote the Const. to show that non such crap would burden the citizens of this nation and not the subjects of a realm. I’m still reading your other cites and when I have time I’ll post some quotes from framers who wanted this language in the Const. and why.
    “In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”
    “In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”
    The same can be said for the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark which also indicated that the native born son of an alien was not natural born.
    Now we shall turn our attention to the fears expressed by our founding fathers as to the possibility that foreigners might gain political footholds in our federal government. The issue was discussed explicitly by Alexander Hamilton in Essay 68 of the Federalist Papers wherein he stated:

    Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? (Emphasis added.)

    In George Washington’s farewell address in 1796, he stated these most important words which today would be soundly ridiculed by the propaganda of political correct sarcasm:

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism…

    It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another…

    If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

    As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government…

    Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…(Emphasis added.)

    The main stream media would have you believe that a natural born subject – a citizen at birth of Great Britain – entangled closely with the nation of Kenya where he was a citizen until at least the age of 21 – and still may be according to Kenyan law – would be eligible to the office of President of the United States and to be its Commander In Chief. And they push this propaganda down your throat as if it weren’t even a serious issue.

    They are lying to you and the depths of their lies betray their genuine recognition that a Constitutional crime has been committed against the Document and the judgment of the founders.

    Something wicked this way comes.

    And that wickedness comes in the form of a “citizen of the world” who declares our Constitution a flawed document out of one side of his mouth, while allegedly declaring an oath to protect it from the other. (Although the oath was taken in private, so who really knows.) When I recently said I wasn’t worried about Obama, what I meant was that I wasn’t worried about him anymore than the Bush cabal or the Clintons. They all perpetrated crimes against the Constitution.

    This nation will not exist as a Constitutional republic for much longer. Nothing can be done to stop the utter dismantling of the Constitution. It will continue in name only. But the protections it once granted will be ancient relics of a failed experiment in liberty: not failed because our founding fathers didn’t prepare us – failed because we prostituted our ethics for revenge.

  259. avatar
    Bruce September 28, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    More evidence:

    It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

    This must kill the argument that being “a 14th Amendment citizen” has the same effect on Presidential eligibility as being a “natural born citizen”. If being a “citizen” had the same exact effect as being a “natural born citzen” then the clause would have no effect. As stated by Chief Justice Marshall, “such a construction is inadmissible.”

    We know that the 14th Amendment only mentions the word “citizen”. It does not use the words “natural born citizen”. And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US. Under the 14th Amendment, they are equals. The 14th Amendment certainly does not state that being a “citizen” satisfies the qualification of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

    Those who are trying to read such an interpretation into the 14th Amendment do so at the ignorance of Chief Justice Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Those cunning arguments would leave the “natural born citizen” clause without effect. Such a construction is inadmissible.

    Chief Justice Marshall provided only one exception to this rule, “such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it”. The words “natural born citizen” don’t require the clause to be construed to mean the same thing as the word “citizen”. The exact opposite is true. The plain text of the Constitution shows that the framers allowed persons to become Senators and Representatives if they were “Citizens”, but as to the office of President they required a “natural born citizen”. So the exception is irrelevant here.

    Marbury v. Madison creates a standing presumption against any interpretation that would render the “natural born citizen” clause to have no effect independent of being a “citizen”. Chief Justice Marshall insisted such a construction is inadmissible.

    INADMISSIBLE.

    Inadmissible in this context means such an argument is not competent to be considered. It’s essentially no different from the situation where a piece of evidence is excluded from trial. It means you can’t even argue such a thing before the court. Please think about this carefully. This means any argument that a “14th Amendment citizen” is the same as a “natural born citizen” – for purposes of effecting POTUS eligibility – is not competent to be considered by the court.

    If the natural born citizen issue were ever heard on the merits, the court hearing the case must recognize that a presumption exists requiring the natural born citizen clause to have independent effect from all clauses which just refer to “citizen”.

    Effect is the key.

    What is the independent effect attributed to the “natural born citizen” clause? The effect is that just being a “citizen” isn’t enough to satisfy the requirement of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 which demands that the President of the United States be a “natural born citizen”.

    This means that under current United States law, the “natural born citizen” clause is presumed to mean something other than a “14th Amendment citizen”. And no other construction is even admissible.

    You can take all the law review articles, emotional pleas claiming the natural born citizen clause is obsolete, the 14th Amendment arguments, Wong Kim Ark, and every main stream media barker, throw them before the SCOTUS altar, and make them kneel to Chief Justice Marshall and the framers.

    SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, and it said the “natural born citizen” clause, being a clause directly written into the text of the Constitution, is presumed to have a unique and independent effect.

  260. avatar
    Bruce September 28, 2009 at 10:59 pm #

    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

    [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

    It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.

  261. avatar
    NBC September 28, 2009 at 11:20 pm #

    Exactly why Obama is a natural born citizen since allegiance comes with birth except to some minor exceptions such as children of foreign dignitaries and invading military.

  262. avatar
    NBC September 28, 2009 at 11:31 pm #

    Also remember that Bingham drafted all of the 14th amendment’s first clause except for the citizen’s clause.

  263. avatar
    aarrgghh September 29, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    bruce grumbled:

    i have little faith that any court in the land will ever have the balls to render an honest and clearly researched decision on this issue.

    and bemoaned:

    our illustrious supremes, being the chickens that they are won’t render a decision because they are either politically correct, have no spine or are afraid of the consequences of their action.

    taking a little preemptive whine with that limburger tonight, are we?

    sadly, judges can’t cowardly drop-kick an argument that never makes it into court, can they?

    so when’s your hearing date?

  264. avatar
    nBc September 29, 2009 at 12:31 am #

    If being a “citizen” had the same exact effect as being a “natural born citzen” then the clause would have no effect. As stated by Chief Justice Marshall, “such a construction is inadmissible.”

    Poor logic. That’s what happens when you cut and paste something.

    Citizen = Natural Born and Naturalized citizens.

    Geez that was easy.

  265. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 29, 2009 at 1:07 am #

    And the Supreme Court said that your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong. Read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

  266. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 29, 2009 at 1:27 am #

    Heavy,

    I agree with what you said about Misha. She does have some emotional issues that she needs to work out. I suspected it is a lot of penned up hatred. She keeps mentioning about Glen Beck and she has repeated several times here how Booker will follow Obama.

  267. avatar
    NBC September 29, 2009 at 1:32 am #

    Mario Mario, now you are talking to Heavy. Get some sleep my friend. It will be a few weeks before Kerchner is denied.

  268. avatar
    Gordon September 29, 2009 at 1:39 am #

    Heavy have you read some of your own sad and desperate ramblings the last year? Doc needs some way we can go back. Brother you have been unhinged.

  269. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 29, 2009 at 2:31 am #

    nbc,

    I’ll take you up on getting some sleep. The jury is still out on the Kerchner case. Judge Simandle’s opinion should be one of the most interesting ones yet issued on the Obama eligibility issue by any Court in the United States.

  270. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 29, 2009 at 3:43 am #

    misha: I will pay an additonal $1M to anyone who can answer “does Glenn Beck beat his wife?”

    Actually, Misha, the correct question is “When did Glenn beck stop beating his wife?”.

  271. avatar
    aarrgghh September 29, 2009 at 5:27 am #

    paul quipped:

    actually, misha, the correct question is “when did glenn beck stop beating his wife?”

    close, but not quite there — the question is: “can glenn beck stop beating his wife, and does he even want to?”

  272. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 29, 2009 at 7:40 am #

    If we may infer a lengthy, scholarly, and detailed response from Judge Simandle from the delay in issuing the opinion, then I agree that it will be very interesting. On the other hand, it may be that the court is backed up.

    It would seem to me, though, that with the growing list of other cases to cite, these decisions shouldn’t be that long or that hard. Judge Surrick did much of the work (and even he relied on Hollander).

  273. avatar
    Vince Treacy September 29, 2009 at 7:46 am #

    Bingham was not talking about the 14th Amendment. It it was not introduced until months later.

    He was talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The language in that Act about not being subject to any foreign power was not included in the 14th Amendment.

    This is just another paste up from the web, without citation to the debate or bill.

    It is an effort to put language back into the Amendment that Congress left out and that the people and the states never ratified.

    As others have said, this reading was rejected by the Supreme Court.

    It is not the law.

  274. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 29, 2009 at 7:53 am #

    If you review the debate over the 14th Amendment, you will see that Bingham’s view did not prevail.

  275. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 29, 2009 at 7:57 am #

    Bruce: SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, and it said the “natural born citizen” clause, being a clause directly written into the text of the Constitution, is presumed to have a unique and independent effect.

    Apart from this statement being misleading (the Supreme Court never said this specifically about “natural born citizen”), I would not dispute its conclusion. Barack Obama would have been a natural born citizen before or after the 14th Amendment. Lynch v. Clarke (Supreme Court of New York 1844) is a pre-14th Amendment case that came to exactly this conclusion after a long and scholarly survey of the law.

  276. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 29, 2009 at 7:59 am #

    Bruce: I have little faith that any court in the land will ever have the balls to render an honest and clearly researched decision on this issue.

    Apparently you haven’t read the dozens of honest and clearly researched decisions already issued on this issue.

    Seriously, no sane person determines the honesty of another by whether they agree with you or not.

  277. avatar
    Bruce September 29, 2009 at 9:35 am #

    Your absolutely right, I apologize for sounding like a person who sounds like every problem in the country can be solved by govt. control or intervention.As for your allegation that courts can’t drop kick, they aren’t attempting to score points like a drop kick, they are acting like the losers they are by punting. A Big difference. By the way I can’t sue because these same punters have ruled I have no standing in knowing if the supposed POTUS is in fact someone qualified to govern me and my fellow citizens. Now that’s true change.

  278. avatar
    Greg September 29, 2009 at 10:04 am #

    Actually, I think you’ll find that while they said things like “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty,” they still understood that the children of aliens would become citizens. Here’s part of the debate about the Civil Rights Act between Cowan and Trumbull:

    Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

    Mr. COWAN. I think not.

    Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.

    Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senator assumes that which is not fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.

    Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point whch he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.

    And, here’s Senator Morrill of Maine talking about the same bill:

    Sir, he has forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and polities, that birth, gives citizenship of itself. This is the fundamental principle running through all modern polities both in this country and in Europe. Every-where, where the principles of law have been recognized at all, birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship. Therefore the founders of this Government made no provision—of course they made none—for the naturalization of natural-born citizens. The Constitution speaks of’ natural-born,’ and speaks of them as citizens in contradistinction from those who are alien to us. Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grand enunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has no force or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply as a declaration.

    So, if you look at all the debate in context, you find that when the drafters of the civil rights act and the 14th Amendment used phrases like “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty,” they meant no more than saying that the children of foreign heads of state and ambassadors, just like at the common law.

    James Ho’s article in Green Bag is the best I’ve seen so far on explaining what was really going on in the debates about the 14th Amendment.

  279. avatar
    Greg September 29, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    If we see a lengthy decision out of this court, it will likely be like the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board decision, completely and totally trashing the birther case, but entirely in dicta, since Kerchner cannot overcome standing any more than any other plaintiff.

  280. avatar
    Bob September 29, 2009 at 10:32 am #

    By the way I can’t sue because these same punters have ruled I have no standing in knowing if the supposed POTUS is in fact someone qualified to govern me and my fellow citizens. Now that’s true change.

    The standing doctrine is not a recent invention. And the concept of standing has narrowed as SCOTUS has grown more conservative.

  281. avatar
    Bob September 29, 2009 at 11:14 am #

    To indulge in a bit of speculation, the lengthy submission time on the dismissal motion does not bode well for Apuzzo’s plaintiffs, as it implies the court is being thorough in completely dismissing the case.

    Denying the motion to dismiss would be relatively simple; the order would read “plaintiffs have adequately alleged a cause of action that this court has jurisdiction to hear” and then cite some of the complaint’s allegations.

    If the court was taking this case seriously, it would have promptly moved on it, especially in light of Apuzzo’s declaration warning of nuclear Armageddon.

  282. avatar
    Heavy September 29, 2009 at 11:16 am #

    Unhinged, Gordo. You people are the ones who are unhinged. You refuse to accept facts. You support a paper tiger bent on the destruction of America. THAT, my friend, is unhinged.

  283. avatar
    Greg September 29, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    Fox News says that 54% of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing. I guess 54% of Americans are bent on the destruction of America.

  284. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 29, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

    If we can get some more Liberals on the court, perhaps they will expand standing.

  285. avatar
    aarrgghh September 29, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    ftw!

  286. avatar
    Gordon September 29, 2009 at 12:50 pm #

    You like to segue into criticism of Obama’s policies. That’s a whole other subject and valid. When you mix your criticism of his polices with this Birther issue you expose the bias in your argument.

  287. avatar
    Gordon September 29, 2009 at 1:09 pm #

    The problem with the court is that the next two likely members to go are Stevens and Ginsberg, both Liberals. The Republicans already fought tooth and nail against Sotomayor. The next two nominees will get a worst time. The smart thing Bush One and Two did with SCOTUS nominees was to get young justices.

  288. avatar
    SFJeff September 29, 2009 at 1:59 pm #

    “I have no standing in knowing if the supposed POTUS is in fact someone qualified to govern me and my fellow citizens.”

    Whether he is qualified or not is of course a subjective opinion when it comes to the President- personally I think he is qualified as much as anyone can be said to be so.

    I think you are questioning whether he was eligible to be President. Why do you need the courts help with that? If you have enough evidence to show he is not eligible, present it to Congress and ask for impeachment. Remember, President Obama has already been elected. If you think he isn’t eligible, it is your responsibility to prove that he was never eligible.

    That by the way, is how Justice is supposed to work in the U.S..