Main Menu

Columbia Examiner goes full-bore birther

Examiner.com, a compendium of bloggers called “Examiners” catered to crank journalism in the article by Dianna Cotter, titled America’s two unconstitutional Presidents.

Cotter claims to have done independent research, and I won’t deny she did, but in this article she contributes little or nothing beyond repeating the arguments presented by denialist lawyer Leo C. Donofrio in his smear campaign against Barack Obama by way of former president Chester A. Arthur. Cotter appears to have researched extensively the historical evidence available and represents it fairly. The problem is that she also took Leo’s unreasoned speculation and puts that in too, mixing fact and fantasy with a result, perhaps not intentionally, that is full-bore birther material. If she had taken the research she did, and then applied some critical thinking to Donofrio, the result might have been something worthwhile.

Following is some of what’s wrong with the article (in bold italics):

  1. “President Arthur was successful in keeping the secret of his heritage.” There is no historical evidence supporting this assertion, and at least one contemporary newspaper account described Arthur as “born an Irishman”.
  2. “[Arthur] was not Constitutionally Qualified for the Office of either Vice President or President, and set a precedent by which it would happen again.” If such were true, why does she think the Congress voted unanimously to certify Obama’s election and the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court swore him in if the well-known fact of Obama’s parentage mattered?
  3. “During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction.” A. P. Hinman in his contemporary account describes the exact situation of Arthur’s father’s naturalization. It is hardly credible that Hinman didn’t know. He just didn’t care. And what “wrong direction” does she think people today are looking?
  4. “[The father’s naturalization] document and its relevance have only recently been discovered.” Or perhaps rediscovered.
  5. “A lawyer and scholar by the name of George D. Collins Esq. wrote an article regarding citizenship during Arthur’s term,” Collins was writing in 1884 in defense of the Chinese Exclusion Act that singled out the Chinese as unfit for citizenship. Collins reviews were rejected by the courts of his day. Today we would describe Collins as a racist and a bigot.
  6. “He also draws upon “The Law of Nations” by Emerich [de] Vattel written in 1758.” Cited by the LOSING side in United States v Wong Kim Ark. The only time De Vattel was cited by the winning side in a citizenship case was in Dred Scott, where the court concluded that African Americans could never be citizens. (See the racist theme?) That decision is widely regarded as one of the worst blunders in the history of the Supreme Court and one of the causes of the Civil War and half a million dead.
  7. Had Collins known that President Arthur’s father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Arthur’s birth, he would have correctly concluded that the President was not a natural born citizen and not eligible for the office.” One can hardly argue with this conclusion, since Collins believe that the children of non-citizens were not even citizens. He was wrong, of course.
  8. “The President’s British citizenship can still be formalized.” Sorry, that section of the BNA 1948 law was repealed. This was one of Donofrio’s signature mistakes.
  9. “[Obama] was not at any time a natural born citizen due to his triple nationality status, and he knows it.” First, there is not a single authority on Constitutional law who has said any such thing, and many who have said the opposite. See this anthology.
  10. “The President has spent millions of dollars fighting various court cases across the country.” A factoid with no evidence.
  11. “Barack Obama has hidden the truth right in the open“. That sounds rather silly. Does she somehow expect that the entire Congress, and the Supreme Court missed an important section of the Constitution?
  12. “By definition, a person cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America while at the instant of their birth also being the citizen of any other Nation.” Whose definition?  A real American legal dictionary said: “Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity.”
  13. Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon have been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchises in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. Quo Warranto is one of 2 ways to remove a sitting President, and is being filed on behalf of the Auto Dealers who had their dealerships taken from them in the summer of 2009, and bankruptcy motion actions are being filed in the Bankruptcy Court, Game, set, match. I told you she was copying Donofrio. Quo warranto cannot be brought by a private citizen, and under the Constitution, only Congress can remove a president.

So in conclusion, Dianna Cotter thinks she and Leo Donofrio are smart and clever and the majority of the Voters, the Congress, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and many federal and state court decisions, along with the writing of US Attorneys General, ex presidents, and framers of the Constitution are all wet.

Cotter is right in one respect: sometimes history does repeat itself. In both the case of Arthur and Obama, a lawyer tried to come up with a crank theory why each was ineligible to be president. Neither was right.

, ,

82 Responses to Columbia Examiner goes full-bore birther

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 14, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    TRUTH asked me if I get tired of the same old crap over and over again. The answer is YES!

  2. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 11:22 pm #

    The examiner concept is not really that of a newspaper as much as it is a collection of local bloggers. They have more than 12,000 “examiners.” Ms. Cotter is, apparently, the Portland Civil Rights blogger, I mean, “examiner”. I wonder what this has to do with Portland, or Civil Rights, or what qualifies her to discuss civil rights, in Portland or anywhere else.

  3. avatar
    Greg December 14, 2009 at 11:25 pm #

    I especially liked when Ms. Cotter said she’d read Hinman cover to cover and directed you to the copy on your site, like you hadn’t read the book before.

  4. avatar
    misha December 15, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    I learned long ago examiner.com was a right wing crank site, on a par with WND. They have pretentions that they are better, but I gave up reading those malcontents long ago.

  5. avatar
    mrlqban December 15, 2009 at 1:16 am #

    “There is no historical evidence supporting this assertion, and at least one contemporary newspaper account described Arthur as “born an Irishman”. ”

    Dr. C. You mean that the lack of evidence back then that he was born an Irishman is astonishing evident.

  6. avatar
    Lupin December 15, 2009 at 2:13 am #

    “By definition, a person cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America while at the instant of their birth also being the citizen of any other Nation.”

    And THIS is the KKK agenda, disenfranchising every child from Latino parents born in this country.

    Mario and his ilk are pursuing white supremacists agenda, despite their meretricious claims to the contrary.

  7. avatar
    Lupin December 15, 2009 at 2:15 am #

    Also I wish they’d stop misinterpreting Vattel’s use of the plural “parents” when it’s clear he meant the father.

    He also uses “children” when he means “child”(obviously).

  8. avatar
    brygenon December 15, 2009 at 5:45 am #

    mrlqban:You mean that the lack of evidence back then that he was born an Irishman is astonishing evident.

    Ah, no. It was available to those who cared to look into it. It was not news simply because it did not matter.

    Indeed, no seemed to care that a U.S. president was born to an Irishman. That changed last year, when certain factions realized it meant that a U.S. president could also be the son of a Kenyan.

  9. avatar
    TheEuropean December 15, 2009 at 7:31 am #

    Vattel wrote in 1700eds french. “Parents” is the same word in French and English and means the same….

    On the other side Vattel never spoke of “children” but of “enfants”

    BTW, does someone have a link to the original VATTEL-Text ??

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2009 at 7:45 am #

    The European: does someone have a link to the original VATTEL-Text ??

    But of course [said in French accent].

    http://books.google.com/books?id=K9miAAAAMAAJ

  11. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 7:58 am #

    It means the same, but even in English saying that “citizens are those whose parents are citizens” is ambiguous because the pluralization of parents.

    Here is one original French version (1820) of Vattel. Page 190 is the section in question. You can hit plain text to get to it in text form.

    Les naturels ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont nés daus le pays de parents citoyens. La société ne pouvant se soutenir et se perpétuer que par les enfants des citoyens, ces enfants y suivent naturellement la condition de leurs pères, et entrent dans tous leurs droits.

    Of course, this shows “f” for “s.”

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2009 at 8:08 am #

    No, no no. There is evidence that Arthur was known to have been born an Irishman. There is no evidence that it was unknown or successfully “hidden” from the public.

  13. avatar
    DCBikerJohn December 15, 2009 at 8:11 am #

    When Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, his status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 (Fightthesmears.com; Factcheck.org)

    Using the prescription of natural born citizen, the framers of the Constitution intended to prevent an individual who was born under the protection of a foreign sovereign after the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to the office of president of the United States.

    Agents of misinformation highlight place of birth as the only requirement for natural born citizen. But, place of birth was immaterial to the framers of the Constitution. (See Article II Section1 Clause 5 US Constitution; Naturalization Act of 1790.) Presidential eligibility was conferred upon those who were citizens of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution without regard for their place of birth. It’s difficult to believe that the framers of the Constitution intended a place of birth test to be applied to those born after adoption of the Constitution and at the same time allow anyone without regard to place of birth to be eligible to the presidency so long as he was born before the adoption of the Constitution. If place of birth was a limiting factor for eligibility, the framers would have used the term native born, without any exceptions with regard to the timing of the adoption of the Constitution.

    Perhaps my analysis is flawed and incorrect. Like it, neither presidential elections nor acts of Congress interpret the Constitution. Until a Constitutional authority addresses this unsettled question of law, there will always be doubt. President Obama should be the first person demanding this issue be resolved so that the doubts about his eligibility can be removed. Bobby Jindal should be right behind President Obama.

  14. avatar
    kimba December 15, 2009 at 8:15 am #

    And she’s a Freeper!
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2401072/posts

    When I searched “donofrio” at freep, I found RSOL Phil is cross-posting his stuff at Freep now too.

  15. avatar
    aarrgghh December 15, 2009 at 8:31 am #

    dcbikerjohn concern-trolls:

    president obama should be the first person demanding this issue be resolved so that the doubts about his eligibility can be removed.

    the president is sitting in the white house. he probably already feels that the doubts have been removed to his satisfaction.

  16. avatar
    Scientist December 15, 2009 at 8:35 am #

    http://www.reobama.com/images/12PM_InauguralAddress_SwornIn_ChiefJustice_JohnRoberts_Reuters.jpg

    Seems like the Chief Justice doesn’t share your doubts.

  17. avatar
    Scientist December 15, 2009 at 8:41 am #

    By the way, that seems to be Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg and a few other Justices behind Roberts. I see smiles and some bundling up against the cold, but not a lot of doubt…

  18. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 8:46 am #

    Presidential eligibility was conferred on those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution without regard to their place of birth and also without regard to their parents’ citizenship! It was done because the Founders felt that foreign-born patriots had been big parts of their revolution. From Bancroft’s History of the US Constitution:

    “no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for [the Presidency]; but, as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions…it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents…at the time fo the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the Office of the President.”

    And Justice Story explained the grandfather clause:

    This…was doubtless introduced…out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted contry. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits and painful to their sensibilities.

    It wasn’t introduced to signal that the founders weren’t concerned about place of birth, it was the exact opposite. It was because the founders realized that an emphasis on place of birth would exclude good patriots that the grandfather clause was introduced!

    It’s an exception to the rule!

  19. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 9:07 am #

    President Obama should be the first person demanding this issue be resolved so that the doubts about his eligibility can be removed.

    Not if he’s smart!

    Obama has been blessed with almost absurdly incompetent enemies. His first run for public office had a retiring office-holder decide late in the game to un-retire and could not obtain the appropriate signatures to get on the ballot. His first opponent in the Senate race was a guy who took one of the hottest actresses in Hollywood to swingers clubs and didn’t have the good sense to stay married to her. (Again, note that she is one of the hottest women in Hollywood!) His second opponent was the ever-crazy Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes could run unopposed for dog-catcher and lose. John McCain was, probably, the weakest of the Republican candidates – he was certainly the least Republican. Because he didn’t exactly endear the conservatives, he had to choose Sarah Palin. She makes Dan Quayle look like a Nobel Laureate.

    The birthers are of a piece with this theme. Compare the birthers with the legal eagles hounding Clinton. IIRC, they called themselves elves, and this group of legal provocateurs spawned Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky, etc., etc., etc. They got the Supreme Court to decide that Presidents can be sued, civilly while in office. They spun rumors and innuendo and baseless allegations, like Vince Foster’s suicide, into years of litigation for the Clintons and their staff. Every staffer had to get a lawyer, often at extreme personal cost. It took admirable (if disgusting) legal ability to spin a civil suit about libel (and libel for saying you DIDN’T have an affair with a woman) into an 8 year investigation, perjury charges and impeachment of a sitting president.

    The birthers, by contrast, are the gang that cannot shoot straight. And as long as they are out there, they are sucking air out of any other legal claims against the Obama administration. When you guys are out there arguing that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen because a Swiss philosopher said that citizenship requires two citizen parents, it makes a slightly more plausible argument that Hillary is not eligible for the Secretary of State because of the emoluments clause sound crazy as well. (Plus, it’s easier for the media to understand the crazy birthers than it is to understand the emoluments clause.)

  20. avatar
    Black Lion December 15, 2009 at 9:28 am #

    Dr. C, I think you are right. Ms. Cotter is a shill for Leo. The birthers have once again attached their crazy wagon to Leo in the hopes that he can lead them to the promised land…

    Here is Leo spinning the defeat by the Indiana pension fund as some sort of positive, when a week ago the birthers felt that this case would help their cause…

    “While today’s ruling by the US Supreme Court is bad for the Indiana Pension Fund, it does not adversely effect our clients (a group of former Chrysler dealers lead by James Anderer) in any way. Our clients were never part of that appeal and the legal issues raised by the Indiana Pension Fund are vastly different from the issues we will raise. This decision today is somewhat helpful to our case in that by vacating the lower court’s judgment, the US Supreme Court has stripped the prior Court of Appeals ruling of having any precedential effect on our clients.”

    “The US Supreme Court has wisely ordered the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate its judgment below and therefore any precedent that might have been set as to the Indiana Pension Fund’s lack of standing to challenge the use of TARP funds has been set aside by the US Supreme Court. This was a very wise choice by the SCOTUS. Had they simply denied certiorari without vacating the 2d Circuit’s ruling, precedent would have been set. But since that ruling has been vacated, the TARP issue is still very much fair game.”

    “The TARP issue is not related to our pending filing in the Bankruptcy Court, but it will be part of our Quo Warranto action in the DC District Court.”

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/analysis-of-december-14-2009-us-supreme-court-decision-regarding-chrylser-sale/

    I’m not sure but this seems like Leo is going for another one of his unique legal theories…There is no legal way that he can tie the QW statute to the issue of Chrysler’s decision to close dealerships under Chapter 11 bannkruptcy. If anyone can please let us know…Is Leo really that delusional…And besides we are still waiting for his “case” to be filed…

  21. avatar
    Lupin December 15, 2009 at 9:30 am #

    If there were CREDIBLE doubts, you would have a point indeed.

    But there are none.

    Your analysis is indeed “flawed and incorrect,” as detailed here all too many times.

    Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, LA, and is therefore eligible to run for President. No one serious has, in fact, suggested that he couldn’t.

  22. avatar
    Lupin December 15, 2009 at 9:36 am #

    Let’s be real: considering the increasing leverage of the Hispanic population in America, and the necessities of “realpolitik”, notwithstanding the hair-splitting of white supremacist lawyers Leo and Mario, there is no chance whatsoever that their reactionary definition of “Natural-Born Citizen” will ever be accepted by any authorities (legal or judicial) in this country.

    Doing so will immediately turn millions of current NBCs born of Mexican etc parents into back of the bus citizens, and that’s not going to happen.

  23. avatar
    Dick Whitman December 15, 2009 at 9:37 am #

    DCBikerJohn

    If place of birth was a limiting factor for eligibility, the framers would have used the term native born, without any exceptions with regard to the timing of the adoption of the Constitution.

    Not to mention the crazy theory put forth by some of the Obots that Natural Born Citizenship status is attained at birth and can never be relinquished or adjudicated to the detriment of the native born. Or there are only two types of citizenship, native born or naturalized.

    What if a native born moved out of the country and renounced their citizenship during their lifetime only to return as an illegal alien? Shouldn’t patriotism be a factor in determining NBC status? Shouldn’t an unpatriotic native born lose their NBC status?

    With so many Loyalist encountered during the Revolution, isn’t it possible the framers thought NBC status should be about patriotism and not only birth location?

  24. avatar
    Lupin December 15, 2009 at 9:42 am #

    That is my point. You can’t (mistakenly) interpret the plural one way for one word, and another way for another word in the next sentence.

    It is clear in the original French that Vattel means ONE citizen parent, and specifies that that parent is the father in the following sentence.

    The notion that it requires TWO citizen parents is entirely incorrect.

    The only loophole a white supremacist lawyer like Mario could use would be to argue that, jus sanguinis citizenship can only be inherited from the father, not the mother, but I suspect that would be unconstitutional today.

  25. avatar
    Scientist December 15, 2009 at 9:46 am #

    People like John are grossly mis-understanding the role of the Supreme Court and courts in general. They are not Constitutional commissions of inquiry, set up to provide opinions on issues that some segment of society is troubled about. They are COURTS; all they are empowered to do is decide actual CASES. If the cases that come before them lack standing or they lack jurisdiction they are FORBIDDEN to rule on the “merits”. And what forbids them? The CONSTITUTION.

    So if you want a definitive ruling from them on what natural born citizen means, you have to bring a case with plaintiffs with proper standing and you have to do so before Congress validates the election, because once that happens, the courts have no jurisdiction. So Obama could get down on his knees to the Court and beg them to rule on this question and the Constitution would oblige them to refuse.

    If the birthers can put a proper case together in 2012 (doubtful based on the quality of their attorneys) they might get a ruling from the Supremes. I suspect they won’t like the ruling, but that will be their problem.

  26. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 9:47 am #

    Who argued that citizenship cannot be relinquished? No one here, certainly.

    A minor’s citizenship cannot be relinquished by the parent.

    The founders only visualized two types of citizen. Born or naturalized. There’s no evidence that there was any other type imagined by the founders. If we’re looking at “original intent” shouldn’t we see what the founders thought of?

    The framers certainly thought that the patriots should be rewarded. That’s why they had the grandfather clause. But, as an exception to the rule, it shows that they did know that their rule would be focused on place of birth!

    Rule: All players in the lineup should bat.
    Exception: Except pitchers.

    Does that mean the MLB is not concerned about players batting? No, it means they ARE concerned about batting, but they made an EXCEPTION for the limited purpose of protecting pitchers!

  27. avatar
    nBc December 15, 2009 at 10:54 am #

    I love it how you are arguing strawmen… Shows you how you’d rather revel in ignorance than enlighten yourself in facts.

    Hint: Ex-patriation and renunciation of citizenship were concepts introduced in the early republic. However, citizenship was also considered to be hard to relinquish and required an explicit statement of such. In other words, even voting and serving in another country does not result in one losing his US citizenship.
    But unlike the British who until then held in an unrevokable state of subject-ship, the US held to a more enlightened view that of course served the US best.
    And no patriotism has no impact on one’s NBC status, and many birthers should be glad…

  28. avatar
    ballantine December 15, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    Actually, though subject to much heated debate, the majority view in the founding generation was that allegiance to one’s place of birth, and hence natural born status, was perpetual and could not be lost by the actions of the individual. According to Chancellor Kent, perhaps the most influential scholar of the early republic:

    “From this historical review of the principal discussions in the federal courts on this interesting subject in American jurisprudence, the better opinion would seem to be, that a citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without the permission of government, to be declared by law; and that, as there is no existing legislative regulation on the case, the rule of the English common law remains unaltered.”

    An interesting point is that the constitution grants no power to Congress to provide for expartriation laws. “Naturalization” was a term of art that meant removing the disabilities of alienage or giving the alien born the rights of the natural born. It didn’t mean to expatriate and hence it was doubted in early congresses whether they had the power to provide for expatriation. Accordingly, if one is really an originalist, one would have to question whether our expatiration statutes are constitutional at all.

  29. avatar
    Rickey December 15, 2009 at 11:17 am #

    Here’s what her online bio says:

    Dianna Cotter is a 39-year-old living in Newberg, OR. She is a Student at American Military University, and believes civil rights belong to all Americans, not just a few.

    American Military University is an online correspondence school. And we all know what “believes civil rights belong to all Americans, not just a few” really means.

  30. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 15, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    Under your theory, Italian-Americans cannot become President, because Italy considers them to be Italian Citizens as well.

    Here’s the scenario: Your grandparents immigrate from Italy. Before they Naturalize, they have your father. Your father is now a dual citizen of Italy and the United States. Neither country requires you to denounce citizenship of other countries at any point of their life, so, they are for life. Your father, being a Italian Citizen, will also bestow Italian Citizenship upon you. That means that you’re a dual citizen, despite being born to 2 U.S. Citizen Parents. Under your scenario, you would not be eligible for the Presidency.

    Just because your parents are U.S. Citizens, does not mean that you will only be a U.S. Citizen. In fact, I can name no less than 9 Presidents, who were born after the Constitution was ratified, but who born dual citizens. Those Presidents are Andrew Johnson (France), Ulysseus S. Grant (France), Chester A. Arthur (British), Theodore Roosevelt (France), William Howard Taft (France), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (France), Harry S. Truman (France), Lyndon Baynes Johnson (France), and Gerald R. Ford (France). That’s a lot of usurping presidents, according to your definition.

    And to say that Acts of Congress do not interpret the constitution is actually flawed. Acts of Congress interpret false. It would be extremely bad of congress to pass a law that they know would be unconstitutional.

  31. avatar
    dunstvangeet December 15, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer have indicated that they believe that anybody born a citizen is a Natural Born Citizen.

    Antonin Scalia has directly equated Natural Born Citizenship to jus soli.

    Then you have Samuel Alito, who’s the son of Sicilian Immigrants.

    You also have Sonya Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, who would be appalled to use a ruling that said that the founders considered them to be too inferior to ever be citizens of the United States, to back up your belief.

    If this ever does reach the Supreme Court on the merits (maybe 2012ish), then I see a 9-0 decision saying that anybody born in the United States is a Natural Born Citizen. However, this will never reach the Supreme Court. Every court that hears this case is going to be ruling in favor of Obama on this issue. And every appeals court would be as well. The Supreme Court will never hear it, because there will be no reason. This isn’t a close-call decision, and no Circuit Court, or State Supreme Court, will rule in a way that makes it neccessary for the Supreme Court to overturn them.

  32. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 2:16 pm #

    Poland doesn’t care when you were born or when your father naturalized (if he emigrated after 1951). If one of your ancestors was Polish, you are a natural born Polish citizen.

    Here’s what the Polish Consulate says:

    Q: Does a child born from Polish parents on the US territory and holding US citizenship, who never lived in Poland, hold Polish citizenship?

    A: YES, because he/she is born from Polish parents.

    Wikipedia writes:

    Poland has been enforcing with varying stringency its claims to citizenship allegiance from descendants of Polish emigrants and from recent refugees from Polish Communism who became naturalized in other countries. Under a particularly strict enforcement policy, named by the Polish expatriate community the “passport trap”, citizens of the United States, Canada, and Australia were prevented from leaving Poland until they obtain a Polish passport[8]. The governments of the United States and Canada have issued travel warnings for Poland, still in effect in February 2007, to those “who are or can be claimed as Polish citizens”[9] that they are required to “enter and exit Poland on a Polish passport” and will not be “allowed to leave Poland until a new Polish passport has been obtained”[6].

    So, apparently, any Polish-American is presumptively ineligible for the Presidency.

  33. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    I was looking at cases that applied Wong Kim Ark, and all but one of the justices, Roberts, I think, had participated in a case citing it approvingly.

    This issue will never reach the Supreme Court, I can pretty much guarantee. It might come before the court whether the children of illegal aliens have birthright citizenship. There are some scholars who argue that parents who live outside the law cannot have the allegiance required for birthright citizenship.

  34. avatar
    SluggoJD December 15, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    “Agents of misinformation…”

    LOLOLOL

    What a nutcase.

  35. avatar
    misha December 15, 2009 at 4:05 pm #

    True, but the same crowd will go after Jindal. They have already obligated themselves to the myth of two citizen parents.

  36. avatar
    misha December 15, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    “American Military University is an online correspondence school.”

    She and Orly should open a law firm together: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe.(bada-bing)

  37. avatar
    aarrgghh December 15, 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    as a constituency that is far louder than its numbers warrant, birfers have even fewer members intellectually honest or consistent enough to pose a threat to jindal. their ideological blinders, selective memories and long-absent sense of shame will allow most to pivot on a dime, though none with the grace of a ballerina.

    if they couldn’t break a sweat out of obama …

  38. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 15, 2009 at 5:43 pm #

    They do more than misunderstand — they also refuse to accept the decisions and opinions of the courts, while at the same time seeking judicial intervention. That is — every time a Judge of any court rules against them, they decry the ruling and accuse the Judge who rendered the decision of some manner of impropriety. Similarly, they refuse to accept the plain language of established court precedent — the considered opinions and rulings of the Supreme Court and various appellate courts — and attempt to refute the decisional law by resurrecting language from dissenting opinions, losing briefs, long-since disfavored historical opinions, or historical letters and treatises, and in the case of de Vattel a treatise written by a non-American about European law prior to the time of the American Revolution.

    So the irony is that they seek judicial intervention while showing utter disdain for what the courts actually say.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2009 at 5:47 pm #

    I have had some back channel email exchanges with Dianne Cotter. It appears that she believes herself be careful and objective, and she also bought into Leo’s alternate view of reality. One notes that Leo Donofrio demonizes Chester A. Arthur, but Dianne Cotter does not, fairly reflecting his fairly good administration. The problem is that she accepts false birther premises (Obama has spent millions defending lawsuits) or false inferences like Arthur lied about his age by one year and burned his papers just before he died; therefore, he was trying to cover up his father’s naturalization status.

  40. avatar
    Scientist December 15, 2009 at 6:20 pm #

    Objective? Let’s see Dr C, suppose I was suing you and some reporter talked to my attorney and printed everything they said and never even bothered to talk to your attorney. Would that be fair? If she were fair she would have tried to get comments from someone representing Obama-someone from the Justice Dept, for example. If they won’t talk, you call up a law school in your area and talk to a couple of professors of Constitutional Law. But talking to only oe side in a lawsuit-the reporters on the average high school paper would know better than that.

  41. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 15, 2009 at 6:30 pm #

    Dear Expel,

    Well articulated, my friend! When so much of what the Birthers say is crap, it’s refreshing to see someone like yourself make them eat their words.

    Thanks,
    Benji Franklin

  42. avatar
    SFJeff December 15, 2009 at 7:51 pm #

    “Agents of misinformation highlight place of birth as the only requirement for natural born citizen.”

    I never suspected that my junior high school civics teacher in 1971 was an agent of misinformation! Darn those agents are tricky!

  43. avatar
    Dick Whitman December 15, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    Any U.S. Citizen can renounce their citizenship. A renunciate must read and understand the consequences of their action. If they cannot read, the Statement of Understanding is to be read to them.

    7 FAM 1254.1 Minors

    a. Sections 403(b) NA provided that persons could not divest themselves of U.S. nationality before attaining the age 16. However, there is no legal minimum age under which renunciation is not permitted.

  44. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 8:31 pm #

    The consulate must determine that the minor has the capacity to understand the gravity and consequences of their actions. I realize that Obama is smart, but I still think it’s a stretch to think that a consulate is going to agree that a six-year old has the capacity to renounce their citizenship.

    It’s an extraordinary claim, Dick, and you have not produced ANY evidence, much less the extraordinary evidence that is required to support an extraordinary claim.

  45. avatar
    mrlqban December 15, 2009 at 8:57 pm #

    Greg: Poland doesn’t care when you were born or when your father naturalized (if he emigrated after 1951). If one of your ancestors was Polish, you are a natural born Polish citizen. Here’s what the Polish Consulate says: Wikipedia writes: So, apparently, any Polish-American is presumptively ineligible for the Presidency.

    Whoa…, if your parents are american and you were born in the U.S., you don’t need to look no where else, you are a defacto U.S. nbc. This is the only definition of NBC according to the Supreme Court so far. “As to this class there are no doubts”

    What the hell is this Polish thing?

  46. avatar
    mrlqban December 15, 2009 at 9:00 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Antonin Scalia has directly equated Natural Born Citizenship to jus soli.

    Well, Mr. Scalia, you are wrong. What about the children of U.S. citizens born abroad?

  47. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- December 15, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    Cue Dick failing to yet again respond to calls for evidence in 3… 2… 1…

  48. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- December 15, 2009 at 9:28 pm #

    Heh, I can see it now…

    “Well, sure Jindal was born to a pair of foreign nationals, but it says right here in my own personal copy of the Constitution that if you publically convert to Jesus that you’re eligible to run for President!”

  49. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion December 15, 2009 at 9:51 pm #

    Yeah, I’ve had dealings with her as well. I have no doubt she considers herself fair and unbiased, but her viewpoints are very ironclad, and when presented with any evidence to the contrary, she pretty much ignores it.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 15, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    mrlqban: What about the children of U.S. citizens born abroad?

    I have my opinion, but I think there are legitimate differences on the question.

  51. avatar
    mrlqban December 15, 2009 at 10:59 pm #

    Dr. C: “And what ‘wrong directio’” does she think people today are looking?”

    She thinks that people are wrongfully looking into the birth place issue today and so did Chester’s nbc skeptics.

    I would compare A.P. Hinman to today’s Philip Berg.

  52. avatar
    Greg December 15, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

    “When Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, his status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948…”

    When a person is born to parents of Polish descent, their status is governed by the laws of Poland.

    There are birthers who think that anyone born with dual citizenship is not a natural born citizen. If you’re not one of them, fine.

    This is the only definition of NBC…

    Wrong-o, buddy!

    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. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.

    Wong Kim Ark. I realize you don’t like the case, but that is the definition of natural born citizen that that case uses. It’s a Supreme Court case. In fact, it’s the only definition that matters, since it post-dates any other definition. It is the definition the governs.

  53. avatar
    mrlqban December 15, 2009 at 11:55 pm #

    Greg: “When Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, his status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948…”

    Yes, that’s his admission. That’s because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. Not just simply because his father was a British citizen. If his father would have been a U.S. citizen, Obama’s status would be governed by the U.S. and we wouldn’t have this discussion.

    Greg: When a person is born to parents of Polish descent, their status is governed by the laws of Poland.

    When the parents are U.S. citizens, it doesn’t matter if they are also Polish just because Poland says so. What is passed on to the child by nature is the parent’s citizenship and bloodline. When you become a U.S. citizen through naturalization, you relinquish any foreign allegiance and you are under full jurisdiction of the U.S. Just because you are a Polish descent and Poland says you are theirs, if you are a U.S. citizen, only U.S. allegiance governs the status of your child in this country.

    There is no dual conflict there.

    Greg: “…all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

    As previously noted, Obama status was governed by the British Act at the time of his birth, therefore, I will not consider Obama to be ‘born’ in the ‘allegiance of the United States’ as stated in WKA. He may be a citizen with full allegiance of the United States through other means, but he was not born with such allegiance.

  54. avatar
    misha December 16, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    Praise the lord, you understand. Falwell even said the 1st Amendment was a mistake. I still remember his speech at Liberty University, a center of learning: “The 1st Amendment was a mistake.” He then called for an amendment to nullify the 1st, “with the Jewish people declared a protected minority.”

    This is a Christian nation, and if the Jewish people are unhappy about this, they and the ACLU can go to Israel. Most of them are commies, anyway. Just ask John Hagee.

    In fact, the Constitution requires both parents be citizens and Christian, as the president must be. Just ask Mario.

  55. avatar
    Lupin December 16, 2009 at 2:57 am #

    Now at midnight all the agents
    And the superhuman crew
    Come out and round up everyone
    That knows more than they do…

  56. avatar
    Scientist December 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    The birthers think Chester Arthur wasn’t a natural born citizen, right? OK. Most people here, myself included, are sure he was, but suppose he wasn’t. He was President for 3 1/2 years and nothing bad happened. In fact, I found the following about him, “Author Mark Twain, deeply cynical about politicians, conceded, “It would be hard indeed to better President Arthur’s administration.”” Mark Twain was a pretty smart guy, so I wonder exactly what’s the big deal?

  57. avatar
    SFJeff December 16, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    Scientist

    Excellent point.

  58. avatar
    aarrgghh December 16, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    the problem is that the constitutional abomination of the continued seating of an illegitimate imposter threatens the very fabric of the founding principles of this country as reimagined and fetishized by a willfully illiterate and loud minority of sore losers.

    in other words, no problem at all.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 16, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    mrlqban: I will not consider Obama to be born’ in the allegiance of the United States’ as stated in WKA

    But of course the operative phrase is “jurisdiction”, not “allegiance”. Read Wong and the 14th Amendment again.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 16, 2009 at 5:16 pm #

    I’ll let you know my discussion turns out.

  61. avatar
    mrlqban December 16, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

    “Quo warranto cannot be brought by a private citizen, and under the Constitution, only Congress can remove a president.”

    Yes, and its possible and cannot be discarded that Quo Warranto can be one way for Congress to remove a President.

  62. avatar
    Scientist December 16, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    You make no sense. You want Congress to ignore the procedure specified in the Constitution, that has actually been used twice, in favor of some obscure law not intended for that purpose. As far as impeachment, if the offense is having a non-citizen father-and being 100% open about that-there is no impeachable offense. No crime; not even a parking ticket.

    Why is it so hard for you to simply accept that Obama is President? His term is almost 25% over anyway. Something tells me if you grit your teeth you can make it through the next 3 years.

  63. avatar
    mrlqban December 16, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    Scientist: You make no sense. You want Congress to ignore the procedure specified in the Constitution, that has actually been used twice, in favor of some obscure law not intended for that purpose. As far as impeachment, if the offense is having a non-citizen father-and being 100% open about that-there is no impeachable offense. No crime; not even a parking ticket. Why is it so hard for you to simply accept that Obama is President? His term is almost 25% over anyway. Something tells me if you grit your teeth you can make it through the next 3 years.

    I make no sense to you because you don’t understand what I’m saying. By no means I was refering to impeachment. Does the Constitution specify that the only way to remove a President is through impeachment? No. That’s why I said that it cannot be discarded that Quo Warranto can be used to remove the President from office due to the language of the statues. Where is your legal authority that says that Quo Warranto cannot be used to remove a sitting President? Have the courts ruled on this? Who says quo warranto is an obscure law, you?

    I don’t want Congress to ignore anything, at the contrary, I want Congress to utilize their powers given by the Constitution.

    I accept that Obama is President by “unfortunate” circumstances. I don’t agree that he is an NBC. See the difference? Perhaps you cannot see beyond “scientific” logic. That’s why you maybe considered by birthers as a r-obot?

  64. avatar
    nbc December 16, 2009 at 8:09 pm #

    Where is your legal authority that says that Quo Warranto cannot be used to remove a sitting President? Have the courts ruled on this? Who says quo warranto is an obscure law, you?

    First of all the history clearly shows that Quo Warranto could not be used to remove the King, so the suggestion that it can be used to remove the head of State is lacking. Furthermore, we do have Congress on the record that Quo Warranto against a duly elected President is outside the Constitution.

    It’s clear that the Constitution leaves the sole way of removal of the President to Congress.

  65. avatar
    aarrgghh December 16, 2009 at 8:20 pm #

    i see quo warranto has become the new interpleader.

  66. avatar
    Scientist December 16, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    mrlqban: I accept that Obama is President by “unfortunate” circumstances. I don’t agree that he is an NBC

    Who cares? All the members of Congress agreed he was qualified; i.e., that he won the election, is a natural born citizen, is 35, etc. The Chief Justice swore him in. Since then are there new, previously unknown facts? No. New laws? No. So why would they reverse themselves? No reason and they ain’t gonna.

    This whole controversy is phony baloney from start to finish. On one side you have the Congress, all judges state and federal who’ve heard the cases, the Supremes who swore him in. Serious legal scholars-the folks who write books and teach Constitutional law-laugh at the idea that there is anything to even discuss. And on your side a mediocre poker player, a dentist and an ambulance chaser.

    Since you’re gullible enough to put your belief in sych charlatans, perhpas you’d like to buy this bridge I own? Better yet, I have my standing offer to bet $100. Are you man enough to put $$$ where your moouth is???

  67. avatar
    Greg December 16, 2009 at 8:30 pm #

    Yeah, I’m sure there is scholarly support for this proposition.

    Any other Latin words you want to get wrong? Maybe you can res ipsa loquitur the President?

  68. avatar
    SFJeff December 16, 2009 at 9:01 pm #

    “Section 4 – Disqualification

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    I fail to see how much clearer this can be. I don’t see any “and also by Quo Warranto action”.

    Maybe I am making a huge assumption here but considering that the word impeachment is used in relationship to removing the President from office many times in the Constitution maybe our Founding Fathers never anticipated that they needed to say “Hey dummies that means the President can only be removed by the Impeachment process”

    By the way- anyone consider this little gem:
    “The President of the United States…. shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

    Don’t see anything about Quo Warranto there.

    So then I went to look for Quo Warranto in the Constitution. Nope not there. I looked in the 9th Amendment. Nope not there. Yeah I found the whacko sites giving their interpretation but lets review the facts:
    a) The Constition implicitly gives very specific instructions on how to remove a President from office through the Impeachment process.
    b) The Constution never refers to Quo Warranto or any other process to remove the President from office.

    I know Birthers go for the most tortured of explanations but to me the Constitution is clear- Impeachment is how to remove a President. Anything else is unconstitional, and lets be clear- an attempt to remove the President by unconstitional means known in the rest of the world as a coupe.

  69. avatar
    Scientist December 16, 2009 at 9:07 pm #

    Yeah-The birthers remind me of this guy who got a Darwin Award. He decided to use his lawn mower as a hedge clipper. Apparently, the instructions never said you couldn’t do that.

  70. avatar
    truthREVEALED December 16, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    QUO WARRANTO:
    A legal proceeding during which an individual’s right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.

    In old English practice, the writ of quo warranto—an order issued by authority of the king—was one of the most ancient and important writs. It has not, however, been used for centuries, since the procedure and effect of the judgment were so impractical.

    Currently the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, an extraordinary remedy by which a prosecuting attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone who has usurped a public office or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has forfeited an office to which she was entitled. In spite of the fact that the remedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a majority of jurisdictions, it is ordinarily regarded as a civil rather than criminal action. Quo warranto is often the only proper legal remedy; however, the legislature can enact legislation or provide other forms of relief.

    Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate. Ordinarily it is proper to try the issue of whether a public office or authority is being abused. For example, it might be used to challenge the Unauthorized Practice of a profession, such as law or medicine. In such situations, the challenge is an assertion that the defendant is not qualified to hold the position she claims—a medical doctor, for example.

    In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercise the authority he presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challenged the right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge individuals who are acting as officers or directors of business corporations.

    A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court permits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly. Quo warranto is not a right available merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license.
    West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

  71. avatar
    truthREVEALED December 16, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    A legal proceeding during which an individual’s right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.

    In old English practice, the writ of quo warranto—an order issued by authority of the king—was one of the most ancient and important writs. It has not, however, been used for centuries, since the procedure and effect of the judgment were so impractical.

    Currently the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, an extraordinary remedy by which a prosecuting attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone who has usurped a public office or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has forfeited an office to which she was entitled. In spite of the fact that the remedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a majority of jurisdictions, it is ordinarily regarded as a civil rather than criminal action. Quo warranto is often the only proper legal remedy; however, the legislature can enact legislation or provide other forms of relief.

    Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate. Ordinarily it is proper to try the issue of whether a public office or authority is being abused. For example, it might be used to challenge the Unauthorized Practice of a profession, such as law or medicine. In such situations, the challenge is an assertion that the defendant is not qualified to hold the position she claims—a medical doctor, for example.

    In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercise the authority he presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challenged the right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge individuals who are acting as officers or directors of business corporations.

    A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court permits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly. Quo warranto is not a right available merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license.
    West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

  72. avatar
    Black Lion December 16, 2009 at 10:36 pm #

    No, you are wrong. Impeachment is the only way Congress can remove a sitting President.

  73. avatar
    mrlqban December 17, 2009 at 12:14 am #

    Black Lion: No, you are wrong. Impeachment is the only way Congress can remove a sitting President.

    “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    ‘and all civil Officers of the United States’

    Well, the last sentence will make Quo Warranto useless because according to your interpretation then all civil Officers of the United States can only be removed by impeachment per the Constitution? This is obviously not the case as “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” 16-3501

    Congress delegated this Quo Warranto authority to the DC district court and if the DC disctrict court rules that such officer is usurping the public office, Congress would have constitutional authority to remove the President under:

    Article II Sec I Clause 6: “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”

    Therefore, it is possible that impeachment is not the only way to remove the President, the VP, or all civil officers of the United States.

    I’m not saying that this is the way, I’m saying that it may be constitutionally possible.

  74. avatar
    nbc December 17, 2009 at 12:33 am #

    I doubt it given that Congress themselves rejected the concept that a Quo Warranto could be used to remove an elected president.

    There is no foundation that Quo Warranto can be used against a president. Remember that a President and vice president are elected while civil officers of the United States are appointed by the President.

    The discussions about impeachment by the Founders, and the discussions of Quo Warranto all reject your position. Even Congress has rejected this

    In 1882, Congress considered Quo Warranto to challenge the title to the Presidency

    Mr. Bowman opposed this part of the bill because it degraded the office by making it a subject of litigation before a jury. Mr. Browne. of Indiana, argued that the question of the title of Electors should be settled in the most direct way, in the States, by State courts. under State laws, and that this settlement should be final. He also suggested the abolition of the Electoral College. Mr. Hammond, of Georgia, denounced the bill, and declared that it ought to be called ” A bill to raise hell in the United States.” Mr. Hewitt did not approve the bill, and he remarked that be was satisfied that no man installed in the office of President could be ousted before the expiration of his four years by any method except revolution. Mr. Carlisle thought that Congress should be the final judge. The part of the bill relating to the quo warranto proceedings was stricken out, and then the remainder was rejected. The Senate bill was then recommitted.

    Or

    Mr Thurman: It seems to mo that these considerations abundantly show that the idea of contesting the office of Chief Magistrate of the United States in any court whatsoever is not to be entertained for a moment. I do not, therefore, agree with the Senator from Vermont that there can be any such contest. I do not think that the framers of the Constitution intended that the title of the persons declared in the joint assembly of the two houses to be President should remain in doubt for a single moment, but that, on the contrary, from the time he was declared to be elected all men should respect his title, for h[e] was declared elected pursuant to the Constitution of the country. There might be error in deciding who was elected; every body of men is liable to commit error; courts are liable to commit error as well as congresses; the decision may be in favor of the wrong man ; but the public safety and peace require that that decision, when once made, shall be final and irrevocable.

  75. avatar
    Scientist December 17, 2009 at 6:29 am #

    Let me explain to you how the real world (as opposed to Birtherland) works. In the real world, bodies delegated to make decisions (Congress, courts) make a decision and then MOVE ON. They don’t endlessly revisit their decisions. They decided, whether you like it or not that Obama is a natural born citizen and is qualified to be President.

    I know you guys think this is the most important issue in the history of humankind. It isn’t. Really. Barring some startling and very material new fact, no one is going to revisit the decision made <1 year ago. By not accepting that you are simply setting yourselves up for more disappointments as 0-60 becomes 0-70, becomes 0-80.

  76. avatar
    Lupin December 17, 2009 at 9:31 am #

    Birther: Obama should release his long-form quo warranto from Kenya.

  77. avatar
    Mike December 17, 2009 at 4:48 pm #

    Perhaps my analysis is flawed and incorrect.

    Fixed it for ya, Bikey!

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 17, 2009 at 5:32 pm #

    Two US Attorney General opinions have been issued to the contrary. I consider them authorities, and you not.

  79. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 17, 2009 at 8:04 pm #

    And soon on Orly Taitz’ Blog will appear:

    Important! Attention, Patriot supporters in Kenya! Won of my interrational Lupin vestinstigators (who shall remains blameless) have reported Obama’s thugs buried Obama’s original lounge form quo warranto probably in a hospital flower garden in Mombasa, when I googled it. I need it IMMEDIATELY to sue SCOTUS clerk, Danny Bickle, and the Norman Tabernacle Choir, featuring Norman Tabernacle; Kenya dig it?

    AweFully,
    Benji Franklin

  80. avatar
    mrlqban December 17, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    Scientist: Let me explain to you how the real world (as opposed to Birtherland) works. In the real world, bodies delegated to make decisions (Congress, courts) make a decision and then MOVE ON. They don’t endlessly revisit their decisions. They decided, whether you like it or not that Obama is a natural born citizen and is qualified to be President. I know you guys think this is the most important issue in the history of humankind. It isn’t. Really. Barring some startling and very material new fact, no one is going to revisit the decision made <1 year ago. By not accepting that you are simply setting yourselves up for more disappointments as 0-60 becomes 0-70, becomes 0-80.

    Have you ever challenged speeding tickets?

  81. avatar
    Greg December 17, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    You’ve lost the speeding ticket challenge and are now shouting at the cashier as you pay the fine. She can’t do anything about it. You lost. It just wastes her time and makes you hoarse.

  82. avatar
    Scientist December 18, 2009 at 6:30 am #

    I have a vision of Orly doing exactly that. Anyone know how her day in traffic court went? I doubt being disbarred will bother her, since she isn’t really a lawyer, but losing her driver’s license might.