Main Menu

Political theater

Funny how the same thing comes up multiple times. The first is my own comment on Voeltz v. Obama, where I said:

While I don’t see any real legal significance to the Voeltz lawsuit, it makes for good theater.

Shortly afterwards I saw a citation from the ObamaBallotChallenge web site in a comment on my site:

If you think the system is rigged and we can’t win, think again.This case has a better chance than most. If we lose the ruling, it’s very appealable. Even if we lose, we win, because political theater is one of our objectives. Obama and the rotten official power structure are being exposed more and more for all to see. This clown won’t be able to get elected dogcatcher when we’re through with him. But, we also want to lay the groundwork for possible future nullification of everything he ever signed.

And today we see that very same reference cited in a memorandum filed on behalf of Barack Obama in the Voeltz case referencing the previous, prefaced by:

Statements on a website seeking funds to support Plaintiff’s litigation suggest that Mr. Voeltz’ lawsuit is "political theater" and filed for an improper purpose

I can’t help but be reminded of the title of Sam Sewell’s blog: “The Steady Drip.” The opposition hopes to wear down Barack Obama’s public image by incremental smears, none of them actually true, but they hope that the sheer number of them will create doubt.

In the “Memorandum,” President Obama echoes the Florida Secretary of State’s contention that the election cannot be contested until the results are certified, and that President Obama hasn’t been nominated or elected to anything yet. He further argues that the decisions of eligibility lie with the electoral college and Congress, that “judicial review, if any, should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes provided for in the Constitution have run their course” (citing Judge Alsup in dismissing Robinson v. Bowen).

The “Memorandum” goes on to specifically address the spurious legal theories presented by Mr. Klayman attempting to redefine “natural born citizen.” I won’t summarize, except to note that the President’s position on the meaning of “natural born citizen” is the same conclusions that I have also reached:

The very essence of a natural born citizen is that he or she becomes “at once” upon birth, and not at some time later.

The full text follows:

 

FL – 2012-06-15 – Obama Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss

, ,

28 Responses to Political theater

  1. avatar
    donna June 15, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    added to the court docket

    BARACK OBAMA’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

    PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANT SECRETARY OF STATES ADDITIONAL BRIEF

  2. avatar
    donna June 15, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    FL – Voeltz v Obama – Memorandum of Law in support of motion to dismiss

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/fl-voeltz-v-obama-memorandum-of-law-in-support-of-motion-to-dismiss/#more-24673

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 15, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

    I just love good lawyer talk.

  4. avatar
    Sef June 15, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    donna:
    FL – Voeltz v Obama – Memorandum of Law in support of motion to dismiss

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/fl-voeltz-v-obama-memorandum-of-law-in-support-of-motion-to-dismiss/#more-24673

    Klayman’s going to need lots of Imodium after footnote 1.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 15, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    I must say, it’s pretty damning stuff, from the people that are paying Klayman.

    Sef: Klayman’s going to need lots of Imodium after footnote 1.

  6. avatar
    sfjeff June 15, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    But, we also want to lay the groundwork for possible future nullification of everything he ever signed.

    So if Obama’s authorization to take out Osama bin Ladin is nullified….do the Seals become war criminals?

    God Birthers are stupid.

  7. avatar
    Scientist June 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

    Are there really actual places where dogcatcher is an elected office?

  8. avatar
    Sef June 15, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    Scientist:
    Are there really actual places where dogcatcher is an elected office?

    San Diego.

  9. avatar
    Birther Weary June 15, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

    But, we also want to lay the groundwork for possible future nullification of everything he ever signed.

    I guess they can kiss the Bush tax cuts goodbye. I hope they’re prepared to pay back taxes, with penalties and interest.

    To call birthers stupid just elevates them far above their actual level.

  10. avatar
    Northland10 June 15, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    Scientist:
    Are there really actual places where dogcatcher is an elected office?

    Apparently not.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/11/dog_race.html

  11. avatar
    G June 15, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    Yeah, the Birther idiot propagandists are merely pining their hopes on the old “death by a thousand paper cuts” smear strategy… which explains why Birtherism continues to be such an incoherent mess of hot stupid.

  12. avatar
    john June 15, 2012 at 11:26 pm #

    If Obama lawyer’s claim that the courts can’t decide on the NBC issue, I guess the throws out all their cited cases like Hollander and Ankeny. Their citations of those case essentially destroys their own argument that only the Electoral College and Congress can decide the meaning of NBC in the fact that courts have apparently already ruled that Obama is an NBC.

  13. avatar
    john June 15, 2012 at 11:37 pm #

    Obama’s lawyer also cites the 20th Amendment to show that POTUS eligibility lies with Congress. However that Amendment mentions nothing about POTUS eligibility and the phrase “shall have failed to qualify…” would have to do with electoral votes and NOT POTUS Eligibility requirements under Article II Section 1. It is Congress’s job to certify the electoral votes and to determine which candidate gets the needed 270 majority votes. The 20th Amendment is in that context. While it is theoretically possible that an objection might be raised regarding the qualifications under Article II Seciton 1, this is merely speculation as the intent of Congress is to certify the votes and see who qualifies on getting enough. Finally, it would violation of the Seperation of Powers to assign Constitutional questions or Dilemmas to Congress. That job lies with the courts.

  14. avatar
    john June 16, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    The argument about 50 states rending conflicting decisions on POTUS eligibility is also without merit. The remedy for this apparent chaos lies with SCOTUS. One of SCOTUS’s duties is resolve the conflicting decision in different court circuits. If conflicting decisions were to rise it is highly likely SCOTUS would take the case and render a uniform binding decision that all states could follow. SCOTUS would bring chaos to order.

  15. avatar
    JPotter June 16, 2012 at 1:30 am #

    Got to love that they called them out on the grifting!

    Hopefully the birthers are believing that Obama personally wrote this brief.

    And nullification ….. denial, denial, denial. We wanna do over. Waaaaah. Red wanna recall?

    Obama can’t run on his record?
    http://obamaachievements.org/list

    “Hey Kids! Next week, on WND Theater, …. ummmm … some birthers find some brick to kick! some birthers pound some sand! some birther appeals something! … and Orly is steelllll trying to feeee-neeessh … counting her votes. So…. come again, next week, for this excitement and more! Next week only … this week’s popcorn is half price!”

  16. avatar
    The Magic M June 16, 2012 at 3:17 am #

    sfjeff: So if Obama’s authorization to take out Osama bin Ladin is nullified….do the Seals become war criminals?

    Probably just “ordinary” murderers. The interesting question however is: does that mean Osama will come back as a ghost or a zombie? Or will he just be alive again?

    And quoting a fellow anti-birther on WND: if the Magic Reset Button comes, everything will just move back in fast rewind, like watching a movie running backwards. 😉

  17. avatar
    Lupin June 16, 2012 at 3:20 am #

    I remember seeing Larry Klayman on Bill Maher’s show during the Clinton years. He came across as a nasty, vindictive little man, and often a total nutcase. I’m always astounded that folks like him, Orly, Apuzzo, etc. haven’t been disbarred already. They’re like tapeworms in your legal system.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 16, 2012 at 8:01 am #

    That would be an absurd interpretation, since the text refers to the “president elect.” One couldn’t be the “president elect” unless one had the votes already.

    Guess again.

    john: Obama’s lawyer also cites the 20th Amendment to show that POTUS eligibility lies with Congress. However that Amendment mentions nothing about POTUS eligibility and the phrase “shall have failed to qualify…” would have to do with electoral votes and NOT POTUS Eligibility requirements under Article II Section 1.

  19. avatar
    realist June 16, 2012 at 8:13 am #

    john:
    If Obama lawyer’s claim that the courts can’t decide on the NBC issue, I guess the throws out all their cited cases like Hollander and Ankeny.Their citations of those case essentially destroys their own argument that only the Electoral College and Congress can decide the meaning of NBC in the fact that courts have apparently already ruled that Obama is an NBC.

    I love how birthers can’t read and understand plain English and try to twist and obfuscate language from the Constitution on down.

    interpreting the Constitution and law is the job of the courts. Deciding whether one is eligible to be president and qualifies is not the job of the courts. That is what they are saying, not what you posit.

    Try again.

  20. avatar
    Keith June 16, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    john:
    The argument about 50 states rending conflicting decisions on POTUS eligibility is also without merit.The remedy for this apparent chaos lies with SCOTUS.One of SCOTUS’s duties is resolve the conflicting decision in different court circuits.If conflicting decisions were to rise it is highly likely SCOTUS would take the case and render a uniform binding decision that all states could follow.SCOTUS would bring chaos to order.

    They did that already.

    In 1898.

  21. avatar
    Northland10 June 16, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    G:
    Yeah, the Birther idiot propagandists are merely pining their hopes on the old “death by a thousand paper cuts” smear strategy… which explains why Birtherism continues to be such an incoherent mess of hot stupid.

    With Birthers, probably closer to the old “death by a thousand toilet paper cuts” strategy.

  22. avatar
    Thrifty June 16, 2012 at 9:33 am #

    Good question. And I wonder why someone would want to run for such an office in the first place.

    I remember there used to be signs around here for people campaigning for “Recorder of Deeds” and “Register of Wills”. I always thought this sounded like a rather banal administrative job, and that it was stupid that you would have to be elected to it. Seems more appropriate as something done by appointment.

    I think the state of Delaware or New Castle County must have agreed, because the last time I remember seeing any signs for either office was 8 years ago.

    Scientist:
    Are there really actual places where dogcatcher is an elected office?

  23. avatar
    john June 16, 2012 at 9:37 am #

    Its most certainly is not absurd. The states certify each of their elections for the electoral votes. The candidate that has 270 votes is the President-Elect. It is then Congress’s job to certify each state one by one. If the President-Elect has 270 votes, they he certified by Congress to by the POTUS and eventually sworn it. However, under the 20th Amendment, “If the President Elect should have failed to qualify…” that is he fails to get the 270 majority votes that are needed, Congress has to go through with provisions stated in the 20th Amendment. As one can see, the 20th Amendment has nothing to with the President-Elect qualifying under Article II Section 1. The Amendment makes no indication of that and is too vague.

  24. avatar
    G June 16, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    LMAO! Well put. 😉

    Northland10: With Birthers, probably closer to the old “death by a thousand toilet paper cuts” strategy.

  25. avatar
    richCares June 16, 2012 at 11:36 am #

    as for political theatre, our neighborhood birther is giddy and full of hope. “on Monday when sheriff joe testifies it will be over for Obama. He signed up for WND’s televising of this failing court case. “I can’t wait till Monday”. I don’t respond to this idiot any more. He, like our john, must have Alzheimer’s, they don’t remember all of OMG failures. His pointing finger is very strong as it is well exercised on wnd Pay Pals. They don’t even know they are being scammed.

  26. avatar
    JPotter June 16, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    richCares: He signed up for WND’s televising of this failing court case.

    And WND laughs all the way to the bank. Does he ever complain about the spam? Or is he so hooked, that’s like asking if the addict complains about more free drugs?

  27. avatar
    realist June 16, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    Lupin:
    I remember seeing Larry Klayman on Bill Maher’s show during the Clinton years. He came across as a nasty, vindictive little man, and often a total nutcase. I’m always astounded that folks like him, Orly, Apuzzo, etc. haven’t been disbarred already. They’re like tapeworms in your legal system.

    Klayman is undoubtedly a nutcase. He is not, however, a dumb or stupid nutcase.

  28. avatar
    Rickey June 16, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That would be an absurd interpretation, since the text refers to the “president elect.” One couldn’t be the “president elect” unless one had the votes already.

    Guess again.

    Reading comprehension has never been a strong suit for John.