Main Menu

Judge goes literary, dismissing Strunk suit

I met Mr. Strunk in Atlanta and he struck me someone who is very much bound up in conspiratorial thinking, and my impression was that he was wound up way too tight. The decision from Judge Arthur Schack in Kings County New York in the case of Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections (and many others) is not going to help Strunk’s confidence in the legal system. Waxing literary, Judge Schack aptly wrote:

If the complaint in this action was a movie script, it would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Code.

The latter part of that description comes from the Vatican’s inclusion in the vast conspiracy network alleged in the suit. The Manchurian Candidate movie is discussed  in the “Decision and Order” (the original version with Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury is a great film by the way). The full text of the “Decision and Order” is embedded at the bottom of this article, so I won’t quote extensively what you can read for yourself. Suffice it to say that Judge Schack was not at all kind or sympathetic towards Mr. Strunk: “frivolous” is one of the nicer descriptive terms.

Just a few things warrant special attention. First, Judge Schack specifically rejected Strunk’s two US born parent theory of presidential eligibility. The Judge wrote:

Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil.

The second is that the Court has ordered that Strunk be barred from filing further lawsuits against the defendants in New York without leave of the court, and that he may be liable for the defendants’ costs (hearing next week).

The third item of interest is the Judge’s opinion that courts have no business hearing cases about presidential eligibility, writing:

If a state court were to involve itself in the eligibility of a candidate to hold the office of President, a determination reserved for the Electoral College and Congress, it may involve itself in national political matters for which it is institutionally ill-suited and interfere with the constitutional authority of the Electoral College and Congress. Accordingly, the political question doctrine instructs this Court and other courts to refrain from superseding the judgments of the nation’s voters and those federal government entities the Constitution designates as the proper forums to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates.

Here is the Decision and Order:

NY 2012-04-11 Strunk v NYBOE Et Al Decision and Order

Strunk has filed a response.

, , , , , ,

69 Responses to Judge goes literary, dismissing Strunk suit

  1. avatar
    mimi May 4, 2012 at 12:22 am #

    Strunk filed his reply. Or at least he indicates he did on his scribd document.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/92290786/Strunk-Aff-Response-to-4-11-12-Decision-and-OSC-NYSSC-Index-6500-2011

    The Court will be pleased. /s

  2. avatar
    Rickey May 4, 2012 at 12:32 am #

    Poor Chris. Six months ago he was convinced that Judge Schack was about to grant him discovery. Now his career as a vexatious litigant appears to be coming to a close.

  3. avatar
    gorefan May 4, 2012 at 1:11 am #

    mimi: Strunk filed his reply

    I must confess I never thought I would ever see the following sentence in a Presidential eligiblity lawsuit:

    “Then in 68 Nero was assassinated by his own slave Epaphroditus”

  4. avatar
    Keith May 4, 2012 at 1:41 am #

    mimi:
    Strunk filed his reply.Or at least he indicates he did on his scribd document.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/92290786/Strunk-Aff-Response-to-4-11-12-Decision-and-OSC-NYSSC-Index-6500-2011

    The Court will be pleased./s

    Sorry, I gave up half way through point 1 on page 2. Is that word salad supposed to be English?

  5. avatar
    Lupin May 4, 2012 at 2:18 am #

    “A Daniel is come to judgment! O wise judge, how I do honor you!”

    If only Orly could be similarly barred from filing her insane suits.

  6. avatar
    KDLarsen May 4, 2012 at 6:06 am #

    Keith: Sorry, I gave up half way through point 1 on page 2. Is that word salad supposed to be English?

    Sadly, Chris is one of those who believe in ‘magic words’, hence how he spells his name, he believes it makes him fiction, and thus.. somrthing or other, I dunno (You can read up on the idea here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/spring/full-colon-miller )

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2012 at 7:04 am #

    I had to learn a new word just for this; “prolix.”

    Keith: Sorry, I gave up half way through point 1 on page 2. Is that word salad supposed to be English?

  8. avatar
    Horus May 4, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    KDLarsen: Sadly, Chris is one of those who believe in magic words’, hence how he spells his name, he believes it makes him fiction, and thus.. somrthing or other, I dunno (You can read up on the idea here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/spring/full-colon-miller )

    Reminds me of that Damon Wayans character on In Living Color, who would just make up big words in an attempt to sound smart and important.

  9. avatar
    Horus May 4, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    “Accordingly, the political question doctrine instructs this Court and other courts to refrain from superseding the judgments of the nation’s voters and those federal government entities the Constitution designates as the proper forums to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates.”

    That is the part that the birthers like to forget, that 70 Million people voted for Obama.

  10. avatar
    Rickey May 4, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    Over the years Strunk has filed at least 13 lawsuits in New York Supreme Court, all of them pro se. He has even represented himself in a personal injury lawsuit and in a property damage lawsuit. He seemingly always files In forma pauperis so he doesn’t have to pay filing fees.

    He also represented himself in a failed SCOTUS appeal.

  11. avatar
    Majority Will May 4, 2012 at 11:40 am #

    Horus:
    “Accordingly, the political question doctrine instructs this Court and other courts to refrain from superseding the judgments of the nation’s voters and those federal government entities the Constitution designates as the proper forums to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates.”

    That is the part that the birthers like to forget, that 70 Million people voted for Obama.

    The truth is far too frightening and painful for birther bigots. Facing the truth would cause their little world of racial purity and religious bigotry to crumble.

  12. avatar
    Horus May 4, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    “plaintiff STRUNI( alleges, in
    ~
    129
    of
    the cOinplaint, that he:
    is
    the only person in the USA to have duly
    fired fired fired
    BHO [PresidentOBAMA] on January 23, 2009 by registered lnail (rendering BHO the
    USURPER
    as Plaintiff
    is
    entitled to characterize BHO as) on the groundsthat he had not proven hilnself eligible

    and all acts by the usurper arevoid
    ab
    initio -a serious probleln
    !
    [sic]”

    Ha!

  13. avatar
    clestes May 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    Strunk is not allowed to file any more lawsuits in the state of New York? No matter what the cause?

  14. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    clestes: Strunk is not allowed to file any more lawsuits in the state of New York? No matter what the cause?

    Not without leave of the Court and only against an ever growing number of people.

    The Court is concerned that plaintiff STRUNK continues to use the scarce resources of the New York State Unified Court System to fruitlessly pursue the same claims. He is no stranger to litigation in Supreme Court, Kings County, Civil Term. Further, plaintiff STRUNK has had several bites of the same apple in U.S. District Court, which resulted in findings of his engagement in frivolous conduct with, as stated by Judge Ross, complaints that “have contained allegations that have risen to the irrational.” The Court should not have to expend resources on the next action by Mr. STRUNK that will be a new variation on the same theme of defendants’ alleged misdeeds and misconduct. The continued use of the New York State Unified Court System for the personal pursuit by plaintiff STRUNK of irrational complaints against defendants must cease.

    and

    Therefore, plaintiff STRUNK, with his history of abusing the civil justice system, by bringing pro se actions devoid of merit against the same defendants, is precluded from relitigating the same claims and issues which waste court resources and is enjoined from bringing any future actions in the New York State Unified Court System against: the NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES A. WALSH/ Co-Chair, DOUGLAS A. KELLNER/Co-Chair, EVELYN J. AQUILA/Commissioner, GREGORY P. PETERSON/Commissioner, Deputy Director TODD D. VALENTINE, and Deputy
    Director STANLY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO, ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI and RUTH NOEMI COLON, in their Official and individual capacity;
    Father JOSEPH A. O’HARE, S.J.; Father JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A. 0.
    SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; BARACK H. OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI; the DEOMCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
    the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK
    STATE; ROGER CALERO; the SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; the NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; the NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; the STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA; OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; and MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; without the prior approval of the appropriate Administrative Justice or Judge.

  15. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

    The truly classic exchange

    THE COURT: You’re saying he should have challenged Mr.
Obama’s presidency?

    MR. STRUNK: Absolutely, and the ballot. The onus is on me
because he violated his agreement with me. You can’t challenge the eligibility
    until he’s up to be sworn. McCain, since everybody in Congress, since they didn’t want to know about anything, so it was my responsibility. I fired him by registered mail within 72 hours.

    THE COURT: I saw your letter that you fired the President.
I guess he didn’t agree with you because he’s still there.

    ROTFL…

  16. avatar
    Michael Heuss May 4, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

    The man is obviously not mentally well. My heart goes out to his loved ones – it must truly be a constant trial caring for one so deluded.

  17. avatar
    Majority Will May 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    Michael Heuss:
    The man is obviously not mentally well. My heart goes out to his loved ones – it must truly be a constant trial caring for one so deluded.

    These idiotic suits are a public nuisance. This is no different than prisoners attempting to clog the system with amateur legal b.s.

  18. avatar
    Majority Will May 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    Michael Heuss:
    The man is obviously not mentally well. My heart goes out to his loved ones – it must truly be a constant trial caring for one so deluded.

    Laura Bush can sympathize.

  19. avatar
    Arthur May 4, 2012 at 2:44 pm #

    Majority Will: Laura Bush can sympathize.

    And Orly’s husband?

  20. avatar
    clestes May 4, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

    nbc, well it is a pity that the same cannot be done to Orly because she is just as much a legal nuisance as STRUNK.

    Actually, if I understand it right, she is licensed only in CA, so her law license can and should be revoked in CA and that would certainly slow her down.

    How can it be that she is filing all these suits in states all the way from HI to MS? Doesn’t she have to ask that state’s board of law if she may practice in their state is she isn’t licensed there??

    Is that why she keeps filing pro ad hoc (or whatever) so that she can get around that? If that is so, and I’m willing to bet it is, isn’t there something to be done to stop her from clogging the legal system.

    I am not suggesting that she be shut up. That would only give her fuel for her paranoia, but she has already been sanctioned by a GA judge, the HI AG wants her labeled a “frivolous Litigant ” so she can’t file anymore BS suits in HI.

    Can’t she be labeled a “national frivolous Litigant”??

  21. avatar
    Majority Will May 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Arthur: And Orly’s husband?

    Yosef must be taking Xanax by the fistful.

  22. avatar
    Jim F May 4, 2012 at 3:15 pm #

    I skimmed the reply to the court and I believe that I can see it all clearly now. Strunk wants the court to conclude that he is insane and therefore should not be made to pay costs.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    One only needs a license to represent someone else. Anyone can represent himself (called “pro se”), and that is what Orly Taitz has done in some of the cases, in particular Mississippi. In some cases she’s petitioned the court for a one-time admission for a particular case, a practice called “pro hac vice” (pronounced “WEE chay”); this is what she did before judge Malihi in Georgia, and what the Fulton County GA Superior Court refused to allow.

    Many birther plaintiffs represent themselves, for example, Mr. Strunk and Mr. Collette.

    The courts have tools to protect themselves and potential defendants from abusive litigators including sanctions, the imposition of costs and in some cases ordering that the person cannot file further lawsuits without the court’s permission (although this only works for the jurisdiction where the order is issued). Andy Martin had such an order against him, and Mr. Strunk does now.

    clestes: How can it be that she is filing all these suits in states all the way from HI to MS? Doesn’t she have to ask that state’s board of law if she may practice in their state is she isn’t licensed there??

    Is that why she keeps filing pro ad hoc (or whatever) so that she can get around that? If that is so, and I’m willing to bet it is, isn’t there something to be done to stop her from clogging the legal system.

  24. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: One only needs a license to represent someone else. Anyone can represent himself (called “pro se”), and that is what Orly Taitz has done in some of the cases, in particular Mississippi.

    The problem is that Orly has ‘added plaintiffs’ to her MS complaint but the plaintiffs seldomly appear on forms co-signing motions etc and appear to be minimally involved in the case. Begley, the attorney in this case, has sent a letter asking the plantiffs if they either want to be come full participants in the case.

    Should you decide to proceed as a party you will be required to respond to motions and discovery, appear at hearings and depositions, and be liable for frivolous filings.

    Orly, in the mean time, has been filing notices, unsigned by her co-plaintiffs… This is going to be sooooo much fun.

  25. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

    And really, without Orly there would be little entertainment left in the foolish birther movement…

  26. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 4, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    My favorite phrase: when the Judge described Strunk’s pile o’ poo as

    “a lengthy, vitriolic, baseless diatribe…”

    Perfect.

  27. avatar
    sfjeff May 4, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    Wow…I skimmed Strunks reply and just wow…..

    The parts about Christianity and the fall of Rome…..just wow…

  28. avatar
    mimi May 4, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    h/t realist: Chris Strunk posted a comment at his scribd account:

    ” It is confirmed by an opposing attorney that Judge Arthur M. Schack’s sua sponte Order to Show cause hearing scheduled for Monday May 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM in courtroom 479 of the NYS Supreme Court for the County of Kings located at 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York is on and Plaintiff will show video clips of Obama admitting to his Islamic Faith as just one matter of several to be sanctioned for..”

    Also, nbc dug up the old document where Chris ‘fired’ POTUS:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22229899/BHO-Offer-of-Contract-Returned-and-Redrafted-by-Strunk-served-on-012309

    I’d feel bad about his upcoming hearing, but I think he’s a real dirtbag.

    I hope the Court rips him to shreds.

  29. avatar
    brygenon May 4, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I had to learn a new word just for this; “prolix.”

    You forgot?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/government-will-move-to-dismiss-kerchner-case/

  30. avatar
    y_p_w May 4, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    clestes: nbc, well it is a pity that the same cannot be done to Orly because she is just as much a legal nuisance as STRUNK.
    Actually, if I understand it right, she is licensed only in CA, so her law license can and should be revoked in CA and that would certainly slow her down.

    That’s pro hac vice. It’s not simply the case that it applies to people who graduated from unaccredited correspondence law schools like Orly, but anyone who isn’t normally licensed to practice law in a state. Several of the attorneys defending O.J. Simpson weren’t admitted to the California Bar and I’m pretty sure it was a mere formality to get them admitted pro hac vice with so many attorneys on the team that were licensed in good standing.

    Orly has a history, and I’m thinking that some judges might not be amenable to allow her for certain cases.

  31. avatar
    Rickey May 4, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

    mimi:

    ” It is confirmed by an opposing attorney that Judge Arthur M. Schack’s sua sponte Order to Show cause hearing scheduled for Monday May 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM in courtroom 479 of the NYS Supreme Court for the County of Kings located at 360 Adams Street Brooklyn New York is on and Plaintiff will show video clips of Obama admitting to his Islamic Faith as just one matter of several to be sanctioned for..”

    I wish I were going to be in Brooklyn on Monday. That will be an entertaining hearing, I’m sure. I’d like to hear Strunk’s response when Judge Schack asks him what relevance Obama’s religion has to do with his eligibility to be President.

  32. avatar
    Keith May 4, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I had to learn a new word just for this; “prolix.”

    Are you sure that shouldn’t be “prolapse”?

  33. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2012 at 8:59 pm #

    Rickey: I wish I were going to be in Brooklyn on Monday. That will be an entertaining hearing, I’m sure. I’d like to hear Strunk’s response when Judge Schack asks him what relevance Obama’s religion has to do with his eligibility to be President.

    Strunk will remain unimpressed. Previous defeats in court have not caused him to go away. He is on social security and bored. Too bad that he places such a burden on our tax paid legal system

  34. avatar
    Joe Acerbic May 5, 2012 at 6:20 am #

    Rickey: Poor Chris. Six months ago he was convinced that Judge Schack was about to grant him discovery.

    “THEY” GOT TO THE JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!

  35. avatar
    Majority Will May 5, 2012 at 6:44 am #

    Joe Acerbic: “THEY” GOT TO THE JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!

    An albino monk in a black hoodie was seen scurrying from the courthouse.

  36. avatar
    Sam the Centipede May 5, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    nbc:

    clestes: Strunk is not allowed to file any more lawsuits in the state of New York? No matter what the cause?

    Not without leave of the Court and only against an ever growing number of people.

    I think in the English court system, a litigant can be declared vexatious and hence barred from starting any action without prior permission, regardless of who their next victim is. It seems a shame that Strunk can’t be similarly barred by the NY system, rather than allowing him to hunt out new victims to torment.

    Clearly the principle of open access to justice is a good one, that should be cherished, and it is reasonable to say that this will mean some silly complaints get into the system, but this is a price that must be paid.

    But are there many similar precedents for this onslaught by the birfoons on state and federal court systems? Have there been other situations where sensible people are thinking “the idiots have had their day out and been allowed to say their piece and make their stupid arguments, now the courts and defendants ought to be protected”?

    Perhaps it’s partly the fault of the courts (and perhaps defendants) in just trying to get the screech of Taitz out of their courtrooms as quickly as possible, so they’re not asking for sanctions or vexatious litigant status? Why not a few more effective smackdowns by judges rather than patience followed by a gentle snark in the judgement which will undoubtedly go over the heads of the birfoons?

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    I believe that he could have been so barred, but the Court didn’t decide to go that far.

    Sam the Centipede: It seems a shame that Strunk can’t be similarly barred by the NY system, rather than allowing him to hunt out new victims to torment.

  38. avatar
    RuhRoh May 7, 2012 at 8:20 am #

    Apuzzo has posted on his blog a long piece in support of Strunk: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-york-state-court-should-not.html

  39. avatar
    Speak2Truth May 9, 2012 at 11:56 pm #

    This is just horrible.

    “There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil.”

    Um… that is a completely irrelevant statement. The LAW requires both parents to be CITIZENS and has for over 200 years. The place of the parents’ birth is not relevant.

    “If a state court were to involve itself in the eligibility of a candidate to hold the office of President, a determination reserved for the Electoral College and Congress, it may involve itself in national political matters for which it is institutionally ill-suited and interfere with the constitutional authority of the Electoral College and Congress.”

    The States delegated authority to the Federal Government via the US Constitution. True enough, the Senate is responsible for vetting and confirming the eligibility of the candidates and they did so when John McCain’s eligibility was questioned.

    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” – Senate Resolution 511

    However, the Democrat-controlled Senate blockaded efforts to vet and confirm Barack Obama’s eligibility. The DNC went so far as to provide him with lawyers to fight off anyone trying to get him vetted in Federal and State courts. Why go to all that trouble?

    Barack Obama’s Father was a British Subject, therefore he was not “born to American citizens”, which is the first of two legal requirements for Natural Born Citizen status.

    Court opinions on the definition are only somewhat useful, insofar as we compare them to the law to see whether a particular Judge is in compliance with the law. The US Congress wrote the definition of Natural Born Citizen into law just two years after the Constitution was ratified:

    “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens” – Naturalization Act 1790

    This was modified a few years later by

    “and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States” – 3rd Congress, 2nd Session

    With the exclusion of those born outside US Jurisdiction, what remains is best summed up as:

    “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” – Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment

    John McCain’s eligibility confirmation also notes that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone at a time when it was under US Sovereignty. So, born to parents who are both Citizens and under US Jurisdiction, McCain clearly passes the test.

    And now you know why Obama cannot. His Father was a British Subject. No matter where he as born, Obama cannot legally be President.

    So says the LAW.

  40. avatar
    gorefan May 10, 2012 at 12:28 am #

    Speak2Truth: So says the LAW

    Well not as it was understood by the founding generation.

    William Rawle:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “

    Zephaniah Swift:

    “The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

    James Madison:

    ‘”It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

  41. avatar
    JoZeppy May 10, 2012 at 1:26 am #

    Speak2Truth: Um… that is a completely irrelevant statement. The LAW requires both parents to be CITIZENS and has for over 200 years. The place of the parents’ birth is not relevant.

    Actually, no. There is no legal precident to support the notion that the citizenship of the parents matters in the least.

    Speak2Truth: The States delegated authority to the Federal Government via the US Constitution. True enough, the Senate is responsible for vetting and confirming the eligibility of the candidates and they did so when John McCain’s eligibility was questioned.

    Again, you would be wrong. The Senate did nothing of the sort. It merely passed a non-binding resolution. It vetted nothing.

    Speak2Truth: However, the Democrat-controlled Senate blockaded efforts to vet and confirm Barack Obama’s eligibility. The DNC went so far as to provide him with lawyers to fight off anyone trying to get him vetted in Federal and State courts. Why go to all that trouble?

    The Democratically controlled Senate has blockaded nothing. Please cite one thing that has been blocked by the Senate. You should be able to provide a bill number, reslution number, somethign. Nothing has been raised because there is no issue. And no, the DNC hasn’t provided him with lawyers. They provided their own lawyers because theywere sued by birthers…and guess what, they won every suit because the Constitution doesn’t permit the Court power to review the qualifications of the President.

    Speak2Truth: Barack Obama’s Father was a British Subject, therefore he was not “born to American citizens”, which is the first of two legal requirements for Natural Born Citizen status.

    Funny how every court disagrees with that statement. I’m guessing the Courts are right, and you happen to be wrong.

    Speak2Truth: Court opinions on the definition are only somewhat useful, insofar as we compare them to the law to see whether a particular Judge is in compliance with the law. The US Congress wrote the definition of Natural Born Citizen into law just two years after the Constitution was ratified:
    “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens” – Naturalization Act 1790

    Please note what you cited…”Naturalization Act.” Congress wasn’t defning NBC, it was expanding it’s definition. And just to point out how abjectly stupid your claim that it is a definition, you’ll note that it says “born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the” US. So are you claiming that if you’re born on US soil you can’t be a NBC? Do you even thing before you type?

    Your quote is irrelevant, because you understand neither the legal meaning of under the jurisdiction or allegiance. And no, when John McCain was born in Panama, it was not under US Sovereignty, and in fact, the statute making those born there to US parents wasn’t passed until after he was born, so if there is anyone who’s eligiblity is questionable it is Mr. McCain.

    Speak2Truth: And now you know why Obama cannot. His Father was a British Subject. No matter where he as born, Obama cannot legally be President.
    So says the LAW.

    No, so says a birther who wouldn’t know the law if it bit him on the back side. Every judge that has examined the question has called your claim frivolous and without support in the law. Again, I’ll take the word of a judge that has actually studied the law over some random nutter on the internet.

  42. avatar
    nbc May 10, 2012 at 2:42 am #

    Speak2Truth: Um… that is a completely irrelevant statement. The LAW requires both parents to be CITIZENS and has for over 200 years. The place of the parents’ birth is not relevant.

    No such law exists… In fact, the law has consistently found quite the opposite.

  43. avatar
    The Magic M May 10, 2012 at 6:17 am #

    Speak2Truth: True enough, the Senate is responsible for vetting and confirming the eligibility of the candidates

    So you agree the courts have no say in any of this? Good. 🙂

  44. avatar
    Lupin May 10, 2012 at 6:36 am #

    Speak2Truth: The LAW requires both parents to be CITIZENS and has for over 200 years.

    Is that the LAW as spoken by the voices inside your head? Because here on Planet earth, there’s no such thing.

  45. avatar
    Majority Will May 10, 2012 at 6:47 am #

    Speak2Truth: This is just horrible.

    Horrible? Ridiculous drivel from birthers is reprehensible.

    Ignorance of history and the law is no excuse.

  46. avatar
    Northland10 May 10, 2012 at 6:55 am #

    Speak2Truth: the Senate is responsible for vetting and confirming the eligibility of the candidates and they did so when John McCain’s eligibility was questioned.

    What is the official procedure for the supposed “vetting” Please show how it was used on every President for 200 years. Please give specific examples how it was different for President Obama. Note: a non-biding, mind of the house, resolution wold never be consider vetting. It is just showing their feelings on the subject for someone who was born outside of the United States.

    Since they already knew McCain was born outside the US and Obama’s father was from Kenya, there was nothing more to vet on the subject.

    Speak2Truth: The DNC went so far as to provide him with lawyers to fight off anyone trying to get him vetted in Federal and State courts. Why go to all that trouble?

    When a person is sued or group, they have to respond in court, preferably with a lawyer, or risk default. So says the LAW. Anyway, in many of the state cases, it was the various Democratic Party Committees that were being sued, not the President. Even when it is the President, it is the DNC’s candidate/nominee/process so they defend as a matter of course.

    Speak2Truth: However, the Democrat-controlled Senate blockaded efforts to vet and confirm Barack Obama’s eligibility.

    No Representative or Senator submitted a written objection at the time of the certification of the electoral college. There was nothing to blockade. Provide some proof.

    Speak2Truth: So says the LAW.

    Sorry, it does not, but please, feel free to list out the official steps of vetting as listed in the LAW and how the process was applied to every President prior to the current one. I recommend using the Constitution and the US Code which might be different from your LAW.

  47. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 10, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    Lupin: Speak2Truth: The LAW requires both parents to be CITIZENS and has for over 200 years.

    So why have there been six other Presidents who had at least one non-citizen parent?

    Yeesh. Morons: can’t live with ’em, can’t shoot ’em.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    I don’t think this is true. The only two I know are Arthur and Obama. Well, not counting the Founders.

    Thomas Brown: So why have there been six other Presidents who had at least one non-citizen parent?

  49. avatar
    linda May 10, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    Would you please post a link to that LAW?

    Speak2Truth: The LAW requires both parents to be CITIZENS and has for over 200 years.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2012 at 10:30 am #

    You’re heavy on assertion, but not so much on evidence, citations, precedents and argument. ALL CAPS doesn’t make it true. Sorry. Try again.

    Speak2Truth: And now you know why Obama cannot. His Father was a British Subject. No matter where he as born, Obama cannot legally be President.

    So says the LAW.

  51. avatar
    Stanislaw May 10, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    linda:
    Would you please post a link to that LAW?

    Unbeknownst to our new birther friend, that LAW doesn’t exist.

  52. avatar
    linda May 10, 2012 at 11:28 am #

    I know. I was trying to make him realize that when/if he searched. I have had “discussions” with birthers who swear the 2 parent requirement is in the Constitution. They don’t believe me that it isn’t, so I ask them to post the pertinent section.

    Stanislaw: Unbeknownst to our new birther friend, that LAW doesn’t exist.

  53. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 10, 2012 at 12:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t think this is true. The only two I know are Arthur and Obama. Well, not counting the Founders.

    Someone listed them the other day on this site, I think. Andrew jackson was one. I’ll see if I can find the list.

  54. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 10, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t think this is true. The only two I know are Arthur and Obama. Well, not counting the Founders.

    Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) was born of two immigrants, both Irish.

    Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England.

    James Buchanan (1857-1861) had an Irish father.

    Chester Arthur (1881-1885) had an Irish father.

    Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) whose mother was born in England.

    Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) whose mother was born in Canada.

    So, that makes 6 prior to Obama. I think.

  55. avatar
    linda May 10, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    I have looked into this before and the result I remember is that only Arthur and Obama had this as an issue.

    Andrew Jackson was born in 1767, Jefferson in 1743, so they were grandfathered in. I recall reading that Buchanan’s father was a citizen of PA, so when the Constitution was ratified it made all state citizens citizens of the US. The mothers of Wilson and Hoover became citizens upon their marriage to citizens, according to the laws at the time.

    Sorry, I didn’t save my links, etc., but that is my best recollection.

  56. avatar
    Sef May 10, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    linda: when the Constitution was ratified it made all state citizens citizens of the US

    Could you please cite the place in the Constitution where this is mentioned (prior to the 14th Amendment).

  57. avatar
    linda May 10, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    Sorry for being unclear. I was trying to recall what I read about this a couple years back, not trying to break any new ground. The old laptop died on me and I didn’t have the research otherwise stored. If I had to dust off the cobwebs of my memory, I would say it was some combo of an immigration act and Section IV full faith and credit clause, etc., but I wouldn’t swear to it. It made sense to me at the time. I will see if I can find it again.

  58. avatar
    Thomas Brown May 10, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    linda:
    I have looked into this before and the result I remember is that only Arthur and Obama had this as an issue.

    Andrew Jackson was born in 1767, Jefferson in 1743, so they were grandfathered in.I recall reading that Buchanan’s father was a citizen of PA, so when the Constitution was ratified it made all state citizens citizens of the US.The mothers of Wilson and Hoover became citizens upon their marriage to citizens, according to the laws at the time.

    Sorry, I didn’t save my links, etc., but that is my best recollection.

    Yeah, but by strict Birther rules they still wouldn’t be eligible.

  59. avatar
    linda May 10, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

    True. I apologize, I shouldn’t have spouted off something I can’t link to. I remember Buchanan was the difficult one for me.

    Back then, I had wanted to show some birther dude that Chester Arthur wasn’t the only other one, etc. At the time, I read up on the other presidents and confirmed the naturalization laws that gave citizenship to wives (their mothers) upon marriage to a citizen. Something convinced me about the whole state citizen became US citizen, or Irish/British citizen became US citizen, but I don’t remember what it was and I can’t find it now.

    Thomas Brown: Yeah, but by strict Birther rules they still wouldn’t be eligible.

    Sef: Could you please cite the place in the Constitution where this is mentioned (prior to the 14th Amendment).

  60. avatar
    Sef May 10, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    linda:
    True.I apologize, I shouldn’t have spouted off something I can’t link to. I remember Buchanan was the difficult one for me.

    Back then, I had wanted to show some birther dude that Chester Arthur wasn’t the only other one, etc.At the time, I read up on the other presidents and confirmed the naturalization laws that gave citizenship to wives (their mothers) upon marriage to a citizen. Something convinced me about the whole state citizen became US citizen, or Irish/British citizen became US citizen, but I don’t remember what it was and I can’t find it now.

    I think the point is that this wasn’t in the Constitution. It had to come from common law. Otherwise there would have been some problems coming up with U.S. citizens for Congress.

  61. avatar
    Rickey May 10, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t think this is true. The only two I know are Arthur and Obama. Well, not counting the Founders.

    I believe that this is a case of apples and oranges.

    It was recently mentioned that there have been six Presidents who had one or more parents who were not born in the United States, not that there have been six Presidents who had one or more non-citizen parents.

    There are some birthers who are claiming that you cannot be a natural born citizen unless both of your parents were born in the United States.

    As far as I can determine, Obama and Arthur and the only Presidents who had a non-citizen parent.

  62. avatar
    Scientist May 10, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    Rickey: As far as I can determine, Obama and Arthur and the only Presidents who had a non-citizen parent.

    Strictly speaking, we don’t actually know the citizenship of any of the President’s parents. Where are their birth certificates or passports; what state prefixes did their SSNs have? Did Lincoln or Garfield or either Roosevelt ever PROVE their parents’ citiizenship? I don’t think so. Presidential parental minutiae are too critical to the functioning of the Constitution and the fabric of space/time to simply accept that they were American “because we THINK so”. I will go so far as to accept that the fathers of JQ Adams and GW Bush were very likely US citizens, but as for the rest, as the birthers say, PROVE IT!

  63. avatar
    Rickey May 10, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

    Scientist: Strictly speaking, we don’t actually know the citizenship of any of the President’s parents.Where are their birth certificates or passports; whatstate prefixes did their SSNs have?Did Lincoln or Garfield or either Roosevelt ever PROVE their parents’ citiizenship?I don’tthink so.Presidential parental minutiae are too critical to the functioning of the Constitution and the fabric of space/time to simply accept that they were American “because we THINK so”.I will go so far as to accept that the fathers of JQ Adams and GW Bush were very likely US citizens, but as for the rest, as the birthers say, PROVE IT!

    Now that you mention it, we don’t even have proof of the identities of the parents of past Presidents. Clearly we need DNA testing.

    And where was Mitt Romney born? Can we please have the name of the doctor and hospital and see the records? Any eyewitnesses?

  64. avatar
    Paper May 10, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

    Rest assured, everyone, I am hard at work getting out the kinks in my time machine. I’ll be ready any day now to head back and verify each and every president’s birth. Just keep an eye on your history books. Things will be changing any day now…any day now…

  65. avatar
    Paper May 10, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    And I know that my time machine would explain a lot of birther problems, but don’t go blaming me for being the one to plant the fake birth certificate and notices for President Obama.

  66. avatar
    The Magic M May 11, 2012 at 5:16 am #

    Paper:
    Rest assured, everyone, I am hard at work getting out the kinks in my time machine.I’ll be ready any day now to head back and verify each and every president’s birth.Just keep an eye on your history books.Things will be changing any day now…any day now…

    While you’re at it, could you also prevent Orly’s and Joe’s parents from meeting each other? 😉

  67. avatar
    Sef May 11, 2012 at 9:00 am #

    The Magic M: While you’re at it, could you also prevent Orly’s and Joe’s parents from meeting each other?

    Usually the law of unintended consequences would create something much worse.

  68. avatar
    Majority Will May 11, 2012 at 9:22 am #

    Sef: Usually the law of unintended consequences would create something much worse.

    Except on Fringe.

  69. avatar
    The Magic M May 11, 2012 at 10:56 am #

    Sef: Usually the law of unintended consequences would create something much worse.

    Like Orly’s mom and Joe’s dad ending up together (and vice versa) and creating super-birthers Joseph Taitz and Orlyanna Arpaio who will have (would have been havingdone hadded willdid*) Obama out of office 30 times more often?

    ____
    * Future Semiconditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional, see Dr Dan Streetmentioner’s works for reference