Main Menu

Reality check

Sometimes it is the basic things people get hung up on. Let’s take a moment for a reality check.

Ham Sandwich

Our first example is a ham sandwich.

Ham Sandwich

Now someone might argue that this is not a ham sandwich, but a picture of a ham sandwich. While that is technically correct, it doesn’t add anything to the discussion. We all know what a ham sandwich is, and we can recognize the picture of one when we see it. One also might argue that the meat on the sandwich really isn’t ham. Nevertheless, we know that ham sandwiches are not unusual, and without some solid justification, there’s no reason to try to  over analyze the obvious.

Shoe

Our second example of a real object is this shoe. The discussion of the shoe follows that of the ham sandwich, and need not be repeated.

Shoe

Birth Certificate

Our third example of a real object is this birth certificate. Most people have had experience with birth certificates. They are quite common objects.

Birth Certificate

This is where things get a little weird in that while the other real objects we’ve discussed so far are pretty straightforward, an amazing number of people make amazing arguments to deny that this birth certificate is real. Nevertheless, we have several confirmations that the facts on this certificate are true, and we have reliable press reports of those who have examined it personally and still this object is still denied by some.

POTUS

Our final example is a real object, recognizable world wide. Whether one respects or disrespects it, it is what it is. That is, for most people. There are still some folks who go to great lengths to deny the identification of this object:

President of the United States

189 Responses to Reality check

  1. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 15, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    The cheese doesn’t look real to me.

  2. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 15, 2010 at 7:31 pm #

    And the lettuce looks more like seaweed. My cousin has lettuce, and it doesn’t look like that in the picture

  3. avatar
    Sef November 15, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: My cousin has lettuce, and it doesn’t look like that in the picture

    He probably uses arugula, instead of good old ‘Murrican lettuce.

  4. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 15, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    No, Sef. The original lettuce growers said there’s only one kind of lettuce – natural born lettuce

  5. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 15, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    And that comes directly from their reference to the scholarly work of a Swiss lettuce philosopher – The Law of Lettuces.

  6. avatar
    Welsh Dragon November 15, 2010 at 8:14 pm #

    It ‘s got lettuce, tomato and cheese fillings too. How can sandwich with multiple fillings be a natural born ham sandwich?

  7. avatar
    BatGuano November 15, 2010 at 8:22 pm #

    i know for a fact that the sandwich renounced it’s lettuce.

  8. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 15, 2010 at 8:22 pm #

    Welsh Dragon: It s got lettuce, tomato and cheese fillings too. How can sandwich with multiple fillings be a natural born ham sandwich?

    It can’t; that’s why it’s not a real ham sandwich.

  9. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 15, 2010 at 8:37 pm #

    There’s no doubt that’s not a real ham sandwich. Doc is lying for the sandwich.

  10. avatar
    misha November 15, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    A ham sandwich was displayed to insult Jewish and Muslim readers.

    A blog in the spirit of the Law of Nations, would use Hebrew National cold cuts. Second, how do I know that was an actual sandwich, and not a plastic display like in Japan.

    Was the sandwich paid for, or was it stolen, or was the picture lifted from some liberal site?

    I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe there is anything legitimate about that sandwich. Gotta go now – I’m hungry.

  11. avatar
    misha November 15, 2010 at 8:44 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: The Law of Lettuces

    Far more important, is the Law of Slaw.

  12. avatar
    Arthur November 15, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    Obviously this sandwich was made in Kenya and then brought to the United States in a brown paper bag. At that time, announcements appeared in two Honolulu papers saying that sliced ham would be on sale for 69 cents a pound. The sandwich was then put in a sealed plastic bag and frozen. Although no one remembers it attending classes, the sandwich mysteriously earned two degrees, made an illegal trip to Pakistan, and worked as a community organizer in various Chicago delis. Two years ago, it was thawed and served at President Obama’s inauguration luncheon with the Supreme Court. Everyone had a piece, except Clarence Thomas who had been warned by Orly Taitz that the ham was phony baloney.

  13. avatar
    Reality Check November 15, 2010 at 11:00 pm #

    Why thank you Doc. I approve of this message.

  14. avatar
    GeorgetownJD November 15, 2010 at 11:01 pm #

    Those advertisements for 69 cent ham were faked. The Honolulu merchants’ advertising cooperative has twice confirmed this. Unfortunately, the manifests for shipping containers arriving in Hawaiian ports have been sealed, so we will never really know unless some brave judge is willing to take on a battle against the rampant corruption of the ham industry.

  15. avatar
    misha November 15, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: some brave judge is willing to take on a battle against the rampant corruption of the ham industry.

    Obama has spent over $1M sealing the records of donations from the cold cut industry. Plus, the true story of lobbyist junkets to Pakistan have been covered up.

  16. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 16, 2010 at 12:11 am #

    And that shoe; a white shoe with brown laces. Hmmmmmmmmm. And it looks like it’s a BRITISH tennis shoe.

  17. avatar
    Lupin November 16, 2010 at 1:29 am #

    I’m surprised no one has yet questioned the definition of “sandwich.”

    I’m not sure what is the strange object that you have chosen to depict above, but it is no sandwich. THIS is a sandwich:

    http://cuisine-et-insolite.20minutes-blogs.fr/media/00/00/1225315051.jpg

    Vatel said so.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Vatel

  18. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 16, 2010 at 2:38 am #

    misha:
    Far more important, is the Law of Slaw.

    Misha,

    I believe you mean ‘Cole’s law’ which Doc C referred to a couple of posts back – so we see that he carefully laid the groundwork for his fraud…

  19. avatar
    Majority Will November 16, 2010 at 3:39 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: And that shoe; a white shoe with brown laces. Hmmmmmmmmm. And it looks like it’s a BRITISH tennis shoe.

    It’s tongue may say British but it’s American down to its very sole.

  20. avatar
    misha November 16, 2010 at 5:03 am #

    What everyone is failing to understand, is if this purported sandwich is what John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, had in mind.

    If it is not, and some American interpretation, than the whole thing is a fraud.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Montagu,_4th_Earl_of_Sandwich

  21. avatar
    Arthur November 16, 2010 at 8:33 am #

    GeorgetownJD: Those advertisements for 69 cent ham were faked.The Honolulu merchants’ advertising cooperative has twice confirmed this.Unfortunately, the manifests for shipping containers arriving in Hawaiian ports have been sealed, so we will never really know unless some brave judge is willing to take on a battle against the rampant corruption of the ham industry.

    We HAD a brave judge, until Obama’s thugs got to him! None of this will every be exposed unless SARAH PALIN BECOMES PRESIDENT! Only a momma grizzly has the hunger to stand up to the crooks in Washington, and rummage through the garbage about Obama and the ham products industry. Follow the ham people, follow the ham, and it will take you right to the pig! And what eats pigs? Momma Grizzlies!!!!

    Free Political Prisoner LTC Walter Fitzpatrick!
    When did it become a crime for a man to be a lunatic?
    War Sarah Palin!!!

  22. avatar
    Majority Will November 16, 2010 at 8:51 am #

    Arthur:
    We HAD a brave judge, until Obama’s thugs got to him! None of this will every be exposed unless SARAH PALIN BECOMES PRESIDENT! Only a momma grizzly has the hunger to stand up to the crooks in Washington, and rummage through the garbage about Obama and the ham products industry. Follow the ham people, follow the ham, and it will take you right to the pig! And what eats pigs?Momma Grizzlies!!!!Free Political Prisoner LTC Walter Fitzpatrick!
    When did it become a crime for a man to be a lunatic?
    War Sarah Palin!!!

    I second your ham-endment solution.

  23. avatar
    BatGuano November 16, 2010 at 9:25 am #

    when the truth comes out and the sandwich is shown to be a fraud all of it’s condiments will become null and void.

  24. avatar
    BatGuano November 16, 2010 at 9:28 am #

    are there no more delis in this country that are free of this corruption ?

  25. avatar
    Sef November 16, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    It’s clear that this is a fake & there is a HUGE conspiracy afoot. If this were really an Hawaiian sandwich it would be a spamwich instead of ham.

  26. avatar
    bob November 16, 2010 at 10:45 am #

    (For you TRSOL fans; all three of you.)

    I will believe that is a sandwich only when you produce a receipt for the sandwich.

  27. avatar
    ASK Esq November 16, 2010 at 10:59 am #

    Well, this just proves that there’s something fishy going on. After all, the sandwich believers have been saying that the deli no longer makes ham sandwiches like this one. Sure, Doc didn’t show a receipt that shows when he got this particular sandwich, but if hays he just got it, I’m ready to believe him.

  28. avatar
    Sef November 16, 2010 at 11:07 am #

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If I eat this jpeg will I enjoy the flavor of ham, lettuce, tomato, bread & hopefully, Miracle Whip? No, I’ll just get bits of glass. So this is fake. Therefore, we can’t believe anything on the internet.

  29. avatar
    misha November 16, 2010 at 11:57 am #

    Black Lion and the rest of the gang:

    I posted this on the Post & Email:

    “I found an authentic Kenya BC (Obama’s?), that may help you.”

    And got this response:

    “Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, we’ve seen it and written about it. Its authenticity has not been proven nor disproven.”

    Are they nuts, or does it just seem that way?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/12/memo-to-members-of-congress-proves-they-never-saw-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate/

  30. avatar
    misha November 16, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    Sef: Therefore, we can’t believe anything on the internet.

    Oh yeah? Then what about this?

  31. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett November 16, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    Sandwich. Shoe. Sandwich. Shoe.
    Shoewich. Sand. Shoewich. Sand.
    Shoewich Certificate. Shoewich Certificate.
    Cerwich Shoetificate. Cerwich Shoetifcate.
    Cerwich President. Cerwich President.
    Preswich Cerident. Preswich Cerident.

    “Until we see the Preswich’s authenticated Shoetificate, it might as well be a sand shoewich.” – Alan Keyes

    “I am want the sand shoewich very much to be in my office, being depositioned for lunch.” – Orly Taitz.

    “The shoetificate doesn’t matter because the Preswich’s father was not a natural born Cerident, which makes him ineligible to be the Preswich.” – Mario Apuzzo.

    “When do me get me sand shoewich? NOM NOM NOM” Cookie Monster.

  32. avatar
    Sef November 16, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    misha:
    Oh yeah? Then whatabout this?

    “Jaunuary”???

  33. avatar
    Sef November 16, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    misha:
    Oh yeah? Then whatabout this?

    Obviously fake since the dimensions are not metric.

  34. avatar
    Loren November 16, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    Even if we put aside the photo distinction, even if we were looking at it in person, we have no way of knowing whether what appears externally to be a sandwich is actually a sandwich unless and until it’s been fully examined. The bread could be fake. The ham could be plastic. The mayonnaise could be caulk.

    And even if the ingredients that we see around the outside are real, the interior of the sandwich could be nothing more than Nerf foam. There’s no way to know until the physical sandwich itself has been properly examined and documented. And the examination must be done by a qualified culinary expert, not just some English major with a camera.

  35. avatar
    misha November 16, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    Loren: not just some English major with a camera

    Well, excuuuuuuuusse me.

  36. avatar
    Daniel November 16, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    Loren: Even if we put aside the photo distinction, even if we were looking at it in person, we have no way of knowing whether what appears externally to be a sandwich is actually a sandwich unless and until it’s been fully examined.The bread could be fake.The ham could be plastic.The mayonnaise could be caulk.And even if the ingredients that we see around the outside are real, the interior of the sandwich could be nothing more than Nerf foam.There’s no way to know until the physical sandwich itself has been properly examined and documented.And the examination must be done by a qualified culinary expert, not just some English major with a camera.

    You must get very hungry….

  37. avatar
    BatGuano November 16, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    Loren: And the examination must be done by a qualified culinary expert….

    i heard Dr Polarik worked at a Sub-marina shop.

  38. avatar
    Bovril November 16, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    A little off topic….sorry Dr C

    Folks

    For those of you I have not as yet reached out to via email, this is an initial heads up for the next installment of the Manhattan Wrecking crew “Eat, drink and laugh at Birfoons” get together.

    Initially looking at Dec 02, meeting in Midtown Mahattan, if you would like to join a selection of we happy few, please email me at everalm (at) yahoo.com and I’ll send you the details……

    BL and Dr K I’ve already sent you the email…..

  39. avatar
    bob November 16, 2010 at 2:09 pm #

    BatGuano: i heard Dr Polarik worked at a Sub-marina shop.

    Polarik’s father invented a sandwich-cutting device; therefore Polarik is a sandwich expert.

  40. avatar
    Loren November 16, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    Polarik’s latest YouTube video also makes a compelling case that the meat known as ‘ham’ has never actually existed.

    He also asserts that he is an expert shoemaker, because he has over forty years of experience wearing shoes.

  41. avatar
    misha November 16, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    Loren: He also asserts that he is an expert shoemaker, because he has over forty years of experience wearing shoes.

    I can see Russia from my house.

  42. avatar
    Sally Hill November 16, 2010 at 5:08 pm #

    Is it real…or does it just look real?

    Let’s take your examples. Here is a link to some cupcakes. Are they real? No – actually they are just made to look real. The mind really can’t tell the difference.

    Here is a link to some LaBron Nike’s. Are they real? Nope – fakes. But they sure look real, don’t they? The mind really can’t tell the difference.

    How do you know for sure that your image of the COLB is not a ‘knock-off’; how do you know the information presented is not part of the ‘knock-off’? How do you or FactCheck know where the COLB came from? How do you know you can trust FactCheck? How do you know you can trust the press? They’ve never been duped have they? Two words – Balloon Boy.

    People in the business of selling knock-offs are in the business of making their items look real. That would never be the case with Obama’s COLB though, right? Because no one, especially the government, ever lies do they? What exactly is it about that digital image that makes it any more real than the picture of those ‘knock-off’ Nike’s?

    What is it that makes you so trusting as to blindly take what is shoved under your nose at face value? What keeps you from questioning the veracity of his COLB? If there were no questions, no unknowns surrounding his history, if he hadn’t sealed all his records – then MAYBE you could blindly accept what he wants you to accept as his truth…but there are reasons to question, yet you swallow his story hook, line and sinker.

    Do you double check your paycheck each pay period? Why? The numbers are real, they add up, the signature is real, it clears the bank….why question it?
    Because it is the prudent thing to do.
    Because we have been taught never to take things at face value, to know for ourselves that we are not being sold a bill of goods, that we are not being taken advantage of, that the wool is not being pulled over our eyes.

    Yet, you do not question anything regarding THIS president – why?

    Your images prove nothing – even the last one – are you absolutely sure he’s the ‘real deal’?

  43. avatar
    gorefan November 16, 2010 at 5:21 pm #

    Sally Hill: yet you swallow his story hook, line and sinker

    And you doubt everything, even when there is no reason to have doubts. I might agree with you if you could produce some evidence that the story of President Obama is substantially different from what he has told us.

    Yet, every time new information becomes available it supports his story, yet still you doubt. Is it only this President you have a problem with?

    Did you have such doubts about either Presidents Bush or President Reagan. Did you know that President Reagan’s birth certificate was signed by his doctor and the state registrar on the same date – August 14, 1942. That’s 31 years after the vital event. Does that mean President Reagan was not “natural born”. After all we took him at his word. Why did we accept it – hook line and sinker?

  44. avatar
    misha November 16, 2010 at 5:41 pm #

    Sally Hill: Is it real…or

    Is it real, or is it Memorex ?

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2010 at 6:20 pm #

    Sally Hill: How do you know for sure that your image of the COLB is not a ‘knock-off’; how do you know the information presented is not part of the ‘knock-off’?

    Because the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed the birth location of Barack Obama. That is why birthers are nut jobs, pure and simple.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm #

    misha: Black Lion and the rest of the gang:I posted this on the Post & Email:“I foundan authentic Kenya BC (Obama’s?), that may help you.”And got this response:“Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, we’ve seen it and written about it. Its authenticity has not been proven nor disproven.”Are they nuts, or does it just seem that way?http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/12/memo-to-members-of-congress-proves-they-never-saw-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate/

    I think you have well and truly PUNKED the Post & Email blog.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm #

    misha:
    I can see Russia from my house.

    I can see a picture of Russia from my house.

  48. avatar
    Rickey November 16, 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    Sally Hill: How do you know you can trust the press?They’ve never been duped have they?Two words – Balloon Boy.

    False equivalence. The press exposed the Balloon Boy hoax as soon as the family’s story started to fall apart. Nothing like that has occurred in the matter of Obama’s birth certificate.

    Because no one, especially the government, ever lies do they?

    What possible reason would the Republican governor of Hawaii, a supporter of John McCain, have to lie about Obama’s birthplace?

    What exactly is it about that digital image that makes it any more real than the picture of those ‘knock-off’ Nike’s?What is it that makes you so trusting as to blindly take what is shoved under your nose at face value?What keeps you from questioning the veracity of his COLB?

    Let’s see – contemporaneous newspaper announcements, the fact that the State of Hawaii has confirmed that Obama was born there, the fact that the U.S. State Department confirmed that Obama was born there – they all support the veracity of Obama’s COLB.

    if he hadn’t sealed all his records

    He hasn’t sealed his records. The records which you birthers so feverishly demand are no more and no less sealed than your records and my records. They are “sealed” by State and Federal privacy statutes.

  49. avatar
    Gregory November 16, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    One point that I never understood about Ron Polarik’s “analysis” of Obama’s birth certificate was whether it was the image of the document or the paper document itself – that was supposed to be a forgery.

    After all, how can an image (which is really just a visual representation of numeric data) itself be a forgery; just as how can a paper document be declared a forgery by examining only an image of it?

  50. avatar
    Gregory November 16, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    Sally Hill: How do you know for sure that your image of the COLB is not a ‘knock-off’; how do you know the information presented is not part of the ‘knock-off’?How do you or FactCheck know where the COLB came from? How do you know you can trust FactCheck? How do you know you can trust the press?They’ve never been duped have they?

    In this situation, there are two different interpretations of the evidence. But in one interpretation, each piece of evidence corroborates the other. And all the pieces of evidence present a consistent, coherent story. We have a birth certificate that attests to Obama’s birth in Hawaii and two contemporaneous newspaper announcements to attest to the same. Therefore a single event (Obama’s Hawaiian birth) is enough to satisfy all of the available evidence.

    The problem with the other interpretation (the Birther interpretation) is that each explanation for each piece of evidence is created ad hoc – and stands unrelated to any other assertion. After all, two newspaper birth announcements for a birth that supposedly took place somewhere other than in Hawaii – do not necessitate (nor imply) the existence of an allegedly forged birth certificate produced over 40 years later. One could easily have one piece of evidence without the other, there is no coherent story that encompasses – nor necessitates the existence of – both.

    In other words, we can accept either that Obama was born in Hawaii – or we have to accept a series of unrelated explanations to account for all of the pieces of available evidence – and do so despite that fact there there is no consistency or even consensus for each individual explanation given.

  51. avatar
    Majority Will November 16, 2010 at 7:53 pm #

    gorefan:
    And you doubt everything, even when there is no reason to have doubts.I might agree with you if you could produce some evidence that the story of President Obama is substantially different from what he has told us.Yet, every time new information becomes available it supports his story, yet still you doubt.Is it only this President you have a problem with?Did you have such doubts about either Presidents Bush or President Reagan.Did you know that President Reagan’s birth certificate was signed by his doctor and the state registrar on the same date – August 14, 1942.That’s 31 years after the vital event.Does that mean President Reagan was not “natural born”.After all we took him at his word.Why did we accept it – hook line and sinker?

    And Reagan was not born in a hospital – one of the requirements birthers demand as proof of certificate validity. Shouldn’t that give the birther idiot enough doubt about Reagan?

    The hit and run birther troll is such a coward.

  52. avatar
    Northland10 November 16, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    Sally Hill: Do you double check your paycheck each pay period? Why? The numbers are real, they add up, the signature is real, it clears the bank….why question it?
    Because it is the prudent thing to do.

    Signed paycheck? For most of 20 years now, many of may paychecks have been direct deposit. With one of my jobs now, I do not even get a printed pay statement, instead, I can see my pay statement as… wait for it… an image.

    Yet, a quick check of my account shows the money is there.

    And now I am hungry for a sandwich, or at least an image of one.

  53. avatar
    Arthur November 16, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    Sally Hill: Yet, you do not question anything regarding THIS president – why?

    Hi Sally:

    Actually, I question quite a lot about “THIS” president. I question why he was not a more committed spokesman for health care reform, and why he allowed people like Sarah Palin to take control of the health care debate. I question why he has not been a stronger advocate for eliminating DADT, and why he has not sought to remove American forces from fighting in Afghanistan, a conflict that is beyond our power to resolve. I question why he has not been more passionate about ending Bush-era tax cuts, and why he hasn’t argued more passionately about preserving Social Security and other programs that provide a basic level of financial security for the poor and middle class.

    I don’t question President Obama’s citizenship, however, because the leaders of the birther movement show themselves to be arrogantly misinformed or craven liars. I don’t question the President’s citizenship because the evidence that supports his birth in Hawaii has been scrutinized and shown to be accurate. I don’t question Obama’s right to be president vis a vis the Constitution, because court decisions and legal opinion unanimously uphold the principle of jus soli. Finally, I don’t question his legitimacy because Congress, the only authority that could remove Mr. Obama from office, accepts the fact of his legitimacy.

    But that doesn’t mean YOU can’t question Obama’s legality . . . though if you do, you must ultimately acknowledge that what you think carries no value beyond the birther movement; my thoughts on this issue are equally unimportant. President Obama’s legitimacy has been established by the people who count, i.e., the Democratic and Republican parties, the Secretaries of State, Senator John McCain, the American voters, the Electoral College, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Congress of the United States. So continue to shout into the whirlwind if you must, but I don’t think anyone is really listening . . . not even God.

  54. avatar
    misha November 16, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

    Arthur: Actually, I question quite a lot about “THIS” president.

    I question why he is afraid of conservatives.

  55. avatar
    Arthur November 16, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    Misha:

    I agree. I’d like to see some chutzpah. Bill Maher speaks to this point during an interview with Keith Olbermann.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#40225161

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2010 at 12:21 am #

    The fact of the matter is that I didn’t take the photo of the ham sandwich. I don’t know 100% for sure that the photo is of a real ham sandwich or a mock-up. However, what I am sure of is that ham sandwiches exist. And I am also sure (based on official statements) that Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate exists also.

  57. avatar
    Daniel November 17, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    Sally Hill: Is it real…or does it just look real?

    Let’s take your examples. Here is a link to some cupcakes. Are they real? No – actually they are just made to look real. The mind really can’t tell the difference.

    Here is a link to some LaBron Nike’s. Are they real? Nope – fakes. But they sure look real, don’t they? The mind really can’t tell the difference.

    How do you know for sure that your image of the COLB is not a ‘knock-off’;

    Did the people who were constitutionally mandated to validate those cupcakes or shoes verify that they were real, as the people who were constitutionally mandated to validate Obama’s eligibility did?

    No? Allllllllrighty then.

  58. avatar
    Lupin November 17, 2010 at 2:11 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Because the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed the birth location of Barack Obama. That is why birthers are nut jobs, pure and simple.

    Hear hear!

  59. avatar
    Lupin November 17, 2010 at 2:15 am #

    Sally Hill: Yet, you do not question anything regarding THIS president – why?

    A more interesting question is — why do YOU question THIS president — and no other?

    Don’t tell me it’s just about politics. You right-wing nuts all hated Bill Clinton yet you never asked to see his BC.

    The ugly truth is that you just cannot accept that a black man is legitimately president of your country, and you’ll jump through any delusional, nonsensical hoops to deny that fact.

  60. avatar
    ellid November 17, 2010 at 7:54 am #

    Sally Hill: .Do you double check your paycheck each pay period? Why? The numbers are real, they add up, the signature is real, it clears the bank….why question it?
    Because it is the prudent thing to do.

    Sally/Scott/whatever you’re calling yourself this week, I hate to tell you this, but like most people, I have my paycheck deposited directly into the bank. I get my money, so why SHOULD I question it? To prove that you’re paranoid?

  61. avatar
    The Magic M November 17, 2010 at 10:18 am #

    > there is no coherent story that encompasses – nor necessitates the existence of – both

    There is, well, OK, it’s not that coherent: “it’s the omnipotent conspiracy”.

    It’s just like the people who tell us that Earth is only 6,000 years old and that God buried the dinosaurs to fool us or test our faith or that all scientists in the world are lying and there really are no dinosaur skeletons.

    The one problem with conspiracy religion being incoherent is:
    If the conspiracy really were so powerful, how is it possible that websites such as the Pest and eFail or WND still exist?

    The problem is that conspiracy followers are narcissists. They love the idea of both “I am the only one intelligent enough to see through the lies” and “I am too well-known to be silently executed by the conspirators; if I have an ‘accident’, this would expose the conspiracy to the entire world”.
    So the reasoning “if the conspiracy is powerful enough to control the entire world, why can’t they control a handful of loonies such as you?” can’t enter their cognitive area.

  62. avatar
    BatGuano November 17, 2010 at 11:13 am #

    The Magic M: If the conspiracy really were so powerful, how is it possible that websites such as the Pest and eFail or WND still exist?

    yep. similar to the belief that the obama minions are so powerful that they can control the hawaiian DoH but…… instead of simply having the department print out a COLB they went thru the hassle of forging one.

  63. avatar
    Greg November 17, 2010 at 11:40 am #

    Sally Hill: Do you double check your paycheck each pay period? Why? The numbers are real, they add up, the signature is real, it clears the bank….why question it?

    What, exactly, do you do to “double check” your paycheck?

    Do you run your employer’s Tax ID to determine if they’re a real company? Do you check the signature against previous checks to determine if someone has started forging the signature? Do you re-run their credit to determine if they’re still solvent?

    I imagine that most folks’ “double checking” involves receiving the check and then, cashing the check.

    But, you know what, there are external indicia of reliability that we can rely on when deciding to trust this document:

    1. It’s a government document – there are criminal penalties for forging government documents.
    2. It accords with Obama’s story that he told in his previous two books.
    3. Contemporaneous newspaper reports confirm the essential facts.
    4. Government officials, on two separate occasions have endeavored to confirm the information contained in the document.
    5. The signature on the COLB is from an actual government employee, Alvin Onaka, who has not contested his signature or the facts in the COLB.
    6. There has been no believable, certainly no admissible, evidence presented for a different place of birth.
    7. A birth abroad is less probable, given the state of transportation and simple logic, than a domestic birth. How long would it take a very pregnant woman to travel across the ocean to a third-world country to have her child in a back-water hospital in a country whose infant mortality was six times greater than in the United States?
    8. The attempts to discredit the COLB and establish a foreign birth have failed spectacularly, with obvious forgeries, obvious selective quoting and obviously misquoted relatives.
    9. The proponents of birtherism are uniformly non-credible individuals. Forgers, felons, and fringe partisans. (Document “experts” with a falsified resume who refuses to sign an affidavit with anything other than an X, anyone?)
    10. No rumors of Obama’s foreign birth arose in any context in the decades before 2008.
    11. Hundreds of millions of dollars were invested in opposition research by Clinton and McCain and neither group bit on the foreign birth issue. (Despite a professed desire by some in the Clinton camp to portray Obama as not American enough.)
    12. No candidate in the primaries or general election challenged Obama’s eligibility.

    There’s lots of reasons to accept the COLB, and lots of reasons to disbelieve the birthers. Subjecting any and all birther claims to even a little scrutiny shows they are all BS.

  64. avatar
    The Magic M November 17, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    You will never get a birther to say “OMG I was wrong all along” anyway.

    You can only reduce their arguments until all they have left is “but Congress and the courts and all Dems/Reps and all officials and the media and the FBI and the entire outside world are conspiring against us”. And while that may appeal to the fringe minority, it will never allow them the kind of “change” they’re after.

    Some birthers only circle around their own arguments while others have a mission to “educate the uneducated masses”.
    The former type usually reads birther blogs, occasionally commenting “OBAMA IS A USURPER!” and otherwise remains pretty passive.
    The latter are the ones who run sites such as P&E or WND.

    > undreds of millions of dollars were invested in opposition research by Clinton and McCain and neither group bit on the foreign birth issue.

    Birthers usually explain that away with reverse racism – that Obama’s political opponents were “afraid” of bringing it up because it might come across racist. Or would “upset the Black caucus”.
    I can see many people would find that reasonable, given that many assume politicians, secretly, cover for one another in some secret understanding – fueled by actual understandings such as “a new administration doesn’t start with putting the former administration on trial” or “an ousted president will be allowed to emigrate instead of going to prison”.
    So “McCain/Clinton did not bring up the issue because they also expect their dark spots to remain uncovered” might ring true for a significant part of the people.

    You can only nail the birthers on matters of law and logic, not on things like “if there were something to it, someone would have done something by now”. Not with people who generelly believe “the big criminals can do what they want and get away with it”.

  65. avatar
    Greg November 17, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    The Magic M: Birthers usually explain that away with reverse racism – that Obama’s political opponents were “afraid” of bringing it up because it might come across racist.

    It didn’t really stop them from going to the non-American meme earlier in the campaign. Maybe they felt burned by the backlash to the release of the Somali headdress photo, but I find it hard to credit a suggestion that they would have covered up ineligibility if they’d found out about it.

    It’s another brick in the case for Obama’s domestic birth. Are there implausible, outlandish explanations for each and every one of the 12 points I put up there? Sure, but what’s more likely, that each and every outlandish explanation is simultaneously true, or that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    This is how you’d prove a case in court if you had to rely on only circumstantial evidence. Is it possible that someone drove up in the middle of the night and covered your lawn with snow, using a snow-machine that no one in the neighborhood saw or heard? Yes, but it’s more likely that it snowed. Is it possible that the footprints leading away from your house were planted by that same snow-blowing mystery-man? Yes, but it’s more likely that you made them when you walked through the snow.

  66. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate November 17, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    Unfortunately, things are going to get messier before they get better. From Dave Weigel’s blog on Slate this morning:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/11/17/texas-republican-files-birther-bill.aspx

    Texas Republican Files Birther Bill
    Posted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM | By David Weigel

    No one wants to think about it, but one side effect of the GOP’s historic gains in state legislative elections this year will be an uptick in legislation demanding proof of Barack Obama’s citizenship. There were half a dozen such bills in 2009-2010, in states like Georgia and Arizona, but they all petered out in part because Republicans didn’t have the numbers or momentum to consider controversial bills.

    That’s no longer a problem.

    A state representative on Tuesday filed a bill that would require any candidate for president or vice president of the United States to show his or her birth certificate to the Texas secretary of state, another indication of just how ambitious the conservative agenda for next year’s session of the Texas Legislature is expected to be.

    What’s that about? Guess.

    “This bill is necessary because we have a president whom the American people don’t know whether he was born in Kenya or some other place,” Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, said in reference to President Barack Obama and of House Bill 295. “If you are running for president or vice president, you’ve got to show here in Texas that you were born in the United States and the birth certificate is your proof.”

    There’s been some speculation about whether John Boehner’s Republicans will indulge themselves on “birther” legislation; that’s extremely unlikely. What is possible that conservative legislatures in several states pass laws mandating birth certificates from 2012 presidential candidates, and Barack Obama has to contend with this as the primaries get underway in 14 months. The first round of “birther bills” were, from the conspiracy theorist’s perspective, flawed, because they allowed birth certificate reprints to count as proof, and Obama has provided such proof since June 2008. So watch and see whether the new birther bills attempt — in a manner that I can’t imagine is legal, because it’s not how the government deals with birth questions — to rule out reprints as unacceptable.
    __________________________________________________________

    By “reprint” he of course means a certified copy. If junk like this goes on the statute books, it’ll be interesting to see how many Republican presidential candidates submit “reprints” as proof of birth.

  67. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 17, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate: Unfortunately, things are going to get messier before they get better.

    I am of the opinion that states passing ‘birther bills’ is only good for President Obama – either they wont pass Constitutional muster (by failing to recognize the ‘full faith and credit’ clause, for example) or they will end up confirming the President’s eligibility to the electorate. So to any birthers that were just elected I say, “Bring it on!”

  68. avatar
    JoZeppy November 17, 2010 at 1:02 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate: Unfortunately, things are going to get messier before they get better. From Dave Weigel’s blog on Slate this morning:http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/11/17/texas-republican-files-birther-bill.aspxTexas Republican Files Birther BillPosted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM | By David Weigel No one wants to think about it, but one side effect of the GOP’s historic gains in state legislative elections this year will be an uptick in legislation demanding proof of Barack Obama’s citizenship. There were half a dozen such bills in 2009-2010, in states like Georgia and Arizona, but they all petered out in part because Republicans didn’t have the numbers or momentum to consider controversial bills. That’s no longer a problem. A state representative on Tuesday filed a bill that would require any candidate for president or vice president of the United States to show his or her birth certificate to the Texas secretary of state, another indication of just how ambitious the conservative agenda for next year’s session of the Texas Legislature is expected to be.What’s that about? Guess.“This bill is necessary because we have a president whom the American people don’t know whether he was born in Kenya or some other place,” Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, said in reference to President Barack Obama and of House Bill 295. “If you are running for president or vice president, you’ve got to show here in Texas that you were born in the United States and the birth certificate is your proof.”There’s been some speculation about whether John Boehner’s Republicans will indulge themselves on “birther” legislation; that’s extremely unlikely. What is possible that conservative legislatures in several states pass laws mandating birth certificates from 2012 presidential candidates, and Barack Obama has to contend with this as the primaries get underway in 14 months. The first round of “birther bills” were, from the conspiracy theorist’s perspective, flawed, because they allowed birth certificate reprints to count as proof, and Obama has provided such proof since June 2008. So watch and see whether the new birther bills attempt — in a manner that I can’t imagine is legal, because it’s not how the government deals with birth questions — to rule out reprints as unacceptable.__________________________________________________________By “reprint” he of course means a certified copy. If junk like this goes on the statute books, it’ll be interesting to see how many Republican presidential candidates submit “reprints” as proof of birth.

    Of course any bill that would require a candidate to submit anything other than what a state currently issues as a birth certificate would fail a challenge under the full faith and credit clause. Gotta wonder about these half wits running around. I personally have no problem with a statute requiring some proof of qualification. It’s not a bad idea. But even in the state of Texas, there has to be someone how will inform the legislators of what the Constitution actually says.

  69. avatar
    Bovril November 17, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    H’mm lets see

    NO ONE has their original BC, they only EVER get a copy, that’s why they are all stamped as a certified copy, same for the mystical “long form” as well as the “short form.

    “Full Faith and Credit” anyone..? If a state issues a BC in whichever minimum required form and signs and seals it, that’s it, no cavilling allowed, it’s the Constitution…..

    Since when does a STATE get to tell Fed.Gov the Supreme Court and Congress how to define citizenship

    The bill states “the secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.”

    Last I checked there is no such thing as a tick box on a BC saying “Natural Born Citizen”

    All this is, is a nod and a wink pandering to Birfoons with no actual expectation that it will pass.

  70. avatar
    sfjeff November 17, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    . Leo Berman, R-Tyler, said in reference to President Barack Obama and of House Bill 295. “If you are running for president or vice president, you’ve got to show here in Texas that you were born in the United States and the birth certificate is your proof.”

    Oddly enough, Texas never asked to see GW’s birth certificate.

    Is it because they just assumed he was born in Texas? Because he was white?

    Or because Leo only found his civic duty when a black man named Hussein, born in Hawaii, was elected?

    Leo Berman- a Patriot’s patriot.

  71. avatar
    Majority Will November 17, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    sfjeff: Is it because they just assumed he was born in Texas?

    Without realizing he was born in Connecticut (allegedly) ? 😉

  72. avatar
    Seth November 17, 2010 at 2:10 pm #

    Actually is a ham and cheese sandwich.
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Ham_Sandwich_Theorem

  73. avatar
    Greg November 17, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    Seth: Actually is a ham and cheese sandwich.
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Ham_Sandwich_Theorem

    From that article:

    Visualizing this at an intuitive level is probably easier if one replaces bread, ham, and bread with Earth, Mars, and Jupiter.

    Yes, that’s so much easier, a Mars/Jupiter sandwich with Earth-bread.

  74. avatar
    misha November 17, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    sfjeff: Is it because they just assumed he was born in Texas?

    Majority Will: Without realizing he was born in Connecticut (allegedly) ?

    Is Terry Lakin an undocumented worker? Find out:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/08/lakin-undocumented-worker_26.html

  75. avatar
    Majority Will November 17, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

    sfjeff: . Leo Berman, R-Tyler, said in reference to President Barack Obama and of House Bill 295. “If you are running for president or vice president, you’ve got to show here in Texas that you were born in the United States and the birth certificate is your proof.”Oddly enough, Texas never asked to see GW’s birth certificate.
    Is it because they just assumed he was born in Texas? Because he was white?
    Or because Leo only found his civic duty when a black man named Hussein, born in Hawaii, was elected?Leo Berman- a Patriot’s patriot.

    Check out the comments section. Birthers are like bedbugs. They keep popping up with the same debunked crap. These people are despicable and not very bright.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/birthers/2010/11/17/texas-republican-files-birther-bill

  76. avatar
    misha November 17, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

    sfjeff: Leo Berman, R-Tyler, said in reference to President Barack Obama and of House Bill 295. “If you are running for president or vice president, you’ve got to show here in Texas that you were born in the United States and the birth certificate is your proof.”

    Speaking of Leo Berman: “This morning, the Dallas Morning News reported that several of the Tea Party activists in the aforementioned coalition have been circulating e-mails with anti-Semitic messages against Strauss, who is Jewish:

    The Tea Party-backed groups are now running anti-Straus robo-calls and e-mails demanding a “true Christian speaker,” reports News 8 Austin.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/17/texas-tea-antisemitic/

  77. avatar
    Can you Fly Bobby? November 17, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    “We have reliable press reports of those who have examined it personally”

    Ummm, who would this be?

    If you are talking about Fukino, fine. But why not just release the vital statistics?

    Obviously Tim Adams knows there is no long form for Obama. Do you think he’s lying?

    If you are legit, why not just release the information?

    This is something your crowd can/will NEVER answer and it’s why the issue won’t go away.

    You’d rather call people names for calling bullshiz on Obama’s lack of transparency.

  78. avatar
    richCares November 17, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Obviously Tim Adams knows there is no long form for Obama. Do you think he’s lying?
    .
    DAH! (if the nose ring fits, wear it!)

  79. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 17, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

    Can you Fly Bobby?: Obviously Tim Adams knows there is no long form for Obama. Do you think he’s lying?

    Yeah, Adams says he knows this because SOMEONE TOLD HIM SO! I see a lot of people telling the dumb, the delusional, and the gullible this every day; that doesn’t make it credible. Maybe if he would tell us whom that person is, they can be questioned as to how THEY know this.

  80. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 17, 2010 at 7:24 pm #

    Can you Fly Bobby?: You’d rather call people names for calling bullshiz on Obama’s lack of transparency.

    President Obama’s campaign promises regarding transparency were about his administration and the legislative process (for the record, he’s been more transparent than his predecessor but less so than he might have been) NOT about his kindergarden transcripts. Why have you sealed all of your vital records in exactly the same way President Obama has? What are you hiding?

  81. avatar
    Majority Will November 17, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    “This is something your crowd can/will NEVER answer and it’s why the issue won’t go away.”

    It will when all birthers are dead and forgotten.

    Idiot.

  82. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 17, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    Adams has connections to a white supremacist organization and made his claim on their radio program while he was attending one of their conventions. I have little doubt that the person who TOLD HIM THIS was someone from that organization.

  83. avatar
    Majority Will November 17, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Adams has connections to a white supremacist organization and made his claim on their radio program while he was attending one of their conventions. I have little doubt that the person who TOLD HIM THIS was someone from that organization.

    That’s why birthers find it believable over the legal authority of the state of Hawaii.

  84. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 17, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

    lol. Good one, Will. Hadn’t thought of that.

  85. avatar
    BatGuano November 17, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    Can you Fly Bobby?: Do you think he’s lying?

    If you are legit, why not just release the information?

    simply, yes.

    info:

    obama birth: honolulu, hawaii USA
    parents: not foreign diplomats or invading army.

    this information has been released.

    i’ve yet to see someone go after the 14year rule tho. is it consecutive ? is it the first 14, the last 14 or any 14 ??? did obama meet any of those standards ?

    get on it.

  86. avatar
    Lancelot Link November 17, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    Yes, but…
    http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~thurston/fish/images/pipe.jpg

  87. avatar
    BatGuano November 17, 2010 at 8:35 pm #

    Lancelot Link: Yes, but…
    http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~thurston/fish/images/pipe.jpg

    i quite smoking 4 years ago but……. if i could legally smoke in california what the birthers have in their pipe i’m sure i’d have more than one lost weekend.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

    Can you Fly Bobby?: “We have reliable press reports of those who have examined it personally”Ummm, who would this be?If you are talking about Fukino, fine. But why not just release the vital statistics?Obviously Tim Adams knows there is no long form for Obama. Do you think he’s lying?

    FactCheck.org is what I call reliable press reports.

    As for Adams, yes he is lying or, if you’d rather, misleading. Adams, as verified by the Hawaii Elections Commission had no access to Hawaiian birth records. In his various statements, not one time did Adams ever say where he got his so-called information. At one time it he makes it an office rumor. The short of it is that Adams has no relevant information but the same public information everybody has.

    Or you can put it another way, either Adams looked at records he wasn’t supposed to and is guilty of a federal crime, or he is just lying. Take your pick, crook or liar.

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2010 at 10:15 pm #

    Sally Hill: Do you double check your paycheck each pay period? Why?

    I haven’t checked a paycheck in 20 years.

  90. avatar
    Majority Will November 17, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I haven’t checked a paycheck in 20 years.

    OMG! And somehow you survived! That is amazing.

  91. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 17, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    Adams never said that he looked at any records to tell him this about the president. He gave that allusion to those who wanted to believe that he looked at records to find this out, but he never said that he actually looked at DOH records. He just said that he had access to all kinds of records and proceeded to name a few databases he supposedly had access to, but none of the databases he mentioned were DOH records. Adams never said, “I looked at Hawaii DOH records to find this out.” Adams never said that he either looked at or even had access to any Hawaii DOH records.

    Adams ultimately said he knew that President Obama didn’t have a “long form” in Hawaii because someone told him this, yet he never said who that person was. He did mention a supervisor, though not by name, but when questioned, his previous supervisor in Hawaii said that even he didn’t have access to those records and could not have given Adams this information. Adams said that the person who told him this had received the information either in an email or in a telephone call. This proves that Adams did not have access to the source of this information since if it was either one, he would have remembered it; an email is way different than a telephone call – one is read and the other is heard. Therefore, someone else told him about it, and that in itself makes it hearsay. The original purveyor of this information is unknown and cannot be questioned as to the source or authenticity of the information; for all anyone knows, it could be just another birther who told him this or one of his racist buddies from the Council of Conservative Citizens

    Adams gave the birthers a blank sheet of paper with a few dots on it that they could connect in any configuration they liked. But when one looks at what he actually said and compares it with what birthers think he said, the claims that birthers attribute to him disappear in a wisp of smoke

  92. avatar
    The Magic M November 18, 2010 at 4:57 am #

    > If you are legit, why not just release the information?

    Because you birthers have proven here, there and everywhere that no matter what is released, you won’t believe it anyway and find another reason why “proof is not proof, but allegations are proof” and “facts are not facts, but made-up stuff is facts”.

    There is no birther I know of who would be satisfied with the release of any other form of birth certificate and say “OK, now I agree that Obama is eligible”. Because even if they were convinced Obama was born in Hawaii, they’d simply go deVattelist.

    And even if they were convinced Obama was born in Hawaii *and* a natural born citizen, they’d still ask for all other kinds of records. They’d still claim Obama never attended Columbia and thus “committed fraud” and therefore would not be eligible…

    So, as it has been said, why release something to convince a fringe minority that can never be convinced anyway?

    It’s like demanding to be invited to the next Space Shuttle mission to be convinced the Earth is not flat and that there is no big conspiracy of all physicists on the planet.

  93. avatar
    misha November 18, 2010 at 6:04 am #

    The Magic M: It’s like demanding to be invited to the next Space Shuttle mission to be convinced the Earth is not flat and that there is no big conspiracy of all physicists on the planet.

    Wait – there’s not?

  94. avatar
    ellid November 18, 2010 at 7:22 am #

    Can you Fly Bobby?: “We have reliable press reports of those who have examined it personally”Ummm, who would this be?If you are talking about Fukino, fine. But why not just release the vital statistics?Obviously Tim Adams knows there is no long form for Obama. Do you think he’s lying?If you are legit, why not just release the information?This is something your crowd can/will NEVER answer and it’s why the issue won’t go away.You’d rather call people names for calling bullshiz on Obama’s lack of transparency.

    He already did, two years ago. That YOU won’t accept this is not MY problem, or the President’s.

    Also, please define “bullshiz.” Is it a mixed drink or your imaginary friend?

  95. avatar
    ellid November 18, 2010 at 7:25 am #

    And oh, to answer your question:

    Yes, I think Adams is lying.

  96. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 8:48 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Adams looked at records he wasn’t supposed to and is guilty of a federal crime

    For argument purposes, you and others have said that (I am paraphrasing) that if Hillary Clinton and John McCain looked into it and didn’t find anything, there is nothing to be found. Did they look at records they weren’t supposed to? You know where I stand now on the issue (it took more than any proof for which Fukino was responsible for me to be satisfied), but I will keep on refuting the idea that McCain investigated this issue. There are scholars who question whether he meets the definition of NBC. Why would he want to go that route? What was publicly available at the time he “looked into it” anyways?

    The Magic M: There is no birther I know of who would be satisfied with the release of any other form of birth certificate

    You know a lot of birthers personally?

    JoZeppy: Of course any bill that would require a candidate to submit anything other than what a state currently issues as a birth certificate would fail a challenge under the full faith and credit clause.

    I would like to ask you about this law review article. The issue concerns same sex marriage, but it is clear the author of the comment would come down on the side of full faith and credit being given to the COLB. His research concerning the FF&C Clause, however, shows as follows:

    But as for the term “records,” there is no easy consensus. Neither the
    Supreme Court nor Congress has defined what records are, nor have they
    explained what level of faith and credit records should be accorded. As a result,
    the activities of two out of three branches of our state governments—the
    judicial and legislative branches—are ensured a relatively uniform level of
    deference and respect. But the deference accorded to activities of our state
    executives, embodied in records, is in limbo.

    At a later point in the article:

    “On the issue of the full faith and credit Kansas owed to J’Noel’s amended Wisconsin birth certificate, the court held that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution . . .
    requires full faith and credit to be given to records of other states. Absent an
    overriding consideration, the certificate itself is entitled to full faith and
    credit.”43 The court then reasoned—mistakenly in my view—that “[o]ne such
    overriding consideration could be violation of Kansas public policy.”44

    What if a state court reasoned that an overriding consideration is the importance of eligibility for the presidency and rejected the usual COLB issued? I would be interested in your reply.

  97. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 9:01 am #

    Forgot the link:

    http://www.californialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/97-5/Oct09_Gebhardt.pdf

  98. avatar
    Arthur November 18, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    ellid:
    He already did, two years ago.That YOU won’t accept this is not MY problem, or the President’s.Also, please define “bullshiz.”Is it a mixed drink or your imaginary friend?

    RE: “bullshiz”

    According to my friend Snoop Dog, the correct spelling is “bullshizzle.” It’s pronounced with strong accent on the penultimate syllable; moderate stress on the first.

  99. avatar
    gorefan November 18, 2010 at 9:44 am #

    charo: but I will keep on refuting the idea that McCain investigated this issue.

    Hi Charo – this might interest you.

    “While they ruled out any chance of the “birther” lawsuits holding up in court, lawyers for the McCain campaign did check into the rumors about Obama’s birth and the assertions made by Berg and others. “To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations,” said Potter. “We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state’s Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance.”

    http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors

    So yes, you are right that they did not get the any look at the President’s long form, but they did investigate it.

  100. avatar
    Bovril November 18, 2010 at 9:51 am #

    Oh and “charo”

    You know a lot of birthers personally?

    This IS Dr C’s site where we have seen and engaged with a LOT of Birfoons, ditto, most of us spend at least some time on other sites with infestations of Birfoons as well.

    So, YES, we do know a LOT of Birthers.

  101. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 9:59 am #

    gorefan: So yes, you are right that they did not get the any look at the President’s long form

    I don’t believe those were my words, and what did he say about the NBC issue?

  102. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    Bovril: Oh and “charo”You know a lot of birthers personally? This IS Dr C’s site where we have seen and engaged with a LOT of Birfoons, ditto, most of us spend at least some time on other sites with infestations of Birfoons as well.So, YES, we do know a LOT of Birthers.

    You don’t personally know birthers from websites. Maybe The Magic M does. You know OF people who respond on sites. Lot of birthers here? There is no great number of opposition commenters here.

  103. avatar
    Majority Will November 18, 2010 at 10:10 am #

    charo:
    You don’t personally know birthers from websites.Maybe The Magic M does.You know OF people who respond on sites.Lot of birthers here?There is no great number of opposition commenters here.

    You’re mincing Bovril’s words.

    “So, YES, we do know a LOT of Birthers.”

    Lot is subjective. But you just enjoy being pedantic, argumentative and annoying.

    We do know a LOT of birthers mostly from other sites and MANY of them are vile, un-American, lying scum.

    Have at it, pedant. Be predictable.

  104. avatar
    ellid November 18, 2010 at 10:11 am #

    Uh, Magic M never said he knew birthers personally. He said he knew OF birthers, which is exactly what one would expect from participation on the web.

  105. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    If you want to apply blanket statements to “birthers” which includes a broad spectrum of people and opinions, then no one will stop you. It seems to provide some with a great deal of personal satisfaction to have an outlet for anger.

  106. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    gorefan: Hi Charo – this might interest you.

    Thanks for the article and the correction. I still believe that McCain had no desire to keep the eligibility issue in the forefront and that he did not investigate but merely looked at the headlines. In other words, he did not do any real opposition vetting.

  107. avatar
    Bovril November 18, 2010 at 10:32 am #

    Not even a half way good attempt to dodge YOUR untenable statement “charo”

    To know Birfoons personally is to interact, talk, discuss, dispute, laugh and ridicule.

    Your statement is a classic exanple of how Birfoons, like yourself, attempt to parse out words and phrases they have no fundamental grasp of the meaning..

    Lets us say that my interaction with an individual is solely via electronic means, in this day and age a wholly normal process.

    As an example I managed subordinates in multiple, widely spread global locations. My interactions with them were SOLELY electronic.

    I managed, appraised, praised, disciplined, hired, fired and socialized in this manner, so guess what I KNEW THEM.

    In EXACTLY the same manner we know A LOT of Birfoons, like yourself personally.

    As for A LOT, I estimate I have an ongoing “relationship” with a Birfoon number fluctuating between 20 and 50 individuals.

    Next….?

  108. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    Bovril: Not even a half way good attempt to dodge YOUR untenable statement “charo”To know Birfoons personally is to interact, talk, discuss, dispute, laugh and ridicule.Your statement is a classic exanple of how Birfoons, like yourself, attempt to parse out words and phrases they have no fundamental grasp of the meaning..Lets us say that my interaction with an individual is solely via electronic means, in this day and age a wholly normal process.As an example I managed subordinates in multiple, widely spread global locations. My interactions with them were SOLELY electronic.I managed, appraised, praised, disciplined, hired, fired and socialized in this manner, so guess what I KNEW THEM.In EXACTLY the same manner we know A LOT of Birfoons, like yourself personally.As for A LOT, I estimate I have an ongoing “relationship” with a Birfoonnumber fluctuating between 20 and 50 individuals.Next….?

    Why are you so angry? I would say that if you have an ongoing interaction with someone via a website, you can generally say you “know” that person. There are also sock puppets and those sorts of encounters. There are some who are drive-by’s so to speak. And those just up to mischief. Although I directed my question to jo-z regarding the full faith and credit issue, I noticed that you didn’t pounce on that substantive issue, but focused more on the personal.

  109. avatar
    Lupin November 18, 2010 at 10:54 am #

    charo: Thanks for the article and the correction. I still believe that McCain had no desire to keep the eligibility issue in the forefront and that he did not investigate but merely looked at the headlines. In other words, he did not do any real opposition vetting.

    That’s hilarious. I OTOH believe that McCain would have crawled a field of broken glass and drank his own urine if he could have disqualified, or even get a fair shot at disqualifying, Obama.

    Are you really that naive?

  110. avatar
    gorefan November 18, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    charo: I don’t believe those were my words, and what did he say about the NBC issue?

    That’s true but the inference I got from your statement ” Did they look at records they weren’t supposed to?” , was that they would not have had access to the long form, without violating privacy laws. And thats what I agree with.

    As to the NBC issue, by which I assume you mean two citizen parents. The article addresses it but not from McCain’s point of view. Although I suspect he would agree that just being born in the US makes one a NBC.

    charo: I still believe that McCain had no desire to keep the eligibility issue in the forefront

    I agree – I suspect he found the subject distasteful. But, could he have asked his friend and supporter Gov. Lingle to look into it. Maybe.

    And I am sure you understand that there are many different levels in a large scale political campaign. Remember the picture of then-Senator Obama dressed in african garb. It was reportedly released by the Cliniton campaign. Do I think, then-Senator Clinton herself was behind the release, of course not. Would it have been beyond the thinking of some mid-level campaign workers, maybe not.

  111. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    Lupin:
    That’s hilarious. I OTOH believe that McCain would have crawled a field of broken glass and drank his own urine if he could have disqualified, or even get a fair shot at disqualifying, Obama.Are you really that naive?

    Disqualifying Obama could possible have lead to his OWN disqualification. I definitely agree that your description above would have applied to Bush in the 2000 campaign.

  112. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    possibly

  113. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    Let me start over. I think that McCain would have crawled on a field…. if he could have disqualified Bush, or even had a shot at it.

  114. avatar
    Greg November 18, 2010 at 11:41 am #

    charo: For argument purposes, you and others have said that (I am paraphrasing) that if Hillary Clinton and John McCain looked into it and didn’t find anything, there is nothing to be found. Did they look at records they weren’t supposed to?

    Charo, above, I gave 12 reasons why we could believe that Obama was born in Hawaii. The fact that Clinton and McCain didn’t push the issue (despite Hillary’s campaign pushing the “not American enough” meme) is only one of the reasons.

    Three questions for you:

    1. What theory do you have that explains ALL 12 reasons I gave.
    2. Where do you think Obama was born?
    3. What are the five BEST pieces of evidence supporting the conclusion that Obama was born where you think he was?

    What if a state court reasoned that an overriding consideration is the importance of eligibility for the presidency and rejected the usual COLB issued?

    First, the distinction the Kansas case puts forward is not between accepting and not accepting the records, it’s between accepting the records as evidence or giving the records their full legal effect. From the article:

    The error is to treat the Clause as requiring a forum state to merely admit into evidence a sister state’s action (regardless of its form), when in fact the Clause requires the forum state to give the action its full legal effect.

    You’re arguing that a state would reject in its entirety the records of a sister-state. That is unlikely in the extreme!

    If the COLB is admitted, even as evidence, birthers are toast. I’ve explained numerous times that there is not a whit of evidence that could be admitted in court that calls Obama’s Hawaiian birth into question.

    The CRS memo summarizes the approach courts would take with respect to the COLB:

    In Liacakos v. Kennedy, the court found that “a record of birth contemporaneously made by governmental authority in official records would be almost conclusive evidence of birth.” However, with no such official foreign (or domestic) contemporaneous documentation, a “delayed birth certificate” produced by the plaintiff, even though issued by the State of West Virginia 46 years after the alleged birth there, would provide prima facie evidence of “natural born citizenship.” That prima facie evidence, un-rebutted by any official foreign documentation, along with collateral evidence of assumed citizenship, would establish “natural born” status by a “fair preponderance of the evidence.”

    Finally, you seem to assume that the “long form” would say something different than the COLB. I have shown that it cannot. Let me explain:

    1. Newspaper reports from the time say clearly that Obama was born in Hawaii at the time claimed and to the parents claimed.
    2. Hawaiian law does not allow a COLB to say that someone was born in Hawaii if they were born somewhere else.
    3. Hawaiian officials have confirmed, definitively, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    The Long Form will say that Obama was born in Hawaii, to Barack Sr., and Stanley Ann.

    Even if the “Long Form” said that Obama was born at home, with only his grandmother attending, and his grandmother signed the paperwork attesting to his birth (unlikely given the registration of the birth within a few days), that doesn’t get you anywhere, because it is still uncontroverted by actual, admissible EVIDENCE! Go back to that quote from Liacakos. If it was made contemporaneously, it is nearly conclusive proof. Even if it were made 46 years later it would be conclusive unless you presented EVIDENCE that Obama was born SOMEWHERE ELSE!

    To conclude:

    1. The article you cite suggests courts might ONLY admit a vital record as evidence, instead of giving it full LEGAL effect.
    2. If the COLB comes into court, it will be uncontroverted, and will carry the day.
    3. If the Long Form comes into court, it will say Obama was born in Hawaii, and will remain uncontroverted.
    4. If you wanted to prove that Obama was born in Kenya, you’d get a Kenyan Birth Certificate which you’ve obtained through the Hague Convention, which would include an Apostille. You’d also need to bring in an expert witness to testify to its authenticity. Even then, it would be a credibility battle between the State of Hawaii and the Nation of Kenya. You’d have to convince a judge/jury to believe Kenya and disbelieve Hawaii. Good luck with that!

  115. avatar
    Greg November 18, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    charo: Thanks for the article and the correction. I still believe that McCain had no desire to keep the eligibility issue in the forefront

    Please explain why McCain AND Clinton AND Richardson AND Edwards AND Biden AND Dodd AND Gravel AND Kucinich AND Huckabee AND Romney AND all the other Republican candidates all would have ignored the issue.

    McCain’s eligibility came up earlier in the campaign. Why wouldn’t Huckabee want to take out two birds with one stone?

  116. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    Greg,

    With thousands of comments and no one expected to know the stance of everyone, I will tell you that once the Strunk FOIA documents showed a Honolulu vote, that was strong enough evidence for me. I said so on this site. There has been nothing to dispute that record. I won’t go into my past arguments. They are recorded in the archives here. So, most of what you asked is irrelevant. I brought up the FF&C Clause because that will be relevant should some state(s) pass legislation requiring eligibility proof. The legislation is not specific to Obama (although it could certainly be argued he is clearly the impetus) but all potential candidates. I found it interesting that the commenter in the law review article found there is no clear language from the Supreme Court regarding the definition of “record” for the FF&C Clause.

  117. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    Greg:
    Please explain why McCain AND Clinton AND Richardson AND Edwards AND Biden AND Dodd AND Gravel AND Kucinich AND Huckabee AND Romney AND all the other Republican candidates all would have ignored the issue.
    McCain’s eligibility came up earlier in the campaign. Why wouldn’t Huckabee want to take out two birds with one stone?

    I don’t know. I never followed their comments about the issue. I just know that McCain had something to lose by continuing the argument.

  118. avatar
    misha November 18, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    charo: For argument purposes, you and others have said that (I am paraphrasing) that if Hillary Clinton and John McCain looked into it and didn’t find anything, there is nothing to be found.

    Charo: I’ll try this again. Linda Lingle is Jewish. She believed McCain/Palin would be better for Israel, than Obama. If she could have found anything, the GOP would have used it with glee.

    To paraphrase Gertrude Stein: there’s nothing there there.

    I’m sorry, but it’s over.

  119. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 11:54 am #

    DUH! Honolulu BIRTH, not vote. Where did that come from?

  120. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    misha:
    Charo: I’ll try this again. Linda Lingle is Jewish. She believed McCain/Palin would be better for Israel, than Obama. If she could have found anything, the GOP would have used it with glee.To paraphrase Gertrude Stein:there’s nothing there there.I’m sorry, but it’s over.

    That is your opinion and you’re entitled to it.

  121. avatar
    Black Lion November 18, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    More nonsense by the loon Jedi Pauly…

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/16/the-educational-value-of-reverse-psychology-satire-and-sarcasm/comment-page-1/#comment-31433

    His article is full of the usual nonsense that I had posted the link to yesterday. However the comments are kind of interesting…

    Kingskid says:
    Wednesday, November 17, 2010 at 11:35 AM
    I have either read or skimmed some of your articles here, and, for one, am not impressed with your attempt to obfuscate the NBC issue. Obviously, you are not an attorney, and have no doubt that if you presented your arguments to be adjudicated by a competent and Constitutional judge, you’d be laughed out of court. I’m just not impressed by your education or other presumed accomplishments, and think your arguments here at TPE are suspect. It is you who does not get this NBC issue.

    Jedi Pauly says:
    Thursday, November 18, 2010 at 9:49 AM
    That is a very good point because it proves what I have been saying and that the term “natural born citizen” without the capitalization and removed from Article II, as the term is used under U.S. case law to extend the privilege of citizenship via soil, has nothing at all to do with Article II “natural born Citizen” which is describing a condition of inheritance from a father who is a citizen and not the old usage from the days of Kings and his soil or “natural born citizen subjects”.

    Jedi Pauly says:
    Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:46 PM
    Blackstone does not disagree. Prove it. Quote Blackstone and show us where it disagrees. It is easy to make assertions without proof. Until you show us how Blackstone “disagrees” I can not accept your comment as having any validity. I have read Blackstone and he is in total agreement with what I have written and with Vattel. I do not believe you know what you are saying.

    Jedi Pauly says:
    Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 4:21 PM
    Sorry Harry but you are wrong as a matter of law.

    Your mother and the soil are irrelevant for Article II purposes. Both your mother and the soil fail on two fronts. Neither one can prevent titles of nobility from attaining the office of President and we don’t inherit natural political rights and allegiances from soil jurisdictions because we are not a monarchy or from our mothers. Almost every nation in the world for thousands of years, including America, only recognizes natural political rights and allegiances to be inherited from males (your father). The one notable exception is Judaism which inherits membership into the society of Jewish people through females (your Jewish mother). In the case of Judaism, your father matters not and your place of birth matters not, as long as you have a Jewish mother then your membership and allegiance is to the Jewish society at birth. In the rest of the gentile nations, it is reversed and your mother matters not and your place of birth matters not but you must have a citizen father who creates you. You can be born in the White House on the fourth of July with Betsy Ross as your mother and you still will not qualify for President if you have a foreign father who created you. Study Vattel:

    Vattel : “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers”

    Vattel makes it clear. In the absence of, or ignoring, the positive law jurisdiction (“by the law of nature alone”) when we are only talking about the natural law jurisdiction, both males and females (children) follow (means inherits) the political condition of their fathers. This makes perfect sense because the entire point of Article II is to remove from the jurisdiction of Congress and the Courts, which is only the positive law jurisdiction, any power to determine who qualifies for the office of President. This is why I keep stressing the importance of the capitalization because it conveys that we are strictly talking only about what is created by the laws of nature or the natural law jurisdiction in the absence of any positive law jurisdiction. By removing the positive law jurisdiction, we can simply interpret Article II to mean that we are talking about political rights that are natural rights and natural political rights are inherited from our fathers who are citizens. It just does not get any easier than this. It is just so incredibly obvious. You can forget about the positive law jurisdiction and appeal strictly to the natural law jurisdiction and the inheritance of natural political rights by blood (father) because that is what Article II is telling you. I hope this helps you to understand.

    This might also help you to understand why the Courts lack proper jurisdiction to determine this issue because it is already settled by appealing to the natural law jurisdiction which is outside of the jurisdiction of the courts to determine because Article II places the jurisdiction outside of Congress or the Courts. By appealing to the courts in the way you have, you are essentially asking the courts for an advisory opinion on the meaning and interpretation of Article II and the meaning is already clear and defined and not within the power of the courts to determine. This is now a political situation and not appropriate for the courts to get involved in. Hence, all the rulings that we lack standing. The proper use of the courts would be to empower a citizen as a special prosecutor to bring a criminal complaint and arrest warrant and just arrest the President since the FBI and Justice departments and Congress obviously lack the political will to enforce the laws and they have abrogated their responsibility. Then the courts would have proper jurisdiction to act.

    Jedi Pauly says:
    Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM
    Also, you don’t understand the use of the term “Theory”. A scientific “Theory” IS A FACT.

    Ever hear of the “Theory” of gravity or any other such scientific “Theory”. They are facts just like my scientific theory of the true meaning of Article II “natural born Citizen”. This is why you and many others can not comprehend the simple and obvious meaning of Article II. You are lacking in science skills. You falsely believe that a “theory” means supposition and it does not mean supposition in the world of science. Law is a science not supposition.

  122. avatar
    ballantine November 18, 2010 at 12:08 pm #

    As to the NBC issue, by which I assume you mean two citizen parents. The article addresses it but not from McCain’s point of view. Although I suspect he would agree that just being born in the US makes one a NBC.

    I doubt it even occurred to them. Bithers have convinced themselves that there is a dispute on this and really have no idea how out of touch they are. Whenever I have mentioned the two-parent theory to a fellow lawyer or a law professor, they look at me like I have two heads. If any had doubts they would pick a a law dictionary or treatise that would tell them native birth is all that is required.

  123. avatar
    Rickey November 18, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    charo:
    I don’t believe those were my words, and what did he say about the NBC issue?

    You mean the two-citizen parent issue? The McCain campaign didn’t have to do any vetting on that, because until Obama was elected nobody believed it. The two-citizen parents argument doesn’t appear in law books, in history books, or in textbooks. Many birthers have been actively searching for their holy grail – a pre-2008 school textbook which makes the two-citizen parents argument – and they have utterly failed, because it does not exist.

    I went searching for the most conservative history textbook I could find, and I located one from 1985 called “The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution” by W. Cleon Skousen, founder of the conservative think tank The National Center for Constitutional Studies.

    http://www.nccs.net/

    Here is what the textbook says about Article II, Section 1:

    To be a candidate for President of the United States, a person must be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This provision gave the American people the right to have a President who would always be one of their own native-born fellow citizens.

    P. 528, emphasis mine

    So there it is. A conservative, original-intent textbook which states in black and white that there is no difference between a natural-born citizen and a native-born citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii, therefore he is eligible to be President. Case closed, unless you can come up with credible evidence that he was not born in the United States.

  124. avatar
    misha November 18, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    charo: That is your opinion and you’re entitled to it.

    What are you and the rest of your crowd going to do when Howdy Doody Piyush Bobby Jindal announces? What is your crowd going to do if Romney chooses him for VP?

    Jindal was born here 7 months after his parents arrived as students.

  125. avatar
    AnotherBird November 18, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    charo: For argument purposes, you and others have said that (I am paraphrasing) that if Hillary Clinton and John McCain looked into it and didn’t find anything, there is nothing to be found. Did they look at records they weren’t supposed to? You know where I stand now on the issue (it took more than any proof for which Fukino was responsible for me to be satisfied), but I will keep on refuting the idea that McCain investigated this issue. There are scholars who question whether he meets the definition of NBC. Why would he want to go that route? What was publicly available at the time he “looked into it” anyways?

    Actually, you are absolutely correct on that issue.

    It was better for Hillary Clinton to fight over the Michigan and Florida primary votes than prove that Obama’s wasn’t constitutionally eligible.

    It was better for Sarah Palin (McCain’s pit bull) to try to link Obama to domestic terrorism that demand Obama prove his eligiblity.

    All that extract effort was really worth it when you are playing for “the worlds biggest political prize.”

    It is just better political strategy to have a long drawn out political fight than just getting your rival removed from the ballot.

    It really isn’t important. Campaigning for president isn’t important enough to try every avenue to defeat your opponent.

    Imagine all those ballots challenges that have this and the last election cycle. Even in the 2000 presidential campaign there was a legal challenge of the ballots. Even add in those people who run as independents and as write in campaign.


    Charo, we will like to know your reasoning for why McCain or Clinton wouldn’t have looked into the issue.

  126. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    Rickey: You mean the two-citizen parent issue?

    No, I was talking about his own eligibility issue. Why would he want eligibility of Obama front and center when there were questions about his own status? (rhetorical question.)

  127. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    misha:
    What are you and the rest of your crowd going to do when Howdy DoodyPiyush Bobby Jindal announces? What is your crowd going to do if Romney chooses him for VP?Jindal was born here 7 months after his parents arrived as students.

    I hope he does and the issue gets challenged by someone with standing.

  128. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 12:24 pm #

    AnotherBird: #

    Charo, we will like to know your reasoning for why McCain or Clinton wouldn’t have looked into the issue.
    #

    Uh, I think I said about four times above why McCain didn’t want the issue explored. As for Clinton, I don’t believe she thought she was going to lose. The Obama campaign caught fire so quickly that it caught her by surprise. Also racism charges had to be a concern. But that is just my opinion.

  129. avatar
    misha November 18, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    charo: I hope he does and the issue gets challenged by someone with standing.

    Ankeny v Gov of Indiana – Natural Born Defined – Born on US Soil regardless of citizenship parents:

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/ankeny-v-gov-of-indiana-natural-born-defined-born-on-us-soil-regardless-of-citizenship-parents/

  130. avatar
    ballantine November 18, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    misha: Ankeny v Gov of Indiana – Natural Born Defined – Born on US Soil regardless of citizenship parents:http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/ankeny-v-gov-of-indiana-natural-born-defined-born-on-us-soil-regardless-of-citizenship-parents/

    Don’t you know state appellate courts are not real courts. And if a federal court ever addressed the issue and ruled exactly like Ankeny, which is would since the supreme court has adready addresssed the issue, then that judge would be dismissed as a traitor and then the circuit court and on and on.

  131. avatar
    Rickey November 18, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    charo:
    I just know that McCain had something to lose by continuing the argument.

    Not really. If McCain had evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii, he could have waited until a week before the election to release it – an “October surprise,” if you will. Early enough to do serious damage to Obama, but not enough time for Obama to respond in kind.

    I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. If McCain had won the election, I am confident that none of the non-birthers who contribute to this blog would today be arguing that he is not eligible to be President. Elections have consequences. You win some, you lose some. Our country has survived for 234 years because the losers have almost always accepted defeat with magnanimity, and instead of trying to undo the election they have worked at winning the next one.

  132. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 12:47 pm #

    ballantine:
    Don’t you know state appellate courts are not real courts.And if a federal court ever addressed the issue and ruled exactly like Ankeny, which is would since the supreme court has adready addresssed the issue, then that judge would be dismissed as a traitor and then the circuit court and on and on.

    I would have no problem with the Supreme Court officially adopting the decision of the Ankeny Court.

  133. avatar
    ballantine November 18, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    charo: I would have no problem with the Supreme Court officially adopting the decision of the Ankeny Court.

    You have it backwards. The Ankeny court was following the decision the Supreme Court has already made. They will not revisit the issue without a compelling reason.

  134. avatar
    Majority Will November 18, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    Greg: 12 reasons why we could believe that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    I think it’s reasonable to assume that McCain and Clinton’s legal advisors were smart enough counselors to know these reasons as well and advised their clients accordingly.

    Ockham’s Razor.

  135. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    ballantine:
    You have it backwards.The Ankeny court was following the decision the Supreme Court has already made.They will not revisit the issue without a compelling reason.

    We’ll have to disagree. The Court could say “As we said WKA” or it may come to the same conclusion with different reasoning, or extended reasoning. Maybe there would be a dissent. Maybe there would be one or more concurring opinions. Maybe it would overturn WKA, though not likely. Maybe WKA would be distinguished.

  136. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    I think it’s reasonable to assume that McCain and Clinton’s legal advisors were [as] smart [as Greg]
    🙂

  137. avatar
    Daniel November 18, 2010 at 1:02 pm #

    charo:
    Uh, I think I said about four times above why McCain didn’t want the issue explored.As for Clinton, I don’t believe she thought she was going to lose.The Obama campaign caught fire so quickly that it caught her by surprise.Also racism charges had to be a concern.But that is just my opinion.

    You have difficulty with the whole concept of Occam’s Razor… don’t you

  138. avatar
    Rickey November 18, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    ballantine:
    .And if a federal court ever addressed the issue and ruled exactly like Ankeny, which is would since the supreme court has adready addresssed the issue, then that judge would be dismissed as a traitor and then the circuit court and on and on.

    You are correct, of course, but this does raise an interesting question about when a legal challenge to Jindal’s eligibility would be ripe. When he announces? Possibly not, since the Constitution doesn’t say that you have to be eligible in order to run for President, only that you have to be eligible to serve as President.

    And if Jindal were selected to be a candidate for vice-President, who would have standing to challenge him? There are no announced candidates for vice-President. Presumably, if Jindal were nominated to be President, one of the losing candidates for the nomination could challenge his eligibility, but how would that work if he is nominated to be vice-President?

    That is why such things are best left to the voters to decide, because court challenges would throw the electoral process into chaos.

  139. avatar
    ballantine November 18, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    charo: We’ll have to disagree. The Court could say “As we said WKA” or it may come to the same conclusion with different reasoning, or extended reasoning. Maybe there would be a dissent. Maybe there would be one or more concurring opinions. Maybe it would overturn WKA, though not likely. Maybe WKA would be distinguished.

    So although this has been settled law for more than a century, you want to court to re-visit the issue because it might change its mind. Well I wouldn’t hold my breath as the court seldom revisits century old precedent and they would need a compelling argument to do so. The fact that the birthers have not produced any historical evidence to support their two-parent fantasy shows what the likelihood of any compelling argument being invented is.

  140. avatar
    ballantine November 18, 2010 at 1:13 pm #

    Rickey: You are correct, of course, but this does raise an interesting question about when a legal challenge to Jindal’s eligibility would be ripe. When he announces? Possibly not, since the Constitution doesn’t say that you have to be eligible in order to run for President, only that you have to be eligible to serve as President. And if Jindal were selected to be a candidate for vice-President, who would have standing to challenge him? There are no announced candidates for vice-President. Presumably, if Jindal were nominated to be President, one of the losing candidates for the nomination could challenge his eligibility, but how would that work if he is nominated to be vice-President? That is why such things are best left to the voters to decide, because court challenges would throw the electoral process into chaos.

    The justiciability issues are very challenging. It just may be the case that certain provisions of the constitution are not enforceable by the courts.

  141. avatar
    Majority Will November 18, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    Doc: I’d like to rescind my last post. And offer apologies. I misread the post.

    [It has been deleted, Doc.]

  142. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 18, 2010 at 1:30 pm #

    Rickey: I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. If McCain had won the election, I am confident that none of the non-birthers who contribute to this blog would today be arguing that he is not eligible to be President. Elections have consequences.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to commit on behalf of other people, but if such a discussion did exist, it would be vastly different. I am sure that no one here would be calling McCain a “usurper”.

  143. avatar
    Greg November 18, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    charo: As for Clinton, I don’t believe she thought she was going to lose. The Obama campaign caught fire so quickly that it caught her by surprise.

    That rationale only made sense until Super Tuesday. There was a significant portion of the primary season where it was pretty clear that Clinton would have a major struggle to win. Remember the battle for Super-Delegates? When it was possible for Clinton to win the nomination despite Obama having won more delegates in the caucuses and primaries? Or if she got Florida and Michigan counted fully?

    It may have been a surprise before Iowa, but it couldn’t be a surprise for the next six months. Clinton’s team threw the kitchen sink at Obama – Rezko, Austan Goolsbee’s trip to Canada, the Red Phone, Jeremiah Wright, etc.

    It was probably the first time in this nation’s history, and may be the last, when Puerto Rico’s preference for President meant something (their primary was on June 1).

    ballantine: Well I wouldn’t hold my breath as the court seldom revisits century old precedent and they would need a compelling argument to do so.

    The only way that I can imagine this coming to the Court is if Congress took Posner’s advice and decided they did have the authority to redefine birthright citizenship to exclude the children of illegal aliens.

    But, unless they overturned WKA, that wouldn’t be satisfying for birthers, since they’d still have the fictitious 14th Amendment/natural born citizen distinction.

  144. avatar
    ellid November 18, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

    charo: If you want to apply blanket statements to “birthers” which includes a broad spectrum of people and opinions, then no one will stop you.It seems to provide some with a great deal of personal satisfaction to have an outlet for anger.

    I have seen no “broad spectrum of opinions” from birthers at this and many other sites, only a willingness to believe any sort of filth and lies rather than accept the plain facts about President Obama’s birthplace.

  145. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 1:48 pm #

    ballantine: So although this has been settled law for more than a century, you want to court to re-visit the issue because it might change its mind.

    No, that is not what I said. On overturning, or a different interpretation of WKA were possibilities. The others were that the Court would come to the same conclusion with different or more extensive rationale.

  146. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

    On shouldn’t be there: Overturning WKA or a different interpretation were possibilities.

  147. avatar
    ballantine November 18, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    The only way that I can imagine this coming to the Court is if Congress took Posner’s advice and decided they did have the authority to redefine birthright citizenship to exclude the children of illegal aliens. But, unless they overturned WKA, that wouldn’t be satisfying for birthers, since they’d still have the fictitious 14th Amendment/natural born citizen distinction.

    Agree, though I tend to think that the court will eventually address the illegal alien issue again as there are a lot of smart right wing lawyers trying to figure out how to get such issue before the court. Though there is little textual or historical support for it, I could see certain Justices willing to revisit the statements from Plyler v. Doe.

  148. avatar
    Joey November 18, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    charo: On shouldn’t be there: Overturning WKA or a different interpretation were possibilities.

    Isn’t that true of every judicial decision? US v Wong Kim Ark has been “stare decisis” for 112 years now. And there is no current lawsuit on the judicial radar screen that is seeking to have Wong Kim Ark reversed.

    However with specific regard to Barack Obama: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1 and the guidance provided in Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, ‘Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009

    This decision was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court which refused to review it.

  149. avatar
    ballantine November 18, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    charo: No, that is not what I said. On overturning, or a different interpretation of WKA were possibilities. The others were that the Court would come to the same conclusion with different or more extensive rationale.

    And maybe they’ll revisit Marbury v. Madison to give us more extensive rationale or color. Now, all you have to do is convice four Juctices, who can only grant about 5% of cert peritions, why they should spend their precious time re-litigating settle law. Until you do, Wong is the law and Obama is the President.

  150. avatar
    JoZeppy November 18, 2010 at 4:57 pm #

    charo: I would like to ask you about this law review article. The issue concerns same sex marriage, but it is clear the author of the comment would come down on the side of full faith and credit being given to the COLB. His research concerning the FF&C Clause, however, shows as follows:
    But as for the term “records,” there is no easy consensus. Neither the
    Supreme Court nor Congress has defined what records are, nor have they
    explained what level of faith and credit records should be accorded. As a result,
    the activities of two out of three branches of our state governments—the
    judicial and legislative branches—are ensured a relatively uniform level of
    deference and respect. But the deference accorded to activities of our state
    executives, embodied in records, is in limbo.
    At a later point in the article:
    “On the issue of the full faith and credit Kansas owed to J’Noel’s amended Wisconsin birth certificate, the court held that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution . . .
    requires full faith and credit to be given to records of other states. Absent an
    overriding consideration, the certificate itself is entitled to full faith and
    credit.”43 The court then reasoned—mistakenly in my view—that “[o]ne such
    overriding consideration could be violation of Kansas public policy.”44
    What if a state court reasoned that an overriding consideration is the importance of eligibility for the presidency and rejected the usual COLB issued? I would be interested in your reply.

    The two issues aren’t remotely comprable. We’re comparing a very straight forward question of a birth certificate, to the question that boils down to what gender is the person under the law. The state wasn’t rejecting the otherstates document, there were rejecting the notion that one can change their gender. Now what possible reason could a state reject President Obama’s birth certificate that doesn’t completely render the FF&C clause meaningless?

  151. avatar
    JoZeppy November 18, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    charo: No, that is not what I said. On overturning, or a different interpretation of WKA were possibilities. The others were that the Court would come to the same conclusion with different or more extensive rationale.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath. The Court is takes very few cases every year. The odds of the Court taking a case just to further smack down crack-pot legal arguments are pretty slim. I would bet my paycheck that they would deny cert without comment.

  152. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    ballantine:
    And maybe they’ll revisit Marbury v. Madison to give us more extensive rationale or color. Now, all you have to do is convice four Juctices, who can only grant about 5% of cert peritions, why they should spend their precious time re-litigating settle law.Until you do, Wong is the law and Obama is the President.

    Misha asked me this:

    -What are you and the rest of your crowd going to do when Howdy Doody Piyush Bobby Jindal announces? What is your crowd going to do if Romney chooses him for VP?

    Jindal was born here 7 months after his parents arrived as students.

    My response would of course depend upon Jindal actually running and someone with standing actually challenging his eligibility. And the Supreme Court would have to decide to take the case. I never said that any of these events would occur.

  153. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    The two issues aren’t remotely comprable.We’re comparing a very straight forward question of a birth certificate, to the question that boils down to what gender is the person under the law.The state wasn’t rejecting the otherstates document, there were rejecting the notion that one can change their gender.Now what possible reason could a state reject President Obama’s birth certificate that doesn’t completely render the FF&C clause meaningless?

    It was not that the issues were the same, but the application of the FF&C Clause.

  154. avatar
    JoZeppy November 18, 2010 at 6:42 pm #

    charo: It was not that the issues were the same, but the application of the FF&C Clause.

    And the application is directly related to the underlying issues. Just because you can make an argument that the FF&C clause should not aply in some extreme cases that involve certain extreme instances that involve difference in local law (how one views gender), does not mean you can make the same argument for very mundane documents. You can’t take such factually dissimilar situations and try to shoe horn the same arguments. To do so would make the FF&C clause meaningless. A birth certificate is probably one of the most basic government documents issued by a state. In order to argue that a state should not give it full faith and credit, you better have a VERY good reason. The reason there was an issue in the case cited by the article was the fundamental difference on how they treat gender reassignment. Some states define gender by what you have between your legs. Therefore you can change your sex. Other states say no matter what you do, you are what you are born. This comes down to a conflict of laws, which the FF&C clause was not designed to deal with. Thus you have an issue. A Birth Certificate is a minsterial form issued by the state. The closest argument you may have is the issues some of the border states have had where there was wide spread fraud in certain cases, and even the feds have questioned them…and that will even be one hell of an argument. For a state to say, “we just don’t like your new form, and want to see your old form you no longer issue” is gutting FF&C and giving one state the power to dictate the forms another state is to use. And for what reason? Because they want to? It doesn’t remotely cut it.

  155. avatar
    JoZeppy November 18, 2010 at 6:53 pm #

    Black Lion: More nonsense by the loon Jedi Pauly…http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/16/the-educational-value-of-reverse-psychology-satire-and-sarcasm/comment-page-1/#comment-31433His article is full of the usual nonsense that I had posted the link to yesterday. However the comments are kind of interesting…Kingskid says:Wednesday, November 17, 2010 at 11:35 AMI have either read or skimmed some of your articles here, and, for one, am not impressed with your attempt to obfuscate the NBC issue. Obviously, you are not an attorney, and have no doubt that if you presented your arguments to be adjudicated by a competent and Constitutional judge, you’d be laughed out of court. I’m just not impressed by your education or other presumed accomplishments, and think your arguments here at TPE are suspect. It is you who does not get this NBC issue.Jedi Pauly says:Thursday, November 18, 2010 at 9:49 AMThat is a very good point because it proves what I have been saying and that the term “natural born citizen” without the capitalization and removed from Article II, as the term is used under U.S. case law to extend the privilege of citizenship via soil, has nothing at all to do with Article II “natural born Citizen” which is describing a condition of inheritance from a father who is a citizen and not the old usage from the days of Kings and his soil or “natural born citizen subjects”.Jedi Pauly says:Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:46 PMBlackstone does not disagree. Prove it. Quote Blackstone and show us where it disagrees. It is easy to make assertions without proof. Until you show us how Blackstone “disagrees” I can not accept your comment as having any validity. I have read Blackstone and he is in total agreement with what I have written and with Vattel. I do not believe you know what you are saying.Jedi Pauly says:Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 4:21 PMSorry Harry but you are wrong as a matter of law. Your mother and the soil are irrelevant for Article II purposes. Both your mother and the soil fail on two fronts. Neither one can prevent titles of nobility from attaining the office of President and we don’t inherit natural political rights and allegiances from soil jurisdictions because we are not a monarchy or from our mothers. Almost every nation in the world for thousands of years, including America, only recognizes natural political rights and allegiances to be inherited from males (your father). The one notable exception is Judaism which inherits membership into the society of Jewish people through females (your Jewish mother). In the case of Judaism, your father matters not and your place of birth matters not, as long as you have a Jewish mother then your membership and allegiance is to the Jewish society at birth. In the rest of the gentile nations, it is reversed and your mother matters not and your place of birth matters not but you must have a citizen father who creates you. You can be born in the White House on the fourth of July with Betsy Ross as your mother and you still will not qualify for President if you have a foreign father who created you. Study Vattel:Vattel : “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers”Vattel makes it clear. In the absence of, or ignoring, the positive law jurisdiction (“by the law of nature alone”) when we are only talking about the natural law jurisdiction, both males and females (children) follow (means inherits) the political condition of their fathers. This makes perfect sense because the entire point of Article II is to remove from the jurisdiction of Congress and the Courts, which is only the positive law jurisdiction, any power to determine who qualifies for the office of President. This is why I keep stressing the importance of the capitalization because it conveys that we are strictly talking only about what is created by the laws of nature or the natural law jurisdiction in the absence of any positive law jurisdiction. By removing the positive law jurisdiction, we can simply interpret Article II to mean that we are talking about political rights that are natural rights and natural political rights are inherited from our fathers who are citizens. It just does not get any easier than this. It is just so incredibly obvious. You can forget about the positive law jurisdiction and appeal strictly to the natural law jurisdiction and the inheritance of natural political rights by blood (father) because that is what Article II is telling you. I hope this helps you to understand. This might also help you to understand why the Courts lack proper jurisdiction to determine this issue because it is already settled by appealing to the natural law jurisdiction which is outside of the jurisdiction of the courts to determine because Article II places the jurisdiction outside of Congress or the Courts. By appealing to the courts in the way you have, you are essentially asking the courts for an advisory opinion on the meaning and interpretation of Article II and the meaning is already clear and defined and not within the power of the courts to determine. This is now a political situation and not appropriate for the courts to get involved in. Hence, all the rulings that we lack standing. The proper use of the courts would be to empower a citizen as a special prosecutor to bring a criminal complaint and arrest warrant and just arrest the President since the FBI and Justice departments and Congress obviously lack the political will to enforce the laws and they have abrogated their responsibility. Then the courts would have proper jurisdiction to act.Jedi Pauly says:Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 4:34 PMAlso, you don’t understand the use of the term “Theory”. A scientific “Theory” IS A FACT. Ever hear of the “Theory” of gravity or any other such scientific “Theory”. They are facts just like my scientific theory of the true meaning of Article II “natural born Citizen”. This is why you and many others can not comprehend the simple and obvious meaning of Article II. You are lacking in science skills. You falsely believe that a “theory” means supposition and it does not mean supposition in the world of science. Law is a science not supposition.

    I just don’t know what to say about the levels of stupid spewed by Jedi Pauly. How do you respond to someone who doesn’t have the first clue about what they’re talking about?

  156. avatar
    Greg November 18, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    charo: It was not that the issues were the same, but the application of the FF&C Clause.

    The article doesn’t suggest that courts have ever said that birth certificates were not records. It states that there might be a difference between accepting the BC as evidence versus accepting it as a statement of a legal conclusion. Let me quote the article again:

    The error is to treat the Clause as requiring a forum state to merely admit into evidence a sister state’s action (regardless of its form), when in fact the Clause requires the forum state to give the action its full legal effect.

    If a state passed a law saying that COLBs were not admissible, that would violate BOTH meanings of FF&C – evidence AND legal conclusion. At a minimum, FF&C requires that states admit (as Kansas did) the birth certificates as evidence.

    And, as I explained above, if the COLB comes into evidence, the case is over, since it is uncontroverted. See my citation of Liacakos above.

  157. avatar
    Chris November 18, 2010 at 7:19 pm #

    OT, BREAKING NEWS;

    The New Jersey Supreme Court has just ruled that recall of U.S. Senators by voters of a state is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, The Court cited the Third Circuit’s opinion in Kerchner v. Obama in its opinion.

    http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A86Menendez.pdf

  158. avatar
    Rickey November 18, 2010 at 7:37 pm #

    Chris: OT, BREAKING NEWS;The New Jersey Supreme Court has just ruled that recall of U.S. Senators by voters of a state is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution,The Court cited the Third Circuit’s opinion in Kerchner v. Obama in its opinion.http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A86Menendez.pdf

    That’s an interesting decision. The Kerchner citation has to do with the fact that the right to petition the government does not require the government to respond to the petition, which we have discussed here in the past.

  159. avatar
    John Reilly November 18, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    For a relatively recent discussion of stare decisis see the dissent in LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v.PSKS, INC. (2007) In 1912, the Supreme Court said that resale price maintenance was per se unlawful under the antitrust laws. In Leegin, the majority changed that rule to a rule of reason test. Stare deciis is a judge-made rule that judges can undo. The Supreme Court is free, upon the issue in Wong Kim Ark working its way up again, to revisit its determination and change its mind. The most likely route is when some state denies President Obama a place on the ballot because it refuses to recognize him as a natural born citizen eligible to run for President. After a District Court grants an injunction barring such state from meddling in a federal election, the pressure upon a Republican attorney general to appeal will be great. I doubt the Supreme Court will grant expedited cert to hear the issue, but I’ve been surprised before
    when the Supreme Court stopped the ballot count in Florida.

  160. avatar
    charo November 18, 2010 at 8:04 pm #

    Greg:
    The article doesn’t suggest that courts have ever said that birth certificates were not records. It states that there might be a difference between accepting the BC as evidence versus accepting it as a statement of a legal conclusion. Let me quote the article again:If a state passed a law saying that COLBs were not admissible, that would violate BOTH meanings of FF&C – evidence AND legal conclusion. At a minimum, FF&C requires that states admit (as Kansas did) the birth certificates as evidence.
    And, as I explained above, if the COLB comes into evidence, the case is over, since it is uncontroverted. See my citation of Liacakos above.

    Greg,

    I am not advocating that the birth certificate is not a record. Additionally, you are quoting the author’s conclusions which I explained at the outset would come down on the side of the COLB being honored by the FF&C Clause. The article shows there is at least one decision where the FF&C Clause, according to the commenter’s analysis, was used in an unintended way. The court found that policy could override what would normally occur in a case where a birth certificate was submitted by another state.

    I asked what would happen if a state law passed requiring a so called long form as eligibility proof. The state is allowed to set the parameters, unless I have that wrong. Only a few states have even broached the topic and so far, only one has proposed legislation that specifically rules out the standard COLB as sufficient. There is no precedent that a COLB is sufficient for presidential eligibility and therefore unable to be rejected under the FF&C Clause because there has been no requirement. The only possible reason I can see alleged for the COLB not being sufficient proof on its own is that the “long form” is more reliable in some way, although I don’t see how. Two of the pieces of information needed to prove eligibility are birth date and place of birth. I don’t know what the suggestion is to prove residency.

  161. avatar
    John Reilly November 18, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    The birth certificate is evidence, only. A state is free to say that in order to obtain a driver’s license one must produce a birth certificate, and specify the conditions. The fourteenth amendment would prevent a state from discriminating between its citizens and the citizens of another state. However, whatever evidence is presented is subject to challenge that it is forged, not certified, illegible, etc. It a court proceeding, the COLB would also only be evidence. The trier of fact is not bound by it if there is contrary evidence, or if it is impeached. However, the trier of fact must have some evidence, and if the only evidence is the COLB, and it is not impeached in any way, the trier of fact will be stuck with it, and a jury verdict the other way will be subject to a JNOV; or be reviewable on appeal for lack of “substantial” evidence.

  162. avatar
    John Reilly November 18, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    Whether a candidate for federal office is qualified is, however, another matter. There is ample case law that the states may not add or subtract to the qualifications set by the Constitution. As some of the birther case decisions have noted, the electoral college and the Congress are the sole judges of whether someone is 35, or a citizen, etc. One decision suggested that the Courts might have the power to do something in this area after the electoral college and Congress acted, or did not act, but I think that unlikely. Moreover, the election for President and Vice-President is different, as they do not actually stand for election. Electors are chosen, as each state determines. I presume the states can determine that electors must be 18 years old and citizens or some such requirements. But what is on the ballot in each state are electors pledged (sort of) to a particular person.

  163. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 18, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    John Reilly: There is ample case law that the states may not add or subtract to the qualifications set by the Constitution. As some of the birther case decisions have noted, the electoral college and the Congress are the sole judges of whether someone is 35, or a citizen, etc.

    But there is also precedent of a state refusing ballot position to ineligible candidates for President (Hawaii and California for Eldridge Cleaver). The process by which a candidate gets on the ballot is very much a matter of state law. The California Court of Appeals said recently in Keyes v Bowen:

    The aforementioned statutes do not impose a clear, present, or ministerial duty on the Secretary of State to determine whether the presidential candidate meets the eligibility criteria of the United States Constitution. Section 6041 gives the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot, but she has no such discretion for the general election ballot, which is governed by section 6901. With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates.

    States now require certain certifications of presidential candidates, and I do not see how it is all that different to make a birth certificate just another kind of a certification.

    Finally, I note that presidential candidates, not electors, appear on the ballots in some states (e.g. South Carolina) and that several states (e.g. California) have laws requiring the electors to cast their ballots according to the popular vote.

  164. avatar
    GeorgetownJD November 18, 2010 at 9:26 pm #

    Black Lion: More nonsense by the loon Jedi Pauly…http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/16/the-educational-value-of-reverse-psychology-satire-and-sarcasm/comment-page-1/#comment-31433His article is full of the usual nonsense that I had posted the link to yesterday.However the comments are kind of interesting…Kingskid says:
    Wednesday, November 17, 2010 at 11:35 AM
    I have either read or skimmed some of your articles here, and, for one, am not impressed with your attempt to obfuscate the NBC issue. Obviously, you are not an attorney, and have no doubt that if you presented your arguments to be adjudicated by a competent and Constitutional judge, you’d be laughed out of court. I’m just not impressed by your education or other presumed accomplishments, and think your arguments here at TPE are suspect. It is you who does not get this NBC issue.

    Wow. When wacko birther Katheen Gotto (“kingskid”) calls you nuts, Jedi Pauly, you really are frickin nuts.

  165. avatar
    John Reilly November 18, 2010 at 9:29 pm #

    While ineligible candidates have been excluded, there is not any developed case law about that process. If Mr. Cleaver had sued, for example, and worked his way up through the system, a court might well have said, “you’re 34, and ineligible, so there is no case or controversy to be decided.” Or, perhaps, a court would leave him on the ballot, since there is no prohibition against voting for an ineligible candidate. And if people want to cast their votes foolishly for someone who cannot serve, they will do so. There is a fair amount of case law about Governor Wallace getting on the ballot in 1968 in the face of insurmountable state requirements.

    Presidential candiates appear on the ballot in all states. In some, it says “electors pledged to CANDIDATE.” That does not change that the secretary of state certifies which electors have been chosen.

    Some states have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Occassionally, there is a faithless elector, who goes his or her own way. There is not much one can do about it before Congress tallies the votes, and I have not heard of any faithless elector who has suffered worse that ostracism from his political party. Since the Constitution envisions the electors as wise men making the best choice, I’m not sure a law requiring an elector to vote for the pledged candidate is constitutional.

    The political parties certify who is to be on the ballot when a candidate is chosen other than by a state-run process, such as a primiary; for example, by convention. I suppose a state could require a birth certificate, so long as the required birth certificate was not different from what the state typically requires for, say, driver’s licenses or voting registration. Once the state begins to interpret that certificate, or requires different levels of proof for different applications, we start down the slippery slope of the state creating its own rules for federal elective office. A state might require the production of school transcripts, to prove that a candidate never said that he was of a different nationality. Some folks on the birther side support that. I think a court will throw such a requirement out in a heartbeat.

    And what will we do when a candidate has no birth certificate, or his birth certificate or other evidence shows birth in Panama (Senator McCain), Mexico (Governor Romney) or other locations where the certificate, by itself, does not show natural born citizen status? What will we do when records surface that Governor Palin’s mother claimed Canadian citizenship to obtain free Canadian health care?

  166. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 18, 2010 at 9:33 pm #

    JoZeppy: A birth certificate is probably one of the most basic government documents issued by a state. In order to argue that a state should not give it full faith and credit, you better have a VERY good reason.

    Of course the birthers have argued (falsely) that Hawaiian birth certificates are fundamentally different from the birth certificates from other states in that “anyone” can get one, no matter where they were born. Many, if not all, states issue birth certificates for foreign born adoptions and out of state births for residents; however, the certificates in all cases state the true place of birth. Hawaii is not different in that respect.

  167. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 18, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    JoZeppy: I just don’t know what to say about the levels of stupid spewed by Jedi Pauly. How do you respond to someone who doesn’t have the first clue about what they’re talking about?

    Pauly has yet to admit that all nouns in the Constitution are capitalized, insisting that the capitalization of “Citizen” has special meaning.

  168. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 18, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    John Reilly: While ineligible candidates have been excluded, there is not any developed case law about that process. If Mr. Cleaver had sued, for example, and worked his way up through the system, a court might well have said, “you’re 34, and ineligible, so there is no case or controversy to be decided.”

    Cleaver sued in Hawaii and lost an appeal in the Supreme Court of Hawaii.

  169. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 18, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    John Reilly: And what will we do when a candidate has no birth certificate, or his birth certificate or other evidence shows birth in Panama (Senator McCain), Mexico (Governor Romney) or other locations where the certificate, by itself, does not show natural born citizen status? What will we do when records surface that Governor Palin’s mother claimed Canadian citizenship to obtain free Canadian health care?

    I would think that most anyone could get a birth certificate. My father’s birth wasn’t registered until he was an adult. Delayed certificates such as this are less common nowadays, but still obtainable. Even McCain’s certificate from the Panama Canal Zone would have included his U. S. citizen parents, upon which rests his claim of being a natural born citizen (or perhaps the status of the Canal Zone).

    No birth certificate in isolation shows that someone is a natural born citizen, since it doesn’t say whether the person’s family had diplomatic immunity.

  170. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 18, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    charo: It seems to provide some with a great deal of personal satisfaction to have an outlet for anger.

    I think “frustration” is the more apt term.

  171. avatar
    Sef November 19, 2010 at 12:42 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Pauly has yet to admit that all nouns in the Constitution are capitalized, insisting that the capitalization of “Citizen” has special meaning.

    Careful. Next they’ll be saying that this is evidence of dependence on de Vattel since he was Prussian & the German language capitalizes nouns.

  172. avatar
    The Magic M November 19, 2010 at 5:45 am #

    > Delayed certificates such as this are less common nowadays, but still obtainable.

    But as we all know, in birtherworld this is very much OK, unless the candidate in question is a Democrat or not white.

  173. avatar
    Joey November 19, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think “frustration” is the more apt term.

    I guess Charo hasn’t visited any of the pro-birther web sites to experience the anger/frustration that is there for anyone posting opposing views to “Obama is ineligible” dogma.
    The nature of internet bulliten boards as a medium tends to heighten emotion due to anonymity and the passion that posters have for the issues under discussion.

  174. avatar
    AnotherBird November 19, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    charo:
    Uh, I think I said about four times above why McCain didn’t want the issue explored.As for Clinton, I don’t believe she thought she was going to lose.The Obama campaign caught fire so quickly that it caught her by surprise.Also racism charges had to be a concern.But that is just my opinion.

    Huh. It would have been easier for her to have him removed from the ballot if he wasn’t a natural born citizen. The issue being pushed by birthers isn’t a minor technicality. It isn’t a minor violation of the rules.

    Huh. The 2008 election campaigned did have some attack ads against Obamo. I do remember that late night telephone call. So it is hard to understand the comment ” I don’t believe she thought she was going to lose.”

    You forgot, that McCain could have just been satisfied with Clinton’s position.

    So, are you suggestion that McCain and Clinton were confidence in that Obama is a natural born citizen, is the reason that they didn’t check?

  175. avatar
    jvn November 19, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    I wanted to point out that some far gone birfers take the statement on the bottom of the form (i.e., “this serves a prima facie proof of birth unless otherwise rebutted”) to mean that this is some how a “lesser” proof of birth because it is a COLB rather than a BC.

  176. avatar
    Daniel November 19, 2010 at 11:45 pm #

    charo: Uh, I think I said about four times above why McCain didn’t want the issue explored.

    McCain didn’t want the issue “explored” because he didn’t want to look like a moron in public.

    Too bad Birthers wouldn’t take a cue from him.

  177. avatar
    charo November 20, 2010 at 8:58 am #

    Daniel: Too bad Birthers wouldn’t take a cue from him.

    But by looking into it at all, doesn’t that make McCain a borderline racist? The fact that Obama sought the presidency proved his eligibility, didn’t it? He was known to be a constitutional lawyer so he would not have run at all if he didn’t believe he were eligible. Shame on McCain for PUBLICLY admitting that he “looked into it.” (And if I were you, I would not use analogies that involve observing kindergarten children at recess. It could lead to an unpleasant conspiracy theory for the observer.)

    AnotherBird: So, are you suggestion that McCain and Clinton were confidence in that Obama is a natural born citizen, is the reason that they didn’t check?

    No, I am saying that McCain did not seem all that confident that he would be deemed eligible. Unless he said something more than the statement below through his representative (from the link gorefan provided above), “IMO”* he had some concern about that whole eligibility thing.

    “The McCain campaign faced a series of lawsuits like this, too, alleging that he could not be president because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Both campaigns took the position that these plaintiffs lacked standing.”

    *(I am not the spokesperson for Birthers United or any of its affiliates)

  178. avatar
    charo November 20, 2010 at 9:07 am #

    Actually, I’ll put this novel conspiracy theory forward. McCain planted the newspaper announcements so that he could point to them and say “See? Proof! Nothing to see here. My friend is eligible. I am eligible. Everyone is eligible. Move on.”

    (for the obtuse, this is a spoof.)

  179. avatar
    Majority Will November 20, 2010 at 10:09 am #

    charo: Actually, I’ll put this novel conspiracy theory forward.McCain planted the newspaper announcements so that he could point to them and say “See?Proof!Nothing to see here.My friend is eligible.I am eligible.Everyone is eligible.Move on.”(for the obtuse, this is a spoof.)

    That was actually pretty funny.

    Now watch it show up on the front page of the Post & E-Mail site.

  180. avatar
    Joey November 20, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    For the record, major party presidential campaigns look into every possible issue that could prove an embarrassment or a weakness for their opponents.
    It was the campaign of Federalist candidate John Adams that looked into the possiblity of a sexual relationship between Democrat-Republican Thomas Jefferson and his slave, Sally Hemings.
    “Swift-boating” did not begin with John Kerry.

  181. avatar
    Daniel November 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    charo: And if I were you, I would not use analogies that involve observing kindergarten children at recess. It could lead to an unpleasant conspiracy theory for the observer.

    You people can pull a whacko conspiracy theory from anything, con’t you.

    Your comment just goes to show that your judgement is seriously flawed, and you have issues with paranoia, which is not really a syurprise.

    I have three children, so my observations of schoolground behaviour are quite appropriate, despite your no so thinly veiled attempts to suggest something so disgusting that you are very lucky you had not said it to my face.

  182. avatar
    charo November 20, 2010 at 5:58 pm #

    Daniel:
    You people can pull a whacko conspiracy theory from anything, con’t you.Your comment just goes to show that your judgement is seriously flawed, and you have issues with paranoia, which is not really a syurprise.I have three children, so my observations of schoolground behaviour are quite appropriate, despite your no so thinly veiled attempts to suggest something so disgusting that you are very lucky you had not said it to my face.

    Get over yourself. It wasn’t meant to be serious, and you know it. Besides, your comment was asking for reprisal, and you also knew that when you wrote it. Classic case of dish it out but can’t take it.

  183. avatar
    Daniel November 20, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    charo: Get over yourself.It wasn’t meant to be serious, and you know it.Besides, your comment was asking for reprisal, and you also knew that when you wrote it. Classic case of dish it out but can’t take it.

    If you think intimating child sexual abuse is the same thing as pointing out the very real stupidity and willful ignorance of birthers, then you are more stupid and much more dangerous than I thought.

    It’s bad enough that you slander the duly elected President, and that you somehow think yourself smarter than every legal expert in the country, when faces with an analysis of your ridiculous delusions and behaviour, you resort to calling someone a pedophile.

    I’ve come to realize there is very little depth that most birthers won’t sink to, but you’ve pretty much sunk as low as can be. You disgust me. I hope for your sake you’re smart enough not to call a family man and father of children a pedophile to his face.

    I do hope that someday you will be forced to take resposibility for your words, as any adult would expect to. I highly doubt the idea of taking an adult’s responsibility has ever crossed your mind.

  184. avatar
    charo November 20, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    Daniel:
    If you think intimating child sexual abuse is the same thing as pointing out the very real stupidity and willful ignorance of birthers, then you are more stupid and much more dangerous than Ithought.It’s bad enough that you slander the duly elected President, and that you somehow think yourself smarter than every legal expert in the country, when faces with an analysis of your ridiculous delusions and behaviour, you resort to calling someone a pedophile.I’ve come to realize there is very little depth that most birthers won’t sink to, but you’ve pretty much sunk as low as can be. You disgust me. I hope for your sake you’re smart enough not to call a family man and father of children a pedophile to his face.I do hope that someday you will be forced to take resposibility for your words, as any adult would expect to. I highly doubt the idea of taking an adult’s responsibility has ever crossed your mind.

    YOU are guilty of needling. I called you a pedophile because I said you shouldn’t use analogies of watching playgrounds because it could lead to an unpleasant conspiracy theory? That means I claimed you are guilty of child abuse? Where did you say you were a family man in your picking on the kindergartner story anyways? You set yourself up for a snide comment. Where did I claim to know more than anyone? I said IMO. Are you aware of what IMO means?

    This is on the fast track to the great m-i-l dumpster.

  185. avatar
    charo November 20, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    Daniel: I highly doubt the idea of taking an adult’s responsibility has ever crossed your mind.

    I push back, hard and sarcastically sometimes, when I see a needler like you. But, I will do for the second time on this blog something that is difficult for many:

    I apologize to you Daniel.

    Here is my first apology to show my humility and that I am not a liar:

    ***
    Majority Will July 8, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    charo:
    The Jonestown reference was in poor taste.I apologize.

    Thank you.
    ***

  186. avatar
    charo November 20, 2010 at 9:18 pm #

    Doc,

    What happened to my apology?

  187. avatar
    charo November 21, 2010 at 12:21 am #

    Just delete my comment that was held up. Thanks.

  188. avatar
    charo November 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    Daniel,

    I sincerely apologize for my comment.

    charo

  189. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 21, 2010 at 7:22 pm #

    charo: Doc,

    What happened to my apology?

    It was hung up in the spam filter. The spam filter is an external service that works in mysterious ways, usually to the good, but not without the occasional error.