Main Menu

Voeltz v. Obama video

I just finished watching the hearing live (you can watch the recording below). The video viewer said some 5,000 people were tuned in. I might have restyled the case “Law v. Theater” on the basis of what I saw: the Defense was citing law, and the Plaintiff was playing to the video audience (and sucking up to the judge).

The defense focused solely on the fact that the challenge was not valid under Florida law: no election, no nomination, no challenge. Klayman, for plaintiff Voeltz, wanted to range into questions of the founding fathers and cherry picked quotes from the founders, even citing the Sedition Act ❗ as an example to show that the founders were xenophobes. What Klayman failed to understand is that place of birth, not parentage was what the Framers considered important. James Madison said:

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.

The most bizarre moment for me was when Klayman said that “The Fourteenth Amendment naturalized the slaves.” First, there were no slaves in the United States when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, but more important, the Amendment didn’t naturalize anyone. US v. Wong said that the Fourteenth Amendment was declaratory of US law, not something that created new citizens. One who is born a citizen cannot be naturalized. Klayman is denying, I think, that the former African slaves could have run for President, and that Wong Kim Ark could have run for President (I think I heard Klayman call Wong naturalized). Klayman labels himself a racist based on what he himself said.

Judge Lewis did not seem to have been as well-prepared as I hoped. If he has already made up his mind, it was not evident from the wide-ranging questions he asked, although I saw nothing sympathetic to the birthers.

The judge requested orders by next Monday (June 25) and promised an expedited ruling.

View the hearing:

 


Video streaming by Ustream

,

346 Responses to Voeltz v. Obama video

  1. avatar
    richCares June 18, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    “the judge asked him to provide some evidence that Obama’s birth in Hawaii isn’t true”

    As no birther has any evidence, this appears strange, as the Judge did not ask defendants for proof of Hawaii birth. We will know soon!

  2. avatar
    KDLarsen June 18, 2012 at 8:12 am #

    Kind of amusing. Instead of embedding the offline video feed, they’ve just put up an image of an offline video feed.

  3. avatar
    Sam the Centipede June 18, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    richCares: “the judge asked him to provide some evidence that Obama’s birth in Hawaii isn’t true”

    As no birther has any evidence, this appears strange, as the Judge did not ask defendants for proof of Hawaii birth. We will know soon!

    Not-A-Lawyer… but it seems to me to be a reasonable approach for the judge. As Doc C. says, the judge might well be aiming to get the case out of his court in one push today, whether it be by dismissal for lack of standing/ripeness/whatever, or by identifying the plaintiffs as useless gobshites.

    So asking the plaintiffs to substantiate their (allegedly) factual claim with facts seems reasonable because it’s incomplete without that support. The judge presumably doesn’t live in a cardboard box without a news feed so he must be aware that they won’t be able to come up with anything other than fact-free fiction, lies, forgeries or spoofs which the defense can kick into the long grass with ease. It’s up to Klayman to support his nonsensical assertions first – otherwise the defense won’t have anything to laugh at!

    And it also seems reasonable to ask Obama’s lawyers to refute the two-parent nonsense as Klayman has made his argument on that. The judge probably knows that Klayman is dribbling nonsense but it’s not his job to do the defense’s work, he’s the adjudicator.

    Is anybody betting on the birthers losing off their absolute zero record here? What? No takers?

  4. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 8:30 am #

    The link is not working. I’m just getting: The page you requested cannot be found on this server.

  5. avatar
    Lupin June 18, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    “According to Voeltz’ attorney Larry Klayman, the judge asked him…”

    Have we actually seen this order? Or is this just Klayman obfuscating& misrepresenting the truth as usual?

  6. avatar
    Tarrant June 18, 2012 at 8:47 am #

    richCares:
    “the judge asked him to provide some evidence that Obama’s birth in Hawaii isn’t true”

    As no birther has any evidence, this appears strange, as the Judge did not ask defendants for proof of Hawaii birth. We will know soon!

    I could see a judge making an offhand comment like this, though. Sort of like “So you claim despite Hawaii’s statements that all his documents are fake an he wasn’t born there…so whatcha got showing he was born somewhere else?”

    Not any sort of official statement or order, but an off-the-cuff remark from a judge tired of reading brief after brief from Klayman assuming forgery without offering any sort of justification of the claim.

  7. avatar
    KDLarsen June 18, 2012 at 8:54 am #

    The stream is now live: http://www.ustream.tv/WND

  8. avatar
    tes June 18, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    thanx kd!

  9. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 9:05 am #

    Thanks for the link KDLarsen.

  10. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    Come September, we will see a repeat of this case… and many others.. never ending… unless some judges start putting penalties in effect against birthers

  11. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    We are a nation of laws.. therefore, we must kick out the president based.. not upon the laws.. but upon our stomping feet!

  12. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 9:34 am #

    I love it. The judge is pointing out one can be born of one parent with the father dead. Clay-face doesn’t the point. The point is at BIRTH there is only one parent. So they can’t be a natural born citizen according to birther theory.

  13. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    President is not like you and me.. what, he is a king with some supernatural powers? LOL

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2012 at 9:38 am #

    My vote for the most bizarre moment is when Klayman said: “The 14th amendment naturalized the slaves.”

  15. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 9:40 am #

    No, my favorite is his president is not like you or me… it really shows someone who doesn’t understand the point of our Democratic Republic having a president.

  16. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 9:43 am #

    Yes, apparently he’s supposed to have Kingly veins without actually being a king. Yeesh!

    Apparently they also have to be from the gene pool of the 1% and have no community activism in the background.

  17. avatar
    Lupin June 18, 2012 at 9:45 am #

    KKKlayman obviously means that the Prez must be WHITE, CHRISTIAN and let’s face it Anglo-Saxon.

  18. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 9:45 am #

    Ass kissing time…

  19. avatar
    Lupin June 18, 2012 at 9:46 am #

    Bran Mak Morn: No, my favorite is his president is not like you or me… it really shows someone who doesn’t understand the point of our Democratic Republic having a president.

    Seconded!

  20. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 9:46 am #

    yeah and those kids born by artificial insemination?

    klayman: YOU’RE OUT OF LUCK

  21. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 9:46 am #

    We’re a country of laws and not men, but apparently Vattel decides who is a natural born citizen. Huh?

  22. avatar
    Lupin June 18, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    bgansel9: We’re a country of laws and not men, but apparently Vattel decides who is a natural born citizen. Huh?

    Which as we all know is a total fabrication.

    Hell, your Congress Research Lawyer said that too.

  23. avatar
    Lupin June 18, 2012 at 9:48 am #

    Ah now he’s lying about WKA (from I gather).

  24. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 9:48 am #

    Lying about “Ark” now

  25. avatar
    Bob June 18, 2012 at 9:48 am #

    donna:
    yeah and those kids born by artificial insemination?

    klayman: YOU’RE OUT OF LUCK

    And that’s just one scenario that would disqualify people.

  26. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 9:49 am #

    I always knew “natural born citizen” meant not being IVF!

  27. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 9:50 am #

    Haha! Klayman states that Rubio isn’t qualified to be president? LOL

  28. avatar
    roadburner June 18, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    is there any law concering an attourney attempting anilingus on a judge during a case?

    god he was shmoozing. or at least attempting to.

  29. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    lol

    klayman – there are some candidates on the republican side too who would not qualify for president ….. people who might be on the list for VP

    there goes rubio, jindal, etc

  30. avatar
    Lupin June 18, 2012 at 9:57 am #

    If you don’t mind my saying so, your “nominee”/ “preference” / candidate / electors, etc. system does seem like something out of ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

  31. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 9:59 am #

    The point is they are not yet the nominee — until the party itself makes them the nominee.

  32. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    “I always knew “natural born citizen” meant not being IVF!”

    so now a candidate has to divulge that she/he’s born by IVF?

    what if he/she doesn’t know and the parents are deceased?

    do we exhume the bodies of ALL pres/vp candidates to check DNA?

    how will that constitutional amendment read?

  33. avatar
    Lupin June 18, 2012 at 10:03 am #

    donna: “I always knew “natural born citizen” meant not being IVF!”

    so now a candidate has to divulge that she/he’s born by IVF?

    what if he/she doesn’t know and the parents are deceased?

    do we exhume the bodies of ALL pres/vp candidates to check DNA?

    how will that constitutional amendment read?

    I’ve been saying for a while that, in practical terms, their legal theories of two parents citizens make no sense whatsoever.

  34. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 10:03 am #

    Even exhuming the body won’t prove it wasn’t done via IVF…

    It’s just like “all documents from HI are invalid.” This is exactly the point of birther arguments: they are radical in their skepticism and show no understanding of the level of evidence needed for courts (which can never be absolute proof, since we can’t even absolutely prove yesterday happened).

  35. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 10:04 am #

    Now the president is like all of us… except when he is not!

  36. avatar
    Xyxox June 18, 2012 at 10:04 am #

    Please keep us cube rats posted. Can’t stream at work.

  37. avatar
    Lupin June 18, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    KKKlayman now lying about Arpaio. Vomit, vomit.

  38. avatar
    Bob June 18, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    Did Klayman just say he has evidence that Obama was born outside the US?

  39. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    He’s made several lies.

  40. avatar
    Lupin June 18, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    Bob: Did Klayman just say he has evidence that Obama was born outside the US?

    Yes it sounded like he did

  41. avatar
    Xyxox June 18, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    Lupin: Yes it sounded like he did

    Which phony birth certificate is he going to enter into evidence?

  42. avatar
    roadburner June 18, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    Bob: Did Klayman just say he has evidence that Obama was born outside the US?

    yep, and waved corsi’s book at the judge

    what a dipstick

  43. avatar
    Lupin June 18, 2012 at 10:09 am #

    Over now it seems. Watching KKKlayman was like watching THE WALKING DEAD: disgusting and yet oddly compelling.

  44. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 10:09 am #

    Well, they have another week to milk it on WND

  45. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 10:11 am #

    Now that they turned off the feed, Clay-face is going to the bathroom to get his evidence..

  46. avatar
    richCares June 18, 2012 at 10:11 am #

    interesting that when Klayman brought up Arpaio the judge ignored it and asked no question on it.

  47. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    the best part is that fl’s sainted rubio is forever eliminated as a candidate

  48. avatar
    Zachary Bravos June 18, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    At least Klayman is a competent lawyer – this was much better than listening to Orly Taitz. His arguments were well-crafted and he laid out the birther position with clarity and as much support as he could muster. He also was courteous, professional, and as persuasive as he could be with the facts. I think he did an excellent job for his client. He will lose in the end of course, but at least his client will not be embarrassed by having a buffoon as his lawyer.

  49. avatar
    Arthur June 18, 2012 at 10:15 am #

    Much longer than that, I think. Birthers are like a swamp full of frogs on a summer evening. If one stops croaking, there are dozens of others to take up the chorus.

    Bran Mak Morn:
    Well, they have another week to milk it on WND

  50. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 10:16 am #

    Zachary Bravos:
    He also was courteous, professional, and as persuasive as he could be with the facts.

    I hadn’t realized butt kissing a judge was courteous and professional. Hmmm!

  51. avatar
    richCares June 18, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    “will not be embarrassed by having a buffoon ”
    .
    waving Corsi’s book and touting Sheriff Joe’s non evidence smacks of Buffoonery.

  52. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 10:19 am #

    richCares:
    waving Corsi’s book and touting Sheriff Joe’s non evidence smacks of Buffoonery.

    Absolutely.

  53. avatar
    bovril June 18, 2012 at 10:20 am #

    Anyone have a link to a recording, had boring old work stuff and only got to see the last minute…. 8-(

  54. avatar
    Zachary Bravos June 18, 2012 at 10:22 am #

    He also was courteous, professional, and as persuasive as he could be with the facts.

    Compared to Orly this guy is brilliant!

  55. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 18, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    Well from the looks of what you guys are saying there’s nothing new here. I’ll have to listen in later and see how it transpired. As usual the birthers get caught in a cruel position basically denying children the right to run for the presidency because of artificial insemination or a dead father.

  56. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 10:26 am #

    Zachary Bravos: At least Klayman is a competent lawyer – this was much better than listening to Orly Taitz.

    An empty chair is better than Taitz. i don’t see that he was any better than Apuzzo. Sort of like comparing dog excrement and cat excrement.

    It’s really the basic birther arguments that are the problem, not how they present them. They are like people who disbelieve gravity, hoping desperately to get a physicist to support them. None will. And even if some deluded physicist did. gravity is still real.

  57. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    .”As usual the birthers get caught in a cruel position basically denying children the right to run for the presidency because of artificial insemination or a dead father.”

    or born to american parents who now reside in another country like iran or israel

  58. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Did the attorneys for Obama and the SOS have anything to say? Or did WND choose not to carry that part?

  59. avatar
    alg June 18, 2012 at 10:45 am #

    Zachary Bravos:
    He also was courteous, professional, and as persuasive as he could be with the facts.

    Compared to Orly this guy is brilliant!

    That’s not saying very much, tho

  60. avatar
    alg June 18, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    By the way, I thought the attorney for the SoS did the best job of the three attorneys. Wasn’t all that impressed with Obama’s attorney, but he certainly outperformed Klayman by a mile.

  61. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 10:47 am #

    donna: .”As usual the birthers get caught in a cruel position basically denying children the right to run for the presidency because of artificial insemination or a dead father.”

    Weren’t the fathers of most of the Presidents dead by the time they took office?

    Politically this 2-parent citizen nonsense is a non-starter because there are millions of voters who were born to at least one non-citizen parent. What possible gain is there in alientating such a group that could easily be 10% of the electorate? And it isn’t like the other 90% are all worked up over the issue either.

  62. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    But, Scientist, “The president is not like you are me!”

  63. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 18, 2012 at 10:52 am #

    Scientist: Weren’t the fathers of most of the Presidents dead by the time they took office? Politically this 2-parent citizen nonsense is a non-starter because there are millions of voters who were born to at least one non-citizen parent. What possible gain is there in alientating such a group that could easily be 10% of the electorate? And it isn’t like the other 90% are all worked up over the issue either.

    Which countries give automatic citizenship to children or grandchildren of citizens?

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2012 at 10:58 am #

    Yes, they spoke first. Obama’s attorney made 2 points

    1. There was no election or nomination, and no result certified. Therefore, under the Florida Challenge law, there was nothing to challenge.
    2. The Constitution relegates questions of eligibility to the Congress, not the judiciary.

    The Secretary of State’s attorney agreed, and made further argument in support of item 1 above.

    Rickey: Did the attorneys for Obama and the SOS have anything to say? Or did WND choose not to carry that part?

  65. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 11:04 am #

    “Which countries give automatic citizenship to children or grandchildren of citizens?”

    depending on the date of marriage, italy for one

    Acquisition of citizenship

    Foreign women who married an Italian citizen before 27 April 1983, were automatically granted Italian citizenship.

    bacmann just had that problem with switzerland and relinquished that citizenship

    5/10/2012

    Bachmann Withdraws Swiss Citizenship

  66. avatar
    richCares June 18, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    “Did Klayman just say he has evidence that Obama was born outside the US?”
    .
    yes, but the problem is that there is no such evidence, Catch 22

  67. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Which countries give automatic citizenship to children or grandchildren of citizens?

    I don’t know of a single country on Earth where the child of a citizen mother born in the country would not be an automatic citizen eligible for all elective offices. I haven’t researched other solar systems.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 18, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    donna: “Which countries give automatic citizenship to children or grandchildren of citizens?”depending on the date of marriage, italy for oneAcquisition of citizenshipForeign women who married an Italian citizen before 27 April 1983, were automatically granted Italian citizenship.bacmann just had that problem with switzerland and relinquished that citizenship5/10/2012Bachmann Withdraws Swiss Citizenship

    I wonder if we have a list somewhere. It would be interesting to see how many people would be disqualified under birther rules.

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Which countries give automatic citizenship to children or grandchildren of citizens?

  70. avatar
    tes June 18, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    richCares:
    “the judge asked him to provide some evidence that Obama’s birth in Hawaii isn’t true”

    As no birther has any evidence, this appears strange, as the Judge did not ask defendants for proof of Hawaii birth. We will know soon!

    Where did the Judge do this? Did I miss it? I thought Judge Lewis (correctly) noted that the complaint does NOT allege any foreign birth that would render Obama ineligible. I thought the Judge Lewis(correctly) noted that even if the forgery allegations were true, that doesn’t mean that Obama is not eligible – he could still have been born in US. I thought the Judge Lewis (appropriately) then asked whether, IF leave to amend were granted, Klayman could allege foreign birth. I say appropriately here because – much as people may not like it, in considering whether to dismiss a complaint with prejudice or without prejudice, the court is *supposed* to consider whether the complaint could be amended to sufficiently state a cause of action.

    But I may have missed it – my feed cut off a couple times.

  71. avatar
    richCares June 18, 2012 at 11:20 am #

    “the judge asked him to provide some evidence that Obama’s birth in Hawaii isn’t true”
    .
    this was in Klayman’s press release before the trial
    the amended complaint with proof of foriegn birth cannot be made as there is no proof, Klayman can lie that’s about all. Barney Fife’s affydavid is of no value.

  72. avatar
    Lupin June 18, 2012 at 11:40 am #

    Klayman lied about “Vattel”. Then he lied about WKA. Then he lied about Arpaio. And finally he lied about Obama’s birthplace.

    I wouldn’t call it a particularly impressive performance.

  73. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I wonder if we have a list somewhere. It would be interesting to see how many people would be disqualified under birther rules.

    If you mean US-born people who have a claim on other nationalities, it is a very large number. These days, almost all countries grant ciizenship to the children of citizens born overseas, so anyone with an immigrant parent and often an immigrant grandparent would have dual citizenship or a right to claim it. Just looking at my kids’ high school graduating class, it would be in the 10-20% range. Interestingly if one looked at those graduaing with honors or high honors, it would probably be 30%. And this isnt in NYC, LA or the Bay Area, where the numbers would likely be higher.

    Among officeholders, it would include Mitt Romney, at least 2 Supreme Court Justices and literally dozens of members of Congress.

  74. avatar
    Jim June 18, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    “the judge asked him to provide some evidence that Obama’s birth in Hawaii isn’t true”

    I thought the judge asked him if he had any evidence of Obama’s foreign birth. I hope he tries to toss the judge some of that Corsi BS! It will be SO entertaining!!!

  75. avatar
    roadburner June 18, 2012 at 12:02 pm #

    i was trying to remember what it reminded me of when he whipped out corsi’s book in front of the judge, then it suddenly came to me.

    waynes world, when they took the rise out of product placement. all that was missing was showing the cover to the camera.

    `get it now! `where’s the birth certificate’ by jerome corsi! as seen and used as evidence in court in florida!’

    suckers

  76. avatar
    Clestes June 18, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

    So basically the presidents lawyers and the SOS argued that this case should be dismissed because FL has not had an election yet so there are no results to dispute. All true and he will dismiss it based on those facts alone.

    But I find it interesting that judge Lewis asked Klayman for proof that the prez was not born in HI. He has to know that there isn’t. Could it be that when they fall flat on offering this non evidence he pulls the rug out from under all birthers and tells them that since they have had years to find evidence and can’t that from now on no birther cases will be allowed to be filed, at least in FL?

  77. avatar
    gorefan June 18, 2012 at 12:10 pm #

    tes: IF leave to amend were granted, Klayman could allege foreign birth.

    Does that suggest the judge doesn’t buy the two citizen parent argument?

    If eligiblity is dependent on two citizen parents, President Obama would be elminated upfront and place of birth becomes meaningless. Or is the judge just covering all the bases?

  78. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

    the judge and klayman mentioned “appeals”

    JOY!!!!!!

  79. avatar
    john June 18, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

    I don’t if hearing would have allowed witnesses, but if it did Klayman should have called one witness; Herb Titus as an expert witness on the meaning of NBC. Herb Titus is Constitutional Law Professor and Attorney, so he could have very well be regarded as an expert witness. Klayman could then put Titus on the stand and he would testify to the meaning of NBC. Assuming Klayman has case at all, Judge Lewis would rule that Obama is NOT an NBC based on “Unrefuted Expert Testimony”. (Assuming that Obama did not bring their own witness to refute.) On appeal, assuming Titus testimony was properly admitted and his testimony competent, the appeal would be affirmed.

  80. avatar
    john June 18, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    The government’s position and argument was absurd. Obama is and is going to be the Democratic Nominee. There is no question about that. The Obama lawyer tries to argue the all of Florida Election Process is meaningless and that Obama does not represent anything at this point. Absolutely bullcrap.

  81. avatar
    tes June 18, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

    gorefan: Does that suggest the judge doesn’t buy the two citizen parent argument?

    If eligiblity is dependent on two citizen parents, President Obama would be elminated upfront and place of birth becomes meaningless. Or is the judge just covering all the bases?

    I don’t think so. Look at context in which it came up (about 1:01) — it came up right after Klayman said that, following ruling, they’d like to move forward with discovery, referring (with perfect product placement) to Corsi book and Arpaio Affidavit.
    In RESPONSE to that little demonstration, Judge Lewis said that Complaint doesn’t allege foreign birth. Klayman said yes it does by saying birth certificate fraudulent. Judge then (rightly) noted that could still be born in US w/ fraudulent BC and asked whether, IF leave to amend were granted, Klayman could allege born somewhere outside jurisdiction of US. Klayman said yes.

    It’s also worth noting that at very end (around 1:04), Klayman says he’ll be expeditiously filing motion for leave to amend. Judge Lewis says that’s not necessary because he’s made a note of it … (pausepause) … I’d only not do that if I thought there was nothing you could do to amend. …

  82. avatar
    tes June 18, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    donna:
    the judge and klayman mentioned “appeals”

    And Herron (OFA/FDP) did as well …

  83. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    Scientist: Politically this 2-parent citizen nonsense is a non-starter because there are millions of voters who were born to at least one non-citizen parent. What possible gain is there in alientating such a group that could easily be 10% of the electorate? And it isn’t like the other 90% are all worked up over the issue either.

    Oh, HEAVENS, what about Mitt Romney, whose father was born in Mexico? This puts the whole Republican nomination into a major mess now!

    😛

  84. avatar
    john June 18, 2012 at 12:51 pm #

    An Appeal for Obama will meaningless for him. If Obama were to lose, that is be rendered from being on the Florida Ballot, then Obama is finished. Regardless of whether an appeal would be successful or not, the damage would be done. Birthers just need that headline, “Obama kicked off state election ballot.” or “Obama ruled ineligible by Florida Court.” Once those headlines appear, regardless of appeal, Obama is done for.

  85. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

    “Oh, HEAVENS, what about Mitt Romney, whose father was born in Mexico? This puts the whole Republican nomination into a major mess now! ”

    SOME birthers move the goalposts again with romney, etc saying if the parent was naturalized before the birth of the child, then the child is born to 2 citizen parents

  86. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    donna:

    SOME birthers move the goalposts again with romney, etc saying if the parent was naturalized before the birth of the child, then the child is born to 2 citizen parents

    Isn’t that convenient?

  87. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 18, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    bgansel9: I hadn’t realized butt kissing a judge was courteous and professional. Hmmm!

    Well, compared to Orly’s modus operandi of accusing the Judge of corruption, incompetence and treason….

  88. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    Haven’t watched yet, but am stunned to hear that birthers collectively over-promised and WND, in person of Klayman, under-delivered. So much for their reputation 😛

    richCares: “the judge asked him to provide some evidence that Obama’s birth in Hawaii isn’t true”‘As no birther has any evidence, this appears strange, as the Judge did not ask defendants for proof of Hawaii birth. We will know soon!

    Not odd at all, burden of proof is on the plaintiff to disprove defendant’s claim.

    Bran Mak Morn: I love it. The judge is pointing out one can be born of one parent with the father dead. Clay-face doesn’t the point. The point is at BIRTH there is only one parent. So they can’t be a natural born citizen according to birther theory.

    donna: yeah and those kids born by artificial insemination?

    Well, there is the obvious biological retort: all children have two genetic parents. Therefore, I will now start selling my American citizen sperm to the highest third world bidders! Each sample will come with a certified copy of my birth certificate, social security card, and genetic workup. It can’t possibly go fail!

    Don’t go stealing my idea you guys.

    Well, Ok, one of the ladies can get into the citizen egg business.

  89. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    donna: “Oh, HEAVENS, what about Mitt Romney, whose father was born in Mexico? This puts the whole Republican nomination into a major mess now! ”SOME birthers move the goalposts again with romney, etc saying if the parent was naturalized before the birth of the child, then the child is born to 2 citizen parents

    If they don’t get into this concession, then they are requiring 2 NBC parents to pass along citizenship. Think that one through. If you can’t be NBC w/o both parents having been NBC … then who exactly is a natural born citizen? Ancestry.com will see an explosion in business. It’s a citizen supremacist’s dream! If this were the rule, would we not have some sort of national genalogical registry tasked with tracking this stuff? Would parents be required to show pedigrees when registering births?

    The birthers who don’t make this concession either aren’t thinking it through, or they are, and see it as a way to de-legitimize all immigrants, and descendants of immigrants. At least in their own minds. It would almost certainly affect all birthers, too! Who in this country has no immigrants in their ancestry? LOL!

  90. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    “Well, Ok, one of the ladies can get into the citizen egg business.”

    I WIN…. harvesting eggs is much more expensive

    i will sell them by the baker’s dozen

    “The cost of harvesting and freezing eggs is about $7,000 to $12,000.”

  91. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn June 18, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    Got to love it. The newest birther meme — following WND….

    “Obama’s not the nominee.”

    They are really, really dumb. They don’t get the point.

  92. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    JPotter: Who in this country has no immigrants in their ancestry? LOL!

    Even Native Americans immigrated from Asia across the Bering Strait.

  93. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    “would we not have some sort of national genalogical registry tasked with tracking this stuff?”

    the mormon church is known for doing that

    july, 2009

    Mormon leader brings family records to Obama

    President Obama on Monday hosted at the White House the leader of the Mormon church, who presented the president with detailed volumes of Mr. Obama’s family history.

    Mr. Obama said he enjoyed the meeting and was grateful for the genealogical records, which he said he would read through with his daughters, Malia and Sasha.

    “It’s something our family will treasure for years to come,” Mr. Obama said in a statement.

    White House aides said Mormon leaders traditionally have met with newly elected presidents, presenting them with genealogical records of their family history. The Utah-based church has compiled some of the world’s most extensive and detailed genealogical files.

    i wonder why no one has subpoenaed the lds records

  94. avatar
    y_p_w June 18, 2012 at 1:40 pm #

    donna:
    “Oh, HEAVENS, what about Mitt Romney, whose father was born in Mexico? This puts the whole Republican nomination into a major mess now! ”

    SOME birthers move the goalposts again with romney, etc saying if the parent was naturalized before the birth of the child, then the child is born to 2 citizen parents

    I’m pretty sure that it’s always been their argument that a child born to US citizen parents (native born or naturalized) are considered NBC.

  95. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    donna: the mormon church is known for doing that

    Creepy. I can see this fitting right into a superconspiracy. mormons have been ‘approving’ presidents all along! We only thoght they were persecuted! Only a diversion, they were running the show the whole time!

    Thanks for the tidbit.

  96. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

    Scientist: Even Native Americans immigrated from Asia across the Bering Strait.

    Indeed! Everyone’s an immigrant somewhere. But I imagine the nuts pushing the super-duper, metaVattelist misconception of NBC would have some arbitrary cutoff. like ratification of the Constitution. “You might be a natural-born citizen if ….”

  97. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    “Thanks for the tidbit”

    one link …. the republican friendly washington times

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/20/obama-hosts-mormon-leader-white-house/

  98. avatar
    Clestes June 18, 2012 at 1:47 pm #

    I still have to wonder if the judge isn’t setting the birthers up for a knockdown when it comes to filing additional cases. They claim they have evidence he was not born in HI. When they fail to come across he slaps them with a fine and says more fines of this nonsense continues

  99. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 18, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    donna: i wonder why no one has subpoenaed the lds records

    The church’s geneology records are open to the public…..no charge.

    https://familysearch.org/

    A quick look only pulls up stuff for the President’s father.

  100. avatar
    y_p_w June 18, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Scientist: If you mean US-born people who have a claim on other nationalities, it is a very large number. These days, almost all countries grant ciizenship to the children of citizens born overseas, so anyone with an immigrant parent and often an immigrant grandparent would have dual citizenship or a right to claim it. Just looking at my kids’ high school graduating class, it would be in the 10-20% range. Interestingly if one looked at those graduaing with honors or high honors, it would probably be 30%. And this isnt in NYC, LA or the Bay Area, where the numbers would likely be higher.

    The People’s Republic of China is different than other countries. They practice a limited jus sanguins citizenship policy. If one is considered “settled” (a permanent resident) in another country, then the child is not considered a Chinese citizen at birth.

    I’m guessing this can get complicated. There have been clandestine businesses that cater to pregnant Chinese women for birth tourism. Then there are students and/or wives of students. I’m wondering what would be the status for undocumented residents.

    It’s pretty clear that it wouldn’t leave a child born in the US stateless, but it could be different for births in other countries.

  101. avatar
    Lawmanjed June 18, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    History and logic establish a clear definition of “natural born citizen” even without resort to Court decisions:

    1) On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding over the Convention, proposing that the President be a “natural born citizen” (NBC): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    2) Shortly after the convention concluded, Alexander Hamilton proposed that the President be “born a citizen of the United States”: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407);

    3) The Convention adopted the more stringent NBC requirement for Article II, Section 1 presidential eligibility, as distinguished from “born a citizen”, and also, in its text, from mere “citizen”t:”No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    4) NBC was a legal phrase with which the founders were familiar from the works of Emmerich de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” and from other authors and works which they used to accomplish their goal of insuring that future Presidents would have undivided loyalty and allegiance to America;

    5) Americans had recently won their independence from the British in a bloody 8-year long war and were justifiably concerned about the loyalty and allegiance of future Presidents and the risk of foreign influence on their new nation and its chief executive and commander-in-chief;

    6) It is inconceivable that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant that anyone could be President merely by US birth, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, since such a definition would allow a child born to ONEor even TWO foreign (including BRITISH) parents to be eligible for the US Presidency, a result that was totally unacceptable and unthinkable to the founders and could not have been accepted or overlooked by them.

    THEREFORE: the only logical and intelligent conclusion is that NBC requires:
    1) Child’s birth on US soil; and
    2) US citizenship of both parents at child’s birth.

    As it so happens, that is the exact definition of NBC that the US Supreme Court adopted in its ruling in Minor v. Happersett (1875), citing and following its dicta (opinions not needed for its rulings) in several earlier Supreme Court cases, and in its rulings in subsequent cases, including Kim Wong Ark, that have all followed Minor and never overruled its definition of NBC. Despite the foregoing, many people continue to confuse, misunderstand or equate “natural born citizen” (NBC) with “citizen”, “born citizen” or “citizen at birth”, when is clear that NBC is a more stringent subset of citizenship, the type of citizenship that most of us acquired “naturally” upon birth in this country to American citizen parents.

    No special laws, treaties of constitutional provisions are required, just logic and common sense, because “naturally” upon our birth we can be nothing other than American citizens, free of foreign identity or dual allegiance. Shouldn’t American presidents be required to have the same type of citizenship that most of us Americans have, free of foreign identity and influence? Of course! That’s why the founding fathers chose the “natural born” citizenship requirement for President, and not merely “citizen at birth” or its equivalent.

  102. avatar
    Bob June 18, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    Clestes:
    I still have to wonder if the judge isn’t setting the birthers up for a knockdown when it comes to filing additional cases. They claim they have evidence he was not born in HI. When they fail to come across he slaps them with a fine and says more fines of this nonsense continues

    It’s like telling a sixteen-year old that Santa isn’t real. It might be sad but in the end it’s a good thing.

  103. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    Lawmanjed: On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding over the Convention, proposing that the President be a “natural born citizen” (NBC)

    Show me the letter. Not an internet image, but the ACTUAL letter. Go on,,, I bet it doesn’t exist.

    Lawmanjed: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen

    You are basing your thesis on a HINT. That sentence sounds more like a question than a definiitive statement. Very weak…

    Lawmanjed: It is inconceivable that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant that anyone could be President merely by US birth, regardless of the citizenship of his parents,

    You just conceived it, so of course it’s conceivable.

  104. avatar
    Thrifty June 18, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

    Well, either Vattel or the laws of other nations, as implied in the argument that that a natural born citizen must be born to 2 citizen parents.

    bgansel9:
    We’re a country of laws and not men, but apparently Vattel decides who is a natural born citizen. Huh?

  105. avatar
    MattR June 18, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    Lawmanjed:
    6) It is inconceivable that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant that anyone could be President merely by US birth, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, since such a definition would allow a child born to ONEor even TWO foreign (including BRITISH) parents to be eligible for the US Presidency, a result that was totally unacceptable and unthinkable to the founders and could not have been accepted or overlooked by them.

    If we ignore your mis-reading of Supreme Court rulings, riddle me this. If this was such an unacceptable or unthinkable proposition then why does the Constitution explicitly allow children of two British parents to be eligible to be President (if they were citizens at the time of the Constitution’s creation)? Not every citizen of the newly formed United States was thrilled about its creation. Yet the founders did not put anything in the Constitution to prevent a Benedict Arnold type from running for president.

  106. avatar
    Thrifty June 18, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    It’s inconceivable that the founders would require that you be born to 2 citizen parents, in an era where birth certificates didn’t exist. How would we know, in the late 18th/early 19th centuries, if someone had 2 citizen parents?

    Lawmanjed: It is inconceivable that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant that anyone could be President merely by US birth, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, since such a definition would allow a child born to ONEor even TWO foreign (including BRITISH) parents to be eligible for the US Presidency, a result that was totally unacceptable and unthinkable to the founders and could not have been accepted or overlooked by them.

  107. avatar
    Whatever4 June 18, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    Lawmanjed:
    History and logic establish a clear definition of “natural born citizen” even without resort to Court decisions:

    Snipped a buncha stuff…

    You must be new around here.

  108. avatar
    Majority Will June 18, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    Lawmanjed: (Repeatedly debunked birther nonsense.)

    Just curious but do you work for WorldNetDaily? Leo Donofrio? Mario Apuzzo? Orly Taitz?

    “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”

    – Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

  109. avatar
    Whatever4 June 18, 2012 at 2:25 pm #

    Bran Mak Morn:
    I love it. The judge is pointing out one can be born of one parent with the father dead. Clay-face doesn’t the point. The point is at BIRTH there is only one parent. So they can’t be a natural born citizen according to birther theory.

    Like, say… Bill Clinton, who was born 3 months after his father died. Or Rutherford B. Hays (born in 1822), born 10 weeks after his father died. I was hoping Klayman would fall into that trap. Sad.

    But the notion that a father who dies before the child is born or is long gone before the child can speak has a dominant role in creating a child’s character is ridiculous.

  110. avatar
    Daniel June 18, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    In essence for the birther position to work, every single candidate for President would have to have DNA testing performed, since there is simply no other way to determine who the father really is.

    Even if the founding fathers did consider seriously having such a requirement as two citizen parents… they were pretty smart guys who would have figured out that it was ridiculous to include a requirement that was impossible to prove at the time.

  111. avatar
    john June 18, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    I like the Obama’s lawyer argument – Obama is the only candidate in consideration on the ballot but he not the Democratic Nominee for the state of Florida. Ok Then, who is???

  112. avatar
    ballantine June 18, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    Another moron.

    1) On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding over the Convention, proposing that the President be a “natural born citizen” (NBC): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    Gee, Jay didn’t define “natural born citizen” and did not say what he thought a strong check would be. Why would anyone with an IQ above 10 think this helps their argument. These were English lawyers and the rule in England was that office holders must be native born. And, for your information, if you actually read the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the term “foreigner” was used in reference to the foreign born. Duh.

    2) Shortly after the convention concluded, Alexander Hamilton proposed that the President be “born a citizen of the United States”: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407);

    Uh, no. After the Convention Hamilton showed such language to Madison. There is no evidence anyone else saw it. And, under English law someone born a subject was a “natural born subject.” Duh!

    3) The Convention adopted the more stringent NBC requirement for Article II, Section 1 presidential eligibility, as distinguished from “born a citizen”, and also, in its text, from mere “citizen”t:”No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

    The Convention never considered Hamilton’s language and Hamilton’s language nevertheless meant the same thing under English law. Why do people who have done no research claim to be experts? The stupid is strong with this one.

    4) NBC was a legal phrase with which the founders were familiar from the works of Emmerich de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” and from other authors and works which they used to accomplish their goal of insuring that future Presidents would have undivided loyalty and allegiance to America;

    Show one founder who ever connected NBC to Vattel. There are none. No court or any legal authority of any significance ever has. You either a lier or a moron to make such a statement? Do you think making stuff up is legal argument?

    5) Americans had recently won their independence from the British in a bloody 8-year long war and were justifiably concerned about the loyalty and allegiance of future Presidents and the risk of foreign influence on their new nation and its chief executive and commander-in-chief;

    Nonsense, the framers only talked about the fear of the attachment the foreign born might have to their native lands. Not one delegate mentioned parentage or Vattel as allegaince in such time was defined by place of birth as even Madison said. No framer, early scholar, early court or early congressman ever said they concerned about the loyalty of someone born on US soil. Why do you make posts that you have no authority to support? Oh yes, that is what birthers do.

    6) It is inconceivable that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant that anyone could be President merely by US birth, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, since such a definition would allow a child born to ONEor even TWO foreign (including BRITISH) parents to be eligible for the US Presidency, a result that was totally unacceptable and unthinkable to the founders and could not have been accepted or overlooked by them.

    Again, parentage was irrelevant under English and American law and no framer made any statement to the contrary. You are just ignorant of the law at such time.

    THEREFORE: the only logical and intelligent conclusion is that NBC requires:
    1) Child’s birth on US soil; and
    2) US citizenship of both parents at child’s birth.

    The birther fantasy that no court or legal authority of any significance has ever agreed with.

    As it so happens, that is the exact definition of NBC that the US Supreme Court adopted in its ruling in Minor v. Happersett (1875), citing and following its dicta (opinions not needed for its rulings) in several earlier Supreme Court cases, and in its rulings in subsequent cases, including Kim Wong Ark, that have all followed Minor and never overruled its definition of NBC. Despite the foregoing, many people continue to confuse, misunderstand or equate “natural born citizen” (NBC) with “citizen”, “born citizen” or “citizen at birth”, when is clear that NBC is a more stringent subset of citizenship, the type of citizenship that most of us acquired “naturally” upon birth in this country to American citizen parents.

    Well, we know you are not lawyer as no lawyer would say the dicta in Minor was precedent as not only was it dicta but the court expressly declined to address the status of children of aliens. I know this is way over your head, but such dicta is competely irrelvant after Wong Kim Ark addressed the issue in holding. Perhaps one day someone you know will go to law school and explain to you what all this means, but anyone who can read basic English knows that Wong Kim Ark defined NBC by the English common law and such is precedent on this issue. Court after court after court has said such is true but I am sure you think you know more than real judges, scholars and the framers themselves. Why does someone who obviously has no understanding of law pretend to be a constitutional scholar on the internet? I actually feel sorry for such deluded people.

  113. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    “I love it. The judge is pointing out one can be born of one parent with the father dead. Clay-face doesn’t the point. The point is at BIRTH there is only one parent. So they can’t be a natural born citizen according to birther theory.”

    there were NUMEROUS “fathers” who died on 9/11 BEFORE their kids were born

    “When the planes slammed into the World Trade Center on September 11, more than 100 unborn children were instantly orphaned.”

    The first were born just days after the disaster, the last nine months later to mothers who did not even know they were pregnant at the time of attacks. Some women endured miscarriages, one even went into labour during her husband’s memorial service. These nine-year-olds are living legacies to me the men lost that day, fathers they would never know.

    tell THEM they’re NOT eligible to run for president

  114. avatar
    Arthur June 18, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

    LawmanJed:

    Thanks for sharing your view of things. While your interpretation distorts history and contorts logic, I’m sure it was fun for you to type.

  115. avatar
    Reality Check June 18, 2012 at 2:53 pm #

    I thought Klayman somewhat undercut his own argument on the importance of de Vattel to the founding fathers when he couldn’t even pronounce the philosopher’s name. He called him VEE-tel.

  116. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    Lawmanjed:
    History and logic establish a clear definition of “natural born citizen” even without resort to Court decisions:

    Now all you have to do is cite one civics text, history text, or Constitutional law text which says that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents.

    Go on, find one. I’m sure that you were taught about natural-born citizen in junior high.

  117. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 3:21 pm #

    Reality Check: He called him VEE-tel.

    Is that similar to K-tel? Birthers have been buying their legal advice from 1-800 commercials? Read the history, K-tel is a very appropriate reference. How many companies have completed a 1-for-5,000 “reverse split”?

    Finally, Lupin’s mind can be at ease. “V-telism” it is! 😉

  118. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 3:29 pm #

    “Now all you have to do is cite one civics text, history text, or Constitutional law text which says that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents.

    Go on, find one. I’m sure that you were taught about natural-born citizen in junior high.”

    a lot of the textbooks are written in texas so i’m SURE they are RE-writing that into their books as we speak

    1/2010

    SBOE Conservatives Rewrite American History Books

    In three grueling sessions last year, a nine-member curriculum committee appointed by members of the State Board of Education met to hammer out which version of American history that Texas high schoolers, and maybe high schoolers everywhere, will learn for the next decade.

    http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/social-studies-standards-debate/sboe-conservatives-rewrite-american-history-books/

    After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

    perhaps the ditz taitz will be asked to write a chapter on the fraud perpetrated on americans by the “marxist kenyan”

  119. avatar
    justlw June 18, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    Arthur: I’m sure it was fun for you to type.

    Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V. Whee!

  120. avatar
    Reality Check June 18, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    Klayman kept referring to a Graham case where he claims the FL Supreme Court ruled where multiple possible interpretations of election laws exist that they should be interpreted in favor of the voter. (paraphrased). So what Kayman wants to do is disenfranchise everyone who wishes to vote for Obama and that is ruling in favor of the voter?

  121. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    Thrifty:
    Well, either Vattel or the laws of other nations, as implied in the argument that that a natural born citizen must be born to 2 citizen parents.

    Why Vattel, Thrifty? For what reason would the founding fathers of America feel the need to adopt a concept written by a Swiss philosopher? And when Vattel states that some countries don’t use the two citizenship parent rule and those countries laws should be accepted, where do we find proof that our country isn’t one of them?

  122. avatar
    Arthur June 18, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    justlw: Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V. Whee!

    Yeah, that’s probably how it went down.

  123. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

    I think it rather ironic that Klayman arguing that the Framers wanted to exclude every foreign influence from their counsels, proceeded to found the country’s laws of allegiance and citizenship on some foreigner.

    Reality Check: I thought Klayman somewhat undercut his own argument on the importance of de Vattel to the founding fathers when he couldn’t even pronounce the philosopher’s name. He called him VEE-tel.

  124. avatar
    tes June 18, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

    Reality Check: Klayman kept referring to a Graham case where he claims the FL Supreme Court ruled where multiple possible interpretations of election laws exist that they should be interpreted in favor of the voter. (paraphrased). So what Kayman wants to do is disenfranchise everyone who wishes to vote for Obama and that is ruling in favor of the voter?

    Something like that – but then again, as Judge Lewis repeatedly said, no voter is being disenfranchised here – because voters don’t necessarily select the presidential nominee.

    Klayman also made much in his brief and at the hearing of the Graham holding that “there is only one candidate at the close of qualification, that candidate is automatically nominated for office.” What Klayman doesn’t say is that the Graham court held that precisely because the statute directly relevant in that case (101.252) expressly stated as much: “Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled *558 to have his name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office.” See Graham, 388 So.2d 556, 557-58, quoting Fla. Stat. Ann. 101.252.

    However, as noted by the SOS and OFA/FDP, the presidential primary is governed by the provisions of Section 103 – not the provisions of Section 101 (which apply to all other statewide elections, far as I can tell).

    Unlike Section 101, Section 103 does not have any provision stating that when there is only one candidate named by the party, such candidate shall be declared nominated for office. As a general matter of statutory construction, when one section contains a specific requirement, but another does not, courts assume that the legislature meant to include the requirement in one section – and to NOT include it in the other. So, don’t think that’s going to be a winning argument either.

  125. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think it rather ironic that Klayman arguing that the Framers wanted to exclude every foreign influence from their counsels, proceeded to found the country’s laws of allegiance and citizenship on some foreigner.

    That is what I’m always mystified by.

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

    Since George Washington’s own father died a British subject before the Revolution, by your parentage definition of natural born citizen neither Washington himself, nor Jay’s own children (born in France and Spain) would be eligible to be President. Isn’t it rather silly to think Jay considered parentage as a requirement?

    Lawmanjed: 1) On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding over the Convention, proposing that the President be a “natural born citizen” (NBC): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

  127. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    tes: As a general matter of statutory construction, when one section contains a specific requirement, but another does not, courts assume that the legislature meant to include the requirement in one section – and to NOT include it in the other.

    Tes,

    Klayman was apparently arguing that the entity responsible for writing the statutes left a stipulation out of the one section where it was missing, from what I was able to ascertain. Is he, in fact, saying that the statutes are written erroneously and the law should be adjudicated based on what he believes the statue SHOULD have said, rather than what it actually says? Did I hear that correctly?

  128. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    Klayman in response to the Judge seemed to argue that he alleged a foreign birth when he claimed the certificate was fake, and then backed down under questioning from the judge. “Fake birth certificate” is birther code language for “foreign born.”

    I think birthers walk a narrow line here. They have to on the one hand satisfy the political theater audience by alleging Obama was born in Kenya using code words, while at the same time not offending the court by alleging Obama was born in Kenya when the Court has to know that Hawaii has verified Obama’s birth there on multiple occasions, and could take judicial notice of the verification to Secretary Bennett in Arizona.

    tes: I thought Judge Lewis (correctly) noted that the complaint does NOT allege any foreign birth that would render Obama ineligible.

  129. avatar
    Andrew June 18, 2012 at 4:27 pm #

    These comments are really funny. It seems most of you just assume that this case has no merit and because of this belief dismiss any evidence. Does it not bother you that when asked for case law as to why they think a natural born citizen means something other than someone born of two citizen parents they have completely balked? I mean that is the crux of this case, how is it you are unable to see that Team Obama has no recourse for that line of questioning. Instead, they want to punt this ball until they hope it is too late.

    Let’s say that the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that Obama is ineligible because he only has one citizen parent. Would you accept that? Or would it just be stupid and racist because you disagree. Like it or not there is a very real reality that Obama may be Constitutionally ineligible. This is a big deal and needs to be resolved.

  130. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

    Klayman didn’t get that part apparently. He said that if they weren’t contradictory, then both apply.

    tes: As a general matter of statutory construction, when one section contains a specific requirement, but another does not, courts assume that the legislature meant to include the requirement in one section – and to NOT include it in the other. So, don’t think that’s going to be a winning argument either.

  131. avatar
    tes June 18, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    Andrew: Does it not bother you that when asked for case law as to why they think a natural born citizen means something other than someone born of two citizen parents they have completely balked? I mean that is the crux of this case, how is it you are unable to see that Team Obama has no recourse for that line of questioning. Instead, they want to punt this ball until they hope it is too late.

    Does it not bother you that while Klayman said that to the press, he declined to characterize the Court’s request as such in any papers — and that the hearing started with the Judge saying that we’re here on the motions to dismiss so which defendant wants to go first? ? ? ?

    Has it dawned on you yet that maybe Judge Lewis didn’t ask specifically for what Klayman told you he asked for ? ? ?

    And did you miss reading the OFA/FDP papers, in which they did, in fact, address that issue?

  132. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    Andrew:
    I mean that is the crux of this case, how is it you are unable to see that Team Obama has no recourse for that line of questioning.Instead, they want to punt this ball until they hope it is too late.

    Please cite founding documents (Vattel was not a founder, he wasn’t even an American) and/or case law that spell out how any person born on American soil cannot be a Natural Born Citizen, who stated such, and where to find said documentation.

  133. avatar
    tes June 18, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Klayman didn’t get that part apparently. He said that if they weren’t contradictory, then both apply.

    Yes. Well, I’d argue that when one provision says X=Y, and other provision does not say X=Y, then they’re “contradictory.” One has a specifically stated requirement; and one does not.

    Under the Klayman approach, a court could impose the death penalty for every crime except for those crimes where the statute specifically says that such crime “shall not subject the convicted person to the death penalty.”

    Ludicrous. If statute A says a person convicted of this crime shall be subject to the death penalty, and statute B provides for a different punishment but does not expressly say that this “B” crime shall NOT be subject to the death penalty — does that mean that anyone convicted of crime “B” can be subject to the death penalty?

    (I know rules are different in criminal law — but just using example as — that — logical example.)

  134. avatar
    Arthur June 18, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    Yes, I would. Obama is not my “chosen one.” I don’t consider him a perfect president, and there are things that he’s done and left undone that I disagree with.

    Andrew: Let’s say that the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that Obama is ineligible because he only has one citizen parent. Would you accept that?

  135. avatar
    Thrifty June 18, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    Officially, nobody is, until the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte in early September. Similarly, nobody is officially the Republican candidate until they hold their convention.

    Yes, Barack Obama will be the candidate unless he dies, resigns from the race, or is removed from office before then (events which have an astronomically small chance of happening). I’m sure it sounds silly to say that Barack Obama is not the Democratic candidate for President in 2012, but these silly distinctions are important in the eyes of the law. Sort of like how someone who committed a murder is called “the alleged murderer” or something like that, even if the evidence of that person’s guilt is overwhelming.

    john:
    I like the Obama’s lawyer argument – Obama is the only candidate in consideration on the ballot but he not the Democratic Nominee for the state of Florida.Ok Then, who is???

  136. avatar
    Thrifty June 18, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    I don’t know if that would have any significance if they did. Maybe at worst he would not be allowed to run in the upcoming election. He’d still be allowed to serve out the remainder of his term. The Supreme Court (none of the courts, actually), have the authority to remove a sitting president from office. That would have to be done by Congress (via impeachment) or by the Cabinet (through the provisions of the 25th amendment).

    Andrew: Let’s say that the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that Obama is ineligible because he only has one citizen parent. Would you accept that?

  137. avatar
    justlw June 18, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    Arthur: Yeah, that’s probably how it went down.

    Pretty much.

  138. avatar
    gorefan June 18, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    Andrew: Does it not bother you that when asked for case law as to why they think a natural born citizen means something other than someone born of two citizen parents they have completely balked?

    Actually they didn’t balk. Their Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss specifically cites the cases of Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. And they point out why Minor is not binding precedent or why Minor does not supply a definition of natural born citizen.

    Try to keep up.

  139. avatar
    Thrifty June 18, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    Wait, how is that possible?

    To be an orphan, both your parents have to be dead.

    But if you’re unborn, aka not born yet, and your mother dies, you die.

    I mean, a child can be instantly orphaned if both their parents die at the same time, but that child is born, not unborn.

    donna: “When the planes slammed into the World Trade Center on September 11, more than 100 unborn children were instantly orphaned.”

  140. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    i quoted the article:

    The 9/11 babies: youngest legacies to fathers they never knew

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/september-11-attacks/8739246/The-911-babies-youngest-legacies-to-fathers-they-never-knew.html

    i happen to personally KNOW some of these children

  141. avatar
    y_p_w June 18, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    Thrifty:
    Wait, how is that possible?

    To be an orphan, both your parents have to be dead.

    But if you’re unborn, aka not born yet, and your mother dies, you die.

    I mean, a child can be instantly orphaned if both their parents die at the same time, but that child is born, not unborn.

    An orphan can be abandoned. There are some orphans who were only abandoned by one parent, with the other parent not knowing of the existence of that child.

    I have also heard of cases where a mother was pretty much dead, but the body was kept on life support long enough to deliver the child.

  142. avatar
    Sean June 18, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

    When he mentioned Vattel’s Law of Nations, I cheered! Wow, I thought, this is going to get real stupid real fast.

  143. avatar
    Thrifty June 18, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

    I hadn’t heard of that definition before. I can see how that makes sense.

    Donna, I hope I didn’t sound rude in my reply. I knew you were quoting another article, and I was confused by that article’s description of orphans.

    y_p_w: An orphan can be abandoned.There are some orphans who were only abandoned by one parent, with the other parent not knowing of the existence of that child.

  144. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 18, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    Andrew: Let’s say that the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that Obama is ineligible because he only has one citizen parent. Would you accept that? Or would it just be stupid and racist because you disa

    Let’s say that the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that Obama is eligible because he was born in the United States and that the citizenship of his parents is irrelevant. Would you accept that?

  145. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    Thrifty, there are women who have been declared brain-dead and had their hearts kept on life support simply to incubate the baby until it was able to be born. Here’s one story of a woman who “died” two days previous to the birth of her child: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7824462.stm

  146. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Let’s say that the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that Obama is eligible because he was born in the United States and that the citizenship of his parents is irrelevant. Would you accept that?

    Exactly Carl. 😛 Love it!

  147. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    Thrifty:

    no offense taken

    my ears perked up when the judge raised the scenario of the father dying before the child was born thereby leaving the child without 2 parents

    most of those i knew worked for cantor fitzgerald which lost 658 employees

  148. avatar
    Sean June 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    Look at Judge Lewis. He’s torn between his fascination of this crazy man before him and his duty not to waste the Court’s time.

    If you’re artificially inseminated you’re out of luck to be President. This is good stuff!

  149. avatar
    Arthur June 18, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    While I’m always impressed by the restraint and patience judges show birther lawyers (with occasional exceptions, e.g., Judge Clay Land) I sometimes wish they would be less polite and perhaps discourage some of these lawsuits from going forward.

    Sean: Look at Judge Lewis. He’s torn between his fascination of this crazy man before him and his duty not to waste the Court’s time.

  150. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 18, 2012 at 5:39 pm #

    Andrew: Like it or not there is a very real reality that Obama may be Constitutionally ineligible.

    No, there isn’t. There is no possibility whatsoever. In fact, I have $1000 that says he will not be found ineligible and removed from office. I have offered this bet to a dozen or so other Birfoons who claimed that it’s either inevitable, likely, or foreseeable that he will.

    Not one has taken the bet. No-friggin’-body. Because they know in their hearts that both arguments (that he wasn’t born in the USA or that one needs two citizen parents to be eligible) are utterly, idiotically, catastrophically bogus.

    So, Andrew… how sure are you that it’s a realistic possibility? Put your money where your mouth is. I’ll even give you 5 to 1: you bet $200 against my $1000.

    Ask RC or Doc; I’m dead serious.

  151. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

    Andrew: Let’s say that the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that Obama is ineligible because he only has one citizen parent. Would you accept that?

    If you are going to stand on The Law of Nations or International Law, then you must know that the US Supreme Court is not the final authority. The decision would be appealed to the Hague,

  152. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    Scientist: If you are going to stand on The Law of Nations or International Law, then you must know that the US Supreme Court is not the final authority. The decision would be appealed to the Hague,

    That’s fun. Let’s watch them all run to The Hague to try to get Obama’s presidency overturned. I would need a ton of popcorn for that.

  153. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    “The decision would be appealed to the Hague”

    which reminds me

    how is the ditz doing with her appeal to the international criminal bar?

    ANY Day now……..

  154. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 18, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    Scientist: The decision would be appealed to the Hague,

    Oh, Lordy!! That’ll get the propellers on their beanies spinning.

  155. avatar
    Scientist June 18, 2012 at 5:57 pm #

    Arthur: While I’m always impressed by the retraint and patience judges show birther lawyers (with occassional exceptions, e.g., Judge Clay Land) I sometimes wish they would be less polite and perhaps discourage some of these lawsuits from going forward

    I wonder if it is because state court judges have to sit through a lot of boring drunk driving/car accident/drug possession/divorce cases and this birther stuff represents a mildly entertaining diversion from the routine. Judges are human after all. Federal judges, who get plenty of meaty cases, seem less forgiving.

  156. avatar
    Sean June 18, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

    He’s got Corsi’s book with him! This is the best!

  157. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 18, 2012 at 6:05 pm #

    Shame it is going to take the Birthers a who week to figure out what we already know.
    They’ve lost another case.

  158. avatar
    Joe Acerbic June 18, 2012 at 6:05 pm #

    Andrew:
    Does it not bother you that when asked for case law as to why they think a natural born citizen means something other than someone born of two citizen parents they have completely balked?

    Events that occurred only in some birfoon’s imagination don’t bother anyone living in reality. We learned quite long ago that these birfoonish claims of victory are always shown by actual case transcripts to be made up.

  159. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    Yeah, how exactly does one develop loyalty and bias based on an anonymous father?

    Sean: If you’re artificially inseminated you’re out of luck to be President. This is good stuff!

  160. avatar
    Arthur June 18, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    Scientist: I wonder if it is because state court judges have to sit through a lot of boring drunk driving/car accident/drug possession/divorce cases and this birther stuff represents a mildly entertaining diversion from the routine.

    Good point; I hadn’t though of that, but it makes sense.

  161. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    I bet you that it’s autographed.

    Sean: He’s got Corsi’s book with him!

  162. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Andrew:
    .Does it not bother you that when asked for case law as to why they think a natural born citizen means something other than someone born of two citizen parents they have completely balked?

    Who was asked for case law? Please provide a definitive source for your claim.

    While you are it, please identify a single civics text, history text, or Constitutional law text which says that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. Chapter and verse, please.

  163. avatar
    Arthur June 18, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Thomas Brown: So, Andrew… how sure are you that it’s a realistic possibility? Put your money where your mouth is. I’ll even give you 5 to 1: you bet $200 against my $1000.

    I want in on this bet. Lot safer (and more certain) than the stockmarket.

  164. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yeah, how exactly does one develop loyalty and bias based on an anonymous father?

    And then there are those who were born in the U.S. but were adopted and whose birth certificates do not identify the birth parents. I suppose they are out of luck, too.

    It also occurs to me that (according to birther logic) if Jesus had been born in America he could not be President.

  165. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny June 18, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    Scientist: mother

    Are you sure? Belgium (and the Netherlands) used to be well-known for being ius sanguinis through the father only. Until 1967, the child of a Belgian mother was only a Belgian as a result of her citizenship if the mother was unmarried and had registered the child as “father unknown”. If the foreign father later, but before the child’s 18th birthday, recognized the child as his own at the town or village registry, the child lost Belgian citizenship. The child of a stateless father and a Belgian mother was, unbelievably, stateless (not so in the Netherlands, however).

    Now, since you mentioned democratic rights. At the age of 21, the child who was born in Belgium to a Belgian mother, could present himself or herself at the city registry and automatically obtain Belgian citizenship as if (s)was born a Belgian. However, since that also meant being immediately drafted into the Belgian army, only girls and handicapped or stateless boys did so. Other men waited until they were 35 to apply for citizenship. However, after the age of 22, the only citizenship these people got automatically conferred on them was the so-called “small naturalization” – which gave you all the duties of a Belgian citizen, but not all the rights- you could vote, for instance (actually you HAD TO vote, it was and is a duty) but you could not be elected.

    In 1967, Belgium introduced partial Ius soli into its citizenship laws to avoid the problem of statelessness and to make international kidnapping a crime: birth in Belgium to one Belgian parent conferred Belgian citizenship. With births outside Belgium, the rules remained paternalistic – that was only changed in 1985.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_nationality_law

    Would there really be no more patrilineal ius sanguinis countries today? Of course, the immense majority of them would be countries where the birfers would not really like to live. Islamic countries. Iran and Tunisia for instance.
    http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ius%20sanguinis%20father&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fccsenet.org%2Fjournal%2Findex.php%2Fjpl%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F15300%2F10363&ei=uKffT97PBsPO-gaAm63ZCQ&usg=AFQjCNH3aoopC1S-OQBHfD0K0plAmdTL8Q

    I love it when the author quotes a guy called Dummett to point out that the word “parents”in a law means that both spouses have equal rights to confer their citizenship on their child. And without any cite or appeal authority, states that article 14 of the US constitution established ius soli in the United States. As if it is an established fact that no one in his right mind can dispute.

  166. avatar
    GeorgetownJD June 18, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    john:
    I don’t if hearing would have allowed witnesses, …

    You can end your post right there, Johnny boy. A hearing on motions to dismiss is not an evidentiary hearing. No witnesses are heard, no affidavits are considered. The exclusive focus is whether the complaint has adequately alleged all the elements necessary to establish standing, ripeness and a cognizable right of action.

    Klayman did not feel compelled to defend the complaint, prefering to razzle dazzle the WND true believers instead of the court. The SOS and Obama will prevail, because their motions addressed the shortcomings of the amended complaint.

  167. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    Thomas Brown: So, Andrew… how sure are you that it’s a realistic possibility? Put your money where your mouth is. I’ll even give you 5 to 1: you bet $200 against my $1000.

    WHAT?!? Andrew, don’t listen to him! I’ll go 500:1, your $100 against a cool 50 G’s.

    I can always use free money! Even if it is only 100 bucks.

  168. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    Sean: He’s got Corsi’s book with him! This is the best!

    Of course he does, this is a WND infomercial!

    Judge keeps going off-script tho. I don’t think he’s committed to the sale. 😉

  169. avatar
    bgansel9 June 18, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: Klayman did not feel compelled to defend the complaint, prefering to razzle dazzle the WND true believers instead of the court.

    Shows you where their priorities lie. The agenda isn’t really to get Obama off a ballot or to render the last election null and void; it is to cater to the crazy contingency that they receive all those donations from. Even Mr. Collette, whom was so nice to come here and show us his great legal skills, states on his website (at giftedlegalmind.com ) that he can’t do much with the birther cases unless he gets donations.

    It’s ALL about donations, always has been with these people.

    The question I have is, after the sanctions start coming down fast on these people who are trying the patience of the judges, will the monetary reality still have been worth it?

  170. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    I believe the birthers would rather exclude 1000 Jesuses than accept one Obama.

    Rickey: It also occurs to me that (according to birther logic) if Jesus had been born in America he could not be President.

  171. avatar
    Stanislaw June 18, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I believe the birthers would rather exclude 1000 Jesuses than accept one Obama.

    I’m not surprised. Jesus is Jewish, after all.

  172. avatar
    jayHG June 18, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Let’s say that the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that Obama is eligible because he was born in the United States and that the citizenship of his parents is irrelevant. Would you accept that?

    tee hee……….where’s squeeky when you need her???

  173. avatar
    Northland10 June 18, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    john:
    The government’s position and argument was absurd.Obama is and is going to be the Democratic Nominee.There is no question about that.The Obama lawyer tries to argue the all of Florida Election Process is meaningless and that Obama does not represent anything at this point.Absolutely bullcrap.

    Going to be is not now. Since the ruling is about what is now, Obama is not the nominee, yet. As it is, I would be tempted to use that valid argument for no other reason that annoys the Birthers.

  174. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

    Finally watching …. random Klayman quote that cracked me up:

    “I don’t think the Framers addressed that, and neither did the dictionary…”

    Oh, snap, where to cast about for authority. When making it up as you go along, you can get in so deep, so fast ….

    Anyone know if Klayman had some WND friends present? Not that it matters, just curious. Would like to picture the whole scene.

    Oh, crap, now he’s citing the wrong statute, which the defendants already corrected him on …. keeeeee-rist!

  175. avatar
    Stanislaw June 18, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    john:
    bullcrap.

    The distilled essence of birtherism.

  176. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 8:24 pm #

    bgansel9: Shows you where their priorities lie. The agenda isn’t really to get Obama off a ballot or to render the last election null and void; it is to cater to the crazy contingency that they receive all those donations from.

    Exactly!

    In the section about nominees now, man, what a whopper! …. and now he’s flattering the judge ….. and now literally begging the judge …. and threatening him with appeal.

    Laying it on thick. Another entertainer!

  177. avatar
    Twinx June 18, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    donna:
    yeah and those kids born by artificial insemination?

    klayman: YOU’RE OUT OF LUCK

    Does anyone know whereabouts in the hearing this exchange (even if paraphrased) occurred?

  178. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    john:
    I like the Obama’s lawyer argument – Obama is the only candidate in consideration on the ballot but he not the Democratic Nominee for the state of Florida.Ok Then, who is???

    Poor John.

    Florida doesn’t pick the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee. Florida only choose delegates, who then go to the their respective national conventions. Then (and only then) the delegates from Florida vote with the delegates from the rest of the country and select a nominee.

  179. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    Hats off to WND for providing the best audio and video we’ve ever(?) had of a birther event. Thanks for that.

  180. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    Twinx: Does anyone know whereabouts in the hearing this exchange (even if paraphrased) occurred?

    33:00 on the dot.

    Winger/Birther lawyer and judge going back and forth about conception vs. birth … and the birther says status at birth is what counts!

    Easily twisted into …. birthers says fetuses aren’t people! Call in Operation Rescue!

  181. avatar
    Twinx June 18, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    JPotter: 33:00 on the dot.

    Winger/Birther lawyer and judge going back and forth about conception vs. birth … and the birther says status at birth is what counts!

    Easily twisted into …. birthers says fetuses aren’t people! Call in Operation Rescue!

    Thanks JP.

    It’s always been clear to me that this claim was a logical extension to the ‘2 Citizen Parent’ fantasy ‘requirement’, but I think it’s the first time an enquiry along those lines has been made by a Judge of a birther (or birther lawyer).

  182. avatar
    john June 18, 2012 at 9:51 pm #

    Larry Klayman masterfully and elegantly argued the “Spirit” of the law. The Obama Defenders case was totally lacking in “Spirit”. It is hoped that Judge Terry Lewis understands the “Spirit” of law and if he does, Klayman is sure to win.

  183. avatar
    gorefan June 18, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    JPotter: conception vs. birth

    Gov. Jindal’s mother was already pregnant with him when she arrived in the US. And both his mother and father were here on student visas.

    Just for the entertainment value I’d like to see Romney select him for VP.

  184. avatar
    Thrifty June 18, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    Clearly, loyalty to America is genetic. Foreign-ness is a genetic disorder, passed down from one generation of dirty foreigner to the next. The only way not to get the foreign-ness gene is to have the antidote–a loyalty gene, from not one but TWO parents. It’s sorta like a reverse recessive trait.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yeah, how exactly does one develop loyalty and bias based on an anonymous father?

  185. avatar
    richCares June 18, 2012 at 10:16 pm #

    Klayan states in interview:
    “The evidence shows that he was most likely born in Kenya. In fact, when he came to this country he used a different name and on some of the documentation he submitted he stated that he was a foreigner, not an American and that way he qualified for a certain type of financial aid and other aid and his first name was Barry Soetoro. He did not go by the name Barack Obama,” Klayman said.
    “Plus the birth certificate as analyzed, we’ve never seen an original copy. No one has, and experts who have looked at that birth certificate and these are in the affidavits in the court file show that birth certificate was likely forged and altered as well as his social security card and other methods of identification.” .
    .
    if this is his proof, Klayman has lost the case.

  186. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    gorefan: Gov. Jindal’s mother was already pregnant with him when she arrived in the US. And both his mother and father were here on student visas.Just for the entertainment value I’d like to see Romney select him for VP.

    Think through another implication of Klayman “Right to Life, Forget the Presidency” argument. If birthers reject this “birth is all that matters” idea as a means of denying citizenship, or at least NBCship, to “anchor babies” … will we see a rush of “sex tourism” … immigrants looking to conceive on US soil? LOL!

    If parentage at birth is all that matters, how about “stand-in” citizen fathers? And, as Klayman pretty much tossed genetic links, what about child born to surrogate mothers? Better choose your surrogates wisely!

    Will pro-lifers reject this argument as a limitation on the personhood / civil rights of fetuses? Time will tell. “Sorry, fetus, birthers don’t care where you were conceived!”

  187. avatar
    Keith June 18, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

    CarlOrcas: The church’s geneology records are open to the public…..no charge.

    https://familysearch.org/

    A quick look only pulls up stuff for the President’s father.

    You can’t get stuff from them about living persons.

  188. avatar
    Keith June 18, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    Lawmanjed: 1) On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding over the Convention, proposing that the President be a “natural born citizen” (NBC): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    Jay did not know that the CIC and the President were to be the same person. He was not suggesting that the President be NBC, only the CIC.

    Scientist: Show me the letter. Not an internet image, but the ACTUAL letter. Go on,,, I bet it doesn’t exist.

    The Doc has a whole article about the letter. It most certainly does exist.

    I expect that others have pointed this out already, I’m only half way through the thread.

  189. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 18, 2012 at 11:25 pm #

    Keith: You can’t get stuff from them about living persons.

    You are absolutely correct. Figured that out when I recalled that they use the records to baptize the dead. But that’s another story.

  190. avatar
    john June 18, 2012 at 11:34 pm #

    I’m not a lawyer but I think it can be argued that assigning POTUS eligibility determination to Congress would be a Violation of Seperation of Powers. First Federal law spells out no process to determine specifically POTUS eligibility under Article II Section 1. The phrase in the 12th Amendment “Shall have failed to qualify…” more than likely is designed for Congress to decide what to do if the POTUS Elect has failed to get the 270 needed majority votes which are certified at the Joint Session of Congress. It reveals nothing about weighing the POTUS eligibility under Article II Section 1. Even if it did, Congress is prohibited in determining Obama’s eligiblity in this instance because the issue on whether he is an NBC or not is a Constitutional question for the courts to decide. Having Congress decide that question would be a violation of seperation of Power because Congress can only make law not interprete it.

  191. avatar
    donna June 18, 2012 at 11:41 pm #

    “Keith: You can’t get stuff from them about living persons.”

    i raised the lds records when the subject of genealogy was raised regarding romney’s background, automatic citizenship by other countries (like italy), etc

    someone asked “would we not have some sort of national genalogical registry tasked with tracking this stuff?”

  192. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

    CarlOrcas: But that’s another story.

    And you can find it here:
    Could I Vote for a Mormon for President? An Election-Year Guide to Mitt Romney’s Religion

    There are a rash of “Information on Mormonism, please,” books out. Surprise. I wish we were past all that.

  193. avatar
    JPotter June 18, 2012 at 11:48 pm #

    donna: someone asked “would we not have some sort of national genalogical registry tasked with tracking this stuff?”

    I raised that to spoof the implications of the birther’s most extreme V-tellist position, that of requiring 2 NBC parents to impart NBCship to a child born on US soil.

  194. avatar
    Keith June 18, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

    Lawmanjed: 6) It is inconceivable that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant that anyone could be President merely by US birth, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, since such a definition would allow a child born to ONEor even TWO foreign (including BRITISH) parents to be eligible for the US Presidency, a result that was totally unacceptable and unthinkable to the founders and could not have been accepted or overlooked by them.

    THEREFORE: the only logical and intelligent conclusion is that NBC requires:
    1) Child’s birth on US soil; and
    2) US citizenship of both parents at child’s birth.

    You are wrong. Sorry.

    The Framers decided it was a bad idea to allow foreign born folks to be President. Being a nation of immigrants, they knew that future Presidents would come from the stock of immigrants.

    It is the first generation immigrants, those who, in their opinion, may not have a complete understanding of how the country works, or (actually more to the point at the time) who might be a surrogate for some European Monarch’s bid to gain influence and even dominance. Remember, there were still many American’s that would have liked the American Head of State to be a King, or even seeing a return to the British motherland.

    There is no restriction, and never has been such a restriction on the second generation, the children of immigrants. The children of American immigrants, born in America, are and always have been, universally understood to be natural born citizens.

    The words of James Madison, principle author of the Constitution (or at least the scribe), explicitly prove your entire thesis wrong, completely wrong, and nothing but the wrong:

    “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.”

    – James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)

    Zephaniah Swift, made it even more explicit:

    “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… 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.”

    – Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)

    The only doubt that there has ever been was with the slaves, who were neither immigrants, nor citizens. That doubt was famously and tragically decided against in the “Dred Scott” decision. That decision was so repulsive to the American public consensus that the 14th Amendment was promulgate to reverse it and correct the mistake forever, and “Wong Kim Ark” confirmed that was the case.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    A “Natural Born Citizen” is a person who is a Citizen at the time of birth. If you are born a citizen, you are a “Natural Born Citizen”. The citizenship status of your parents has no bearing on your birth citizenship: “ALL persons born…in the United States…subject to jurisdiction…ARE citizens of the United State”. There is no exception there involving the parents unless the parents are not under the jurisdiction of the United States (meaning diplomats or invading armies).

  195. avatar
    Keith June 19, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    john:
    I like the Obama’s lawyer argument – Obama is the only candidate in consideration on the ballot but he not the Democratic Nominee for the state of Florida.Ok Then, who is???

    There is no Democratic Nominee for the State of Florida or any other state.

    The nominating convention doesn’t happen until the first week of September.

  196. avatar
    In Europe June 19, 2012 at 1:27 am #

    I find it funny that as an American after 20 years in Europe. The Europeans are right Americans are ignorant. The People here do Not Trust Obama. Why,they feel, he has cause World Inflation. His views are not loved.. They feel that a man who will not show his birth certiciate has Something to hide.

    Honesty was an American Trait. Through our so called PRESIDENT it has Been Lost. Those Americans who feel ir is not of value for Obama to show

  197. avatar
    JPotter June 19, 2012 at 1:51 am #

    NOW WE LEARN OBAMA RAISED IN SINGAPORE?
    1990 Vanity Fair article contradicts Indonesia narrative

    Okay, “In Europe”…. whatever.

    I cruised over to WND to see how they’re spinning Klayman $25K flail, and I do see some high profile “Obama lawyer says he’s not nominee!” spin, but it’s not the lead, and not the subject of Corsi’s latest. Nope, today’s theater is yesterday’s news, and already far down the memory hole.

    The lead is …. another long-gone editorial correction. Vanity Fair once wrote that Obama spent a few years in Singapore, not Indonesia. Zounds. This is the Next Big Thing? Not much of a fixx for The Faithful. Pretty thin ‘contradiction’, Corsi.

  198. avatar
    Lupin June 19, 2012 at 3:01 am #

    JPotter: Finally, Lupin’s mind can be at ease. “V-telism” it is!

    I suppose so.

    But if there was a political debate in France in which all parties systematically referred to Abraham Lincoln as a pro-slavery thinker and routinely used Lincoln’s name in connection with the defense of slavery, wouldn’t you be a little irked too?

  199. avatar
    Lupin June 19, 2012 at 3:03 am #

    In Europe: I find it funny that as an American after 20 years in Europe. The Europeans are right Americans are ignorant. The People here do Not Trust Obama. Why,they feel, he has cause World Inflation. His views are not loved.. They feel that a man who will not show his birth certiciate has Something to hide.

    This is totally false. There is no world inflation. (I wish.) No one here gives any thought to birtherism. Everybody LIKES Obama (despite his right-wing policies, I might add). The very very few tiny mentions of the birth certificate matter I’ve seen in the media (entirely in connection with Trump’s circus) derided the matter and called Trump a lunatic or a buffoon.

  200. avatar
    linda June 19, 2012 at 3:26 am #

    Same here. My family and friends have asked me about the crazy people who think Obama isn’t citizen, etc.

    Lupin: This is totally false. There is no world inflation. (I wish.) No one here gives any thought to birtherism. Everybody LIKES Obama (despite his right-wing policies, I might add). The very very few tiny mentions of the birth certificate matter I’ve seen in the media (entirely in connection with Trump’s circus) derided the matter and called Trump a lunatic or a buffoon.

  201. avatar
    JPotter June 19, 2012 at 3:27 am #

    Lupin: I suppose so.

    But if there was a political debate in France in which all parties systematically referred to Abraham Lincoln as a pro-slavery thinker and routinely used Lincoln’s name in connection with the defense of slavery, wouldn’t you be a little irked too?

    As long as there’s been an America, Americans have been quoting Vattel (earnestly and disingenuously), and other Americans have been telling those Americans to get stuffed.

    Of course abusing Lincoln’s name would be irritating; misrepresenting /exploiting anyone’s legacy is! Anti-birthers are in need of a good name for the abuse of Vattel birthers are indulging in.

    To give a name to a phenomenon, it has to be described accurately. These knuckleheads are taking the name of Vattel in vain. In the latest Minor V. Happersett, I thought this through, posted some on current usage in English of “Vattelism”. Please see this post. I absolutely get your point …. but if you want to curb usage in the face of a need, a more apt replacement will have to be supplied. Thoughts?

  202. avatar
    linda June 19, 2012 at 3:52 am #

    PsuedoVattelists? FauxVattelists?

    JPotter: I absolutely get your point …. but if you want to curb usage in the face of a need, a more apt replacement will have to be supplied. Thoughts?

  203. avatar
    The Magic M June 19, 2012 at 5:37 am #

    Just watched it (was too busy yesterday) and haven’t caught up with the thread here, so I’ll withhold comments to the subject matter for now.

    Just one thing I noticed: Klayman pronounces Vattel “vee-‘tell”. Is this how you guys do it? I pronounce it “‘fut-tell” (first instead of second syllable stressed, the French would probably pronounce it “wu-‘tell”).

  204. avatar
    Lupin June 19, 2012 at 5:39 am #

    linda: PsuedoVattelists? FauxVattelists?

    JPotter: I absolutely get your point …. but if you want to curb usage in the face of a need, a more apt replacement will have to be supplied. Thoughts?

    I would second/endorse “Fauxvattelists” (it sounds a little like “philatelists” which is sort of funny).

  205. avatar
    Lupin June 19, 2012 at 5:45 am #

    The Magic M: Just one thing I noticed: Klayman pronounces Vattel “vee-’tell”. Is this how you guys do it? I pronounce it “‘fut-tell” (first instead of second syllable stressed, the French would probably pronounce it “wu-’tell”).

    I don’t know how to write in phonetic alphabet; to me it sounds very much like it looks. “Va” as in “vacuum” and “-ttel” as in “telephone”.

    The mineral water “Vittel” would be somewhat the same, except “Vi” would sound like a short “Vee”,

  206. avatar
    The Magic M June 19, 2012 at 5:59 am #

    john: Klayman could then put Titus on the stand and he would testify to the meaning of NBC.

    I don’t think experts can testify on *legal* issues (unless maybe some foreign law is in play). The old adage is “ius novit curia”, I think this makes it impossible to bring in experts to “tell the court what the law is/says/means”.

    john: (Assuming that Obama did not bring their own witness to refute.)

    Wouldn’t it be fun of the defense called all 9 SCOTUS judges? 😉

  207. avatar
    Scientist June 19, 2012 at 6:30 am #

    Keith: The Doc has a whole article about the letter. It most certainly does exist.

    Have you seen it? Doc is not exactly an unbiased source and I don’t think he has actually seen the letter. Has John Jay verified that he wrote it? Has George Washington verified that it didn’t get lost in the mail? Was it sent certified? Not that I’ve heard. Sounds like a giant 230-year-old conspiracy.

    Anyway, it was a HINT. Like when your wife hints about that 18K gold bracelet down at the jewelry store. Hints are all well and good, but they ain’t law, even when they come from your wife and I don’t think John Jay and George Washington were married. Or were they?

  208. avatar
    Northland10 June 19, 2012 at 7:00 am #

    richCares: Klayan states in interview:
    “The evidence shows that he was most likely born in Kenya. In fact, when he came to this country he used a different name and on some of the documentation he submitted he stated that he was a foreigner, not an American and that way he qualified for a certain type of financial aid and other aid and his first name was Barry Soetoro. He did not go by the name Barack Obama,” Klayman said.

    Please let him submit as evidence the only known document that uses the name Barry Soetoro. There is nothing more convincing to Klayman’s theory that Obama was born in Kenya and came to his this country with the name Barry Soetoro than a document that says Obama was born in Hawaii.

  209. avatar
    Jim F June 19, 2012 at 7:29 am #

    I wonder where in Europe is “In Europe”? There is a lot of blame going around but I don’t see much of it attaching to Mr. Obama. We have plenty of politicians and bankers of our own to blame. I read a lot of newspapers and I can honestly say that they are almost exclusively in favor of him. As to Europeans believing that Americans are ignorant he might be on steadier ground. For myself I am content to believe it of the birthers and constantly wonder at the patience of the courts in putting up with this nonsence of where Mr Obama was born and whether he is legally qualified to be president. For sure, that would have been stopped long ago by the simple expedient of awarding costs against the losers in court cases. There is a saying in my country that “only the very rich or the very poor can afford to go to law”. Why? because the very poor have nothing to lose and it does not matter if costs are given against them. I have known instances where persistent litigants have transfered all of their property to family members to guard against legal costs. The courts do impose sanctions which can prevent persistent losers from lodging any new cases without first getting approval from a senior judge. Maybe it’s time for the US to follow this example.

  210. avatar
    roadburner June 19, 2012 at 8:22 am #

    In Europe: I find it funny that as an American after 20 years in Europe. The Europeans are right Americans are ignorant. The People here do Not Trust Obama. Why,they feel, he has cause World Inflation. His views are not loved.. They feel that a man who will not show his birth certiciate has Something to hide. Honesty was an American Trait. Through our so called PRESIDENT it has Been Lost. Those Americans who feel ir is not of value for Obama to show

    well, here in spain the birther issue is rarely raised, and if it is it’s generally looked at in the same way as a news report about a flying kangaroo in australia – with amusement that odd things happen in other countries.

    we do not blame him for our current woes. the majority realise that an implosion of an unsustainable domestic market did that.

    he’s not looked upon as a particually good president for the moment. i’d be inclined to agree, as there are leaders who have the fortune to be elected at the right time for their viewpoint and policy. unfortunately now isn’t obies time, but he’s at least 10 times brighter than the last tubesteak that was elected. twice!

    overall, the spanish see him as much of the same, and u.s. policy as it affects the rest of europe not really changing much.

    no hatred, no blame, just recognition of a self sustaining system

  211. avatar
    AlCum June 19, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    john:
    An Appeal for Obama will meaningless for him.If Obama were to lose, that is be rendered from being on the Florida Ballot, then Obama is finished.Regardless of whether an appeal would be successful or not, the damage would be done.Birthers just need that headline, “Obama kicked off state election ballot.” or “Obama ruled ineligible by Florida Court.”Once those headlines appear, regardless of appeal, Obama is done for.

    Not legally possible.

  212. avatar
    AlCum June 19, 2012 at 8:29 am #

    john:
    I like the Obama’s lawyer argument – Obama is the only candidate in consideration on the ballot but he not the Democratic Nominee for the state of Florida.Ok Then, who is???

    No one, at this moment. Process,,, try to understand it.

  213. avatar
    Majority Will June 19, 2012 at 9:00 am #

    Jim F: I wonder where in Europe is “In Europe”?

    Paris, Kentucky.

  214. avatar
    john June 19, 2012 at 9:03 am #

    Obama was the only candidate in the Presidential Primary. Obama won the Primary. Obama is and is going to the Democratic Nominee for the State of Florida. The Obama Defenders want us to believe that Obama is not the nominee yet even though he the only candidate in consideration and that the delegates plan to choose Mickey Mouse when they go to the Convention. I believe Klayman is dead on right – Obama is essentially the Nominee of State of Florida and his qualifications should be challenged. The process is just Red Tape at this point and it is blatantly clear that Obama Defenders are playing a shell game in order to evade Obama’s eligibility. Klayman argues that the MTD should be denied and Obama’s qualifications be challenged to protect the intregrity of the voter. If Obama is later found to ineligible, his client’s vote will be nullified. Klayman captures the “Spirit” of law elegantly and the Obama Defenders are completely lacking in “Spirit”.

  215. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 19, 2012 at 9:11 am #

    So do you think we have a good judge here, one that will make the right decision (whatever that is)? You could study his past decisions. It’s really cheating to wait until after the decision to say whether the judge was courageous and competent. Let’s hear your opinion of the Judge NOW.

    john: I believe Klayman is dead on right – Obama is essentially the Nominee of State of Florida and his qualifications should be challenged.

  216. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 19, 2012 at 9:17 am #

    Denmark, South Carolina.

    Majority Will: Paris, Kentucky.

  217. avatar
    AlCum June 19, 2012 at 9:19 am #

    john:
    Obama was the only candidate in the Presidential Primary.Obama won the Primary. Obama is and is going to the Democratic Nominee for the State of Florida.The Obama Defenders want us to believe that Obama is not the nominee yet even though he the only candidate in consideration and that the delegates plan to choose Mickey Mouse when they go to the Convention.I believe Klayman is dead on right – Obama is essentially the Nominee of State of Florida and his qualifications should be challenged.The process is just Red Tape at this point and it is blatantly clear that Obama Defenders are playing a shell game in order to evade Obama’s eligibility.Klayman argues that the MTD should be denied and Obama’s qualifications be challenged to protect the intregrity of the voter. If Obama is later found to ineligible, his client’s vote will be nullified.Klayman captures the “Spirit” of law elegantly and the Obama Defenders are completely lacking in “Spirit”.

    You are completely lacking in truth.

    Obama is not yet the nominee. The fact that he will be does not turn the process upside down for you.

  218. avatar
    JPotter June 19, 2012 at 9:26 am #

    Lupin: I would second/endorse “Fauxvattelists” (it sounds a little like “philatelists” which is sort of funny).

    And sounds like “fauvism”, which is also sort of apt …. except the fauvists weren’t malignant! English doesn’t have just the right pre- or suffix. Tried some German (for that hint of Godwin), but again, nothing quite right. Vattelverzerrung … Vattelverdrehung …. fun to say, a handful to type.

  219. avatar
    AlCum June 19, 2012 at 9:27 am #

    In Europe:
    I find it funny that as an American after 20 years in Europe. The Europeans are right Americans are ignorant. The People here do Not Trust Obama. Why,they feel, he has cause World Inflation. His views are not loved.. They feel that a man who will not show his birth certiciate has Something to hide.

    How do they feel about Obama, who HAS shown his birth certificate, twice.., the first presidential candidate in history ever to do so?

  220. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 9:28 am #

    The Magic M: I don’t think experts can testify on *legal* issues (unless maybe some foreign law is in play). The old adage is “ius novit curia”, I think this makes it impossible to bring in experts to “tell the court what the law is/says/means”.

    Birther fantasies are so amusing.

  221. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    In Europe: They feel that a man who will not show his birth certiciate has Something to hide.

    I guess they must feel really embarrassed then when the State of Hawaii Department of Health continuously verifies that the birth certificate is on file in the state records and is a valid document.

    Poor them.

  222. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 9:32 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Denmark, South Carolina.

    Rome, Georgia.

  223. avatar
    JPotter June 19, 2012 at 9:33 am #

    Majority Will: Paris, Kentucky.

    He’s everywhere:

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_cities_in_the_US_are_named_after_European_cities

  224. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 9:40 am #

    AlCum: Obama is done for

    Dream on…

    I also feel I should remind you that IS is a present tense verb (most people learn this in fourth grade), unlike your suggestion of him having this fantasy played out at some future date.

  225. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 19, 2012 at 9:46 am #

    Obama showed his birth certificate in 2008 before he was the Democratic Nominee for President. I guess those Europeans just don’t keep up.

    Hey, I didn’t see you when I was in Berlin a few weeks ago. Where’s your birth certificate?

    In Europe: They feel that a man who will not show his birth certiciate has Something to hide.

  226. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 9:48 am #

    Jim F: There is a saying in my country that “only the very rich or the very poor can afford to go to law”. Why? because the very poor have nothing to lose and it does not matter if costs are given against them. I have known instances where persistent litigants have transfered all of their property to family members to guard against legal costs. The courts do impose sanctions which can prevent persistent losers from lodging any new cases without first getting approval from a senior judge. Maybe it’s time for the US to follow this example.

    No, our system allows the courts to be open to all, and that’s a good thing. If someone needs legal relief, they can seek it. The cost of having the courts open to all is that we have to endure nonsense movements like the birthers to keep them that way.

    When the sanctions start coming down after malpractice has been used on numerous occasions, THAT is what will either deter these people from going further, or break their banks for the right to continue.

  227. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 9:52 am #

    AlCum, I accidentally quoted you instead of John. Apologies.

  228. avatar
    JPotter June 19, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    AlCum: Obama is not yet the nominee. The fact that he will be does not turn the process upside down for you.

    Remember, the birthers are moving backwards through time. It’s very confusing for them. About a week or two ago in their world, he was “un-nominated”.

    Everything birther makes sense as soon as you look at it backwards.

    Here’s my working theory: the nomination of Obama was a massive blow to the rightwing psyche, and some event near the end of his second term (the nomination of another “other-than-white-male” candidate) sets off a birtherpocalypse. All their heads exploded at once! (in the future)

    This massive psychic trauma sent them all moving backwards in time from the early summer of 2016, starting in the late summer of 2008. Our two timelines are about to cross, the birthers just moved into August 2012 as we entered June. Thus, in birther time, Obama was the nominee until a few days ago. Now he isn’t and they’re very confused.

    Their heads having exploded four years ago also explain a lot of the mental malfunction. Zombie-like behavior. Inability to understand cause-and-effect (in their time, it’s effect-and-cause!). Swimming up the time stream is hard; doing so without a brain, impossible.

    In about a month, our timelines will pass.

    Buckle up, and whatever you do, don’t cross the streams!

  229. avatar
    AlCum June 19, 2012 at 10:20 am #

    bgansel9:
    AlCum, I accidentally quoted you instead of John. Apologies.

    NP!

  230. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 10:25 am #

    john: I’m not a lawyer but I think it can be argued that assigning POTUS eligibility determination to Congress would be a Violation of Seperation of Powers.

    Well, since you are not a lawyer, perhaps you should go to source material written by lawyers:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment12/

    Regarding determination of the electoral votes AND eligibility:

    “This Amendment, 1 which supersedes clause 3 of Sec. 1 of Article II, was adopted so as to make impossible the situation occurring after the election of 1800 in which Jefferson and Burr received tie votes in the electoral college, thus throwing the selection of a President into the House of Representatives, despite the fact that the electors had intended Jefferson to be President and Burr to be Vice- President.” – see more at the link above.

    The Twelfth Amendment ends with the following text:

    “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” – the Constitution states: “4. No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” (Article 2, Section 1, Subsection 4). – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art2.asp

    I trust Yale and Thomson Reuters more than I would trust your word, John. Perhaps you should read what real lawyers write?

    It also occurs to me that you don’t seem to understand the term “separation of powers” very well. Perhaps this link can help you (it’s a picture, should be easier for you to understand: http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Images/ChksBalnces.gif

    Is that better?

  231. avatar
    john June 19, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    The 12th Amendment only has to do with the actual number of votes given to each candidate and the mechanism for dealing with voting number conflicts. The 12th Amendment has nothing to with weighing the Constitutional requirements under Article II Section 1.

  232. avatar
    justlw June 19, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    Majority Will: Paris, Kentucky.

    Or Versailles, Kentucky (proudly pronounced “ver-SALES” by its residents).

  233. avatar
    Tarrant June 19, 2012 at 11:37 am #

    The Magic M: I don’t think experts can testify on *legal* issues (unless maybe some foreign law is in play). The old adage is “ius novit curia”, I think this makes it impossible to bring in experts to “tell the court what the law is/says/means”.

    Wouldn’t it be fun of the defense called all 9 SCOTUS judges?

    While not always the case, it’s the case often enough. Birthers misunderstanding this concept (which is essentially the principle that “the court knows the law”) is why they were so excited about the hearing in Georgia, and why Orly continues to send her Georgia DVD everywhere.

    From the birther point of view, Van Irion et al said in Georgia “The law says that two citizen parents are required for NBC.” The defense did not refute the statement as they were not present. Therefore, in their mind, the court is at that point required to go along with that definition.

    But that’s not true – as a thought experiment, consider what might happen if instead Van Irion had said “Murder is not illegal in the United States.” The fact that there was no defense counsel present doesn’t change the fact that murder is still illegal – the court doesn’t suddenly have to presume that murder is legal for the rest of the case – the actual law trumps what the lawyer SAYS the law is.

    Likewise, while Van Irion et al could say that WKA doesn’t apply, the court is not required to accept that statement. It can read the case and decide it DOES apply, and every court so far has done so. By the same token, the fact that no defense was there to refute Orly’s “evidence” does not mean the court had to accept it as true (and in fact in the ruling made clear that it did no such thing).

  234. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 11:48 am #

    Tarrant: From the birther point of view, Van Irion et al said in Georgia “The law says that two citizen parents are required for NBC.” The defense did not refute the statement as they were not present. Therefore, in their mind, the court is at that point required to go along with that definition.

    They twist themselves in knots trying to convince everyone they have the straight scoop.

  235. avatar
    Rickey June 19, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    In Europe:
    I find it funny that as an American after 20 years in Europe. The Europeans are right Americans are ignorant. The People here do Not Trust Obama. Why,they feel, he has cause World Inflation. His views are not loved.. They feel that a man who will not show his birth certiciate has Something to hide.

    Honesty was an American Trait. Through our so called PRESIDENT it has Been Lost. Those Americans who feel ir is not of value for Obama to show.

    I find it funny that you claim to be an American, yet your grammar and punctuation read as if English is a second language for you.

    As for inflation, the current rate of inflation in the Euro Area is 2.4%, The average inflation rate for the past 20 years has been 2.3%.

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/inflation-cpi

  236. avatar
    JPotter June 19, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    justlw: Or Versailles, Kentucky (proudly pronounced “ver-SALES” by its residents).

    Heh, here we have Miami (“My-yam-MUH”), and, my favorite, Battiest (pronounced “Battiste” (yeah, right!)). Okies can pronounce zee fraunch, zey just canna spell it, you zee?

  237. avatar
    linda June 19, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

    Or Italy, Texas, pronounced by the locals as IT-ly.

    JPotter: Heh, here we have Miami (“My-yam-MUH”), and, my favorite,Battiest (pronounced “Battiste” (yeah, right!)). Okies can pronounce zee fraunch, zey just canna spell it, you zee?

  238. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    linda: Or Italy, Texas, pronounced by the locals as IT-ly.

    Atlanta: Ponce de Leon Avenue.

    Pronnounced: Pawnce da leeon

    Or at least that’s the way it was 40 years ago when I moved there for a brief stay.

  239. avatar
    Joe Acerbic June 19, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    Well, there are TWO known birfoons in Europe: Lord Haw-Haw, er, Monckton and Anders Breivik. I wonder which one “In Europe” is. Norwegian prisons are so nice that they may well have internet access too.

  240. avatar
    BillTheCat June 19, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    In Europe: I find it funny that as an American after 20 years in Europe. The Europeans are right Americans are ignorant. The People here do Not Trust Obama. Why,they feel, he has cause World Inflation. His views are not loved.. They feel that a man who will not show his birth certiciate has Something to hide. Honesty was an American Trait. Through our so called PRESIDENT it has Been Lost. Those Americans who feel ir is not of value for Obama to show

    Nice ignorant statement. Yeh, no, nobody anywhere thinks he caused “World inflation”, whatever the hell that is. Learn the facts, and get back to us.

  241. avatar
    BillTheCat June 19, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    john: I believe Klayman is dead on right.

    Well then, you’l enjoy the certain loss in court along with Kkklayman.

    You spew the same nonsense every day, and it never gets any closer to truth.

  242. avatar
    JPotter June 19, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    BillTheCat: Yeh, no, nobody anywhere thinks he caused “World inflation”, whatever the hell that is.

    Has anyone doublechecked the Earth’s diameter…?

    Or is our “euro-friend” concerned about Obama’s effect on another heavenly body? or bodies? Hey, maybe that’s why he cut back on the space program…..so no one could see what he’s up to! Is that why Newt wanted to go to the Moon, to follow up on Obama? Hmmm.

  243. avatar
    MattR June 19, 2012 at 1:25 pm #

    JPotter: Has anyone doublechecked the Earth’s diameter…?

    This explains quite a bit. I’ve been feeling a bit lighter lately but my body looks the same. Turns out it is just that gravity has decreased slightly due to the world’s inflation.

  244. avatar
    linda June 19, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    Close, his argument is dead of arrival.

    john: I believe Klayman is dead on right

  245. avatar
    AlCum June 19, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    bgansel9: Well, since you are not a lawyer, perhaps you should go to source material written by lawyers:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment12/

    Regarding determination of the electoral votes AND eligibility:

    “This Amendment, 1 which supersedes clause 3 of Sec. 1 of Article II, was adopted so as to make impossible the situation occurring after the election of 1800 in which Jefferson and Burr received tie votes in the electoral college, thus throwing the selection of a President into the House of Representatives, despite the fact that the electors had intended Jefferson to be President and Burr to be Vice- President.” – see more at the link above.

    The Twelfth Amendment ends with the following text:

    “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” – the Constitution states: “4. No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” (Article 2, Section 1, Subsection 4). – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art2.asp

    I trust Yale and Thomson Reuters more than I would trust your word, John. Perhaps you should read what real lawyers write?

    It also occurs to me that you don’t seem to understand the term “separation of powers” very well. Perhaps this link can help you (it’s a picture, should be easier for you to understand: http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Images/ChksBalnces.gif

    Is that better?

    I was amazed that what John thought was a violation of separation of powers was actually an example of separation of powers. Birthers can’t get one single thing correct. Simply amazing.

  246. avatar
    Stanislaw June 19, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Atlanta: Ponce de Leon Avenue.

    Pronnounced: Pawnce da leeon

    Or at least that’s the way it was 40 years ago when I moved there for a brief stay.

    As a native Georgian I can tell you that yes, we still call it Pawnce da leeon.

  247. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 19, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    Stanislaw: As a native Georgian I can tell you that yes, we still call it Pawnce da leeon.

    The first time I pronounced it with a Spanish accent people looked at me like I had two heads. I didn’t make that mistake again.

  248. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    AlCum: I was amazed that what John thought was a violation of separation of powers was actually an example of separation of powers. Birthers can’t get one single thing correct. Simply amazing.

    No wonder then that they haven’t any clue of what the Constitution says. 😛

  249. avatar
    JPotter June 19, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

    AlCum: I was amazed that what John thought was a violation of separation of powers

    I missed that one! John thinks the President should determine his own eligibility? That doesn’t sound very birther-y at all! 😉

  250. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    john:
    The 12th Amendment only has to do with the actual number of votes given to each candidate and the mechanism for dealing with voting number conflicts.The 12th Amendment has nothing to with weighing the Constitutional requirements under Article II Section 1.

    Oh, I see, you’re another “Gifted Legal Mind” who isn’t a lawyer and refuses to read the opinions of Yale law school and Thomson Reuters. I get it.

  251. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    Full Text of the Twelfth Amendment:

    “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

    “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
    The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

    “The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

  252. avatar
    donna June 19, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    from klayman via NBC

    OBC reports that:

    I just talked with Larry Klayman (11 A.M. PT). He is not as concerned about the timing of the judge’s instructions. He feels the Obama attorneys are scrambling for technicalities to dismiss, because they don’t have the law and facts on their side.

    He thinks the issues lie in the interactions of Florida laws with each other and with Federal law and that it’s clear cut that the states have the right/responsibility to control their elections, that Obama has in fact already been nominated, that the voters’ interests are foremost and tat it is clearly not in their best interests to wait longer to decide that an ineligible candidate should be taken off the ballot.

    NBC follows up

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/obama-ballot-challenge-klayman-still-hopeful/

  253. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    donna:
    from klayman via NBC…

    Of COURSE he’s hopeful. That donation button doesn’t push itself. 😛

  254. avatar
    donna June 19, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    the court has now docketed this case as “high profile” with 4 other docketed entries including an amicus brief from scott rille

    http://cvweb.clerk.leon.fl.us/process.asp?template=dockets&addQuery=real_case.case_id=%2758101756%27

  255. avatar
    donna June 19, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

    “Of COURSE he’s hopeful. That donation button doesn’t push itself”

    BEST giggle of the day!!!!!!

    and don’t forget those book sales

  256. avatar
    Jim June 19, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

    richCares:
    “will not be embarrassed by having a buffoon ”
    .
    waving Corsi’s book and touting Sheriff Joe’s non evidence smacks of Buffoonery.

    Someone should send the defense a copy of Woodman’s book to wave around! 😀

  257. avatar
    Rickey June 19, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    donna:
    the court has now docketed this case as “high profile” with 4 other docketed entries including an amicus brief from scott rille

    http://cvweb.clerk.leon.fl.us/process.asp?template=dockets&addQuery=real_case.case_id=%2758101756%27

    Jack Ryan has posted Scott Rille’s ridiculous amicus brief with a notation that the court has rejected it.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/97575672/FL-Voeltz-2012-06-18-Scott-Rille-Amicus-Brief-Rejected-by-Court

    And if we have any 25-year old Ukrainian women lurking about who might be interested in hooking up with a 72-year-old man, Scott Rille may be just the ticket.

    http://www.aloneangels.com/Scott_53_1350.html

  258. avatar
    Keith June 19, 2012 at 10:47 pm #

    Majority Will: Jim F: I wonder where in Europe is “In Europe”?

    Paris, Kentucky.

    Cairo, Illinois

  259. avatar
    Keith June 19, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

    JPotter: And sounds like “fauvism”, which is also sort of apt …. except the fauvists weren’t malignant! English doesn’t have just the right pre- or suffix. Tried some German (for that hint of Godwin), but again, nothing quite right. Vattelverzerrung … Vattelverdrehung …. fun to say, a handful to type.

    How about “Konw-Nothings”?

  260. avatar
    linda June 19, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Oh my! I read that rubbish and now I need to shower.

    Rickey: http://www.scribd.com/doc/97575672/FL-Voeltz-2012-06-18-Scott-Rille-Amicus-Brief-Rejected-by-Court

  261. avatar
    Keith June 19, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

    Keith: How about “Konw-Nothings”?

    Know-Nothings

    Don’t I know anything?

  262. avatar
    bgansel9 June 19, 2012 at 11:23 pm #

    Keith: Cairo, Illinois

    Venice, Florida (and Cairo isn’t in Europe! 😛 )

  263. avatar
    Majority Will June 19, 2012 at 11:27 pm #

    Jim: Someone should send the defense a copy of Woodman’s book to wave around!

    Now that right there is funny!

  264. avatar
    donna June 19, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

    “(Rejected by Court)”

    i WISH we could see that EVERY DAY & TWICE ON SUNDAY

  265. avatar
    Keith June 20, 2012 at 6:14 am #

    bgansel9: Venice, Florida (and Cairo isn’t in Europe! )

    Since when did geography get in the way of a birther claim?

  266. avatar
    Northland10 June 20, 2012 at 7:02 am #

    bgansel9: Venice, Florida (and Cairo isn’t in Europe! )

    Holland, Michigan

  267. avatar
    bgansel9 June 20, 2012 at 9:33 am #

    Northland10: Holland, Michigan

    Dover, Delaware

  268. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    Mr. Halbert is usually banned from the site, but I’ve made an exception for the discussion of whether Klayman is right in his contention that he can contest the Presidential Preference Primary under Florida law. I certainly don’t want significant viewpoints unheard.

    Al Halbert: Doc,

    We are going start with three simple premises as follows:

  269. avatar
    JPotter June 20, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    Al Halbert: We

    Who is included in the “we”?

  270. avatar
    bgansel9 June 20, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    Al Halbert, can you please show me how Florida is the only state that is responsible for the nomination of a presidential candidate? How can events in ONE STATE nominate a presidential candidate?

  271. avatar
    Al Halbert June 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    bgansel9: bgansel9 June 20, 2012 at 11:16 am (Quote) #

    Al Halbert, can you please show me how Florida is the only state that is responsible for the nomination of a presidential candidate? How can events in ONE STATE nominate a presidential candidate?

    Please re-read my POST, what is before the Florida court is Florida LAW, the statutes I cite show how a Candidate has the “delegates” bound or “pledged” to them per Florida Statute 103.101 as they exit the “Presidential Preference Primary” for casting at their National Convention.

    The national convention is the aggregation of all states delegates that have been bound by primary election in their state. The party then votes these “delegates” per the individual results of each state until their is a clear winner. In this case Obama runs un-opposed in Florida as is the case in most of the other 49 states.

    If this were not so the people of the State of Florida or any other state for that matter would be nullified as the party could do as they please, so what would be the point of a “primary” election in the first place or election law that binds delegates?

  272. avatar
    donna June 20, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

    SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CONTESTING NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/97725846/Voeltz-Second-Amended-Complaint

  273. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    I don’t know if those premises have any validity at law or not, so I won’t comment on them, except that I don’t accept them for the sake of this argument.

    Since no “presidential primary preference” election was held with Democrats on the ticket, Obama is not “nominated,” and will be not until September so the action in Judge Lewis’ court is premature. I believe this was the synopsis of their argument, therefore the Motion to dismiss should be granted.

    That’s not the impression I got. The Defense contention is that no one is nominated for or elected to office by a Presidential Preference Primary in Florida, whether it is held or not. But I agree that they argued that one cannot challenge an election where no one is certified as being nominated or elected, and that objection if valid at all cannot be filed until Obama is certified as the winner of the general election in November, should that happen.

    You go on to cite the Florida statute that quite plainly says – 103.101 (1)(b) – that whoever wins the Preference Primary is a “candidate for nomination”, not someone nominated. In section (4)(b) this principle is repeated when the law says: “the purpose of the primary is for the ‘political party’ to have only one candidate come out of the election and the ‘party’s’ delegates will be pledged to that candidate. Again, the winner is a candidate for nomination, not someone nominated.

    You then say:

    LAW left Obama’s name off the “ballot”, and a “presidential preference primary” was held in February. If we were to follow the “legal argument” of Mr. Norby & Herron, the Democratic parties “delegates” are NOT pledged. The election and process has been handed into the hands of a “private entity” the Democratic Party (do you remember Judge Lewis’s remark “the Democratic party decides”). Clearly, this is not and was not the legislative intent when this legislation was drafted and made into “law” as the “delegates” are to be “pledged” following the outcome of the election!

    However, this seems to be exactly what the law anticipates when it says rather clearly that party rules requiring delegates to vote in accordance with the results of the Primary ONLY APPLY if the primary was held. “Any party rule directing the vote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary, if one is held” – 103.101 (1)(b).

    You then go on to cite 99.061 which seems inapplicable to me since we are not talking about a nomination in the Preference Primary. So I reject anything that argues from this statute.

    If I understand what comes next, you argue that BECAUSE Obama’s name was not listed on the Presidential Preference Primary, that could only have been the result of the Secretary of State applying 101.252 (and admitting that it applies), and therefore that statute must apply because the Secretary applied it. However, my understanding is that the Democratic Preference Primary was not held, not that it was held with Obama’s name omitted. If this is the case, then your argument falls on this point.

    So I don’t buy your argument in total, and I doubt the judge will either. Frankly, based on your representations, I was expecting better.

  274. avatar
    JPotter June 20, 2012 at 11:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t know if those premises have any validity at law or not, so I won’t comment on them, except that I don’t accept them for the sake of this argument.

    Al chooses to bail on the statutes governing presidential elections in FL (ch. 103) when inconvenient. Those statutes exists to accomodate and govern the unique nature of Presidential elections, the only electoral process in our dual sovereignty system which operates above the level of the states. By instead sliding back to ch. 99 (“… we must look elsewhere for the answer…”), he seeks to treat the Presidential election as if it were any other election, confined to the state of FL. That isn’t going to fly. Florida has no power to dictate to a national political party, or to disenfranchise other states by dictating the nominee of a national party! The primary voters of a state are not ‘disenfranchised’ if the party as a whole decides to nominate someone other than who FL’s delegates were pledged to! Such happens all the time, and in every case, the primary voters still had their say, their chance to influence the party’s process.

    For extra cover for his statutory shell game, he accuses the defense of the same offense he has indulged in, and throws the state under the bus to boot (“for some reason the Secretary of State was aiding this effort.”).

    A true conspiracist, he sees’em everywhere! All isn’t wrong, Al isn’t lying …. no, the whole world is against him.

    This funhouse mirror of an argument, an attempt to subvert the Presidential electoral process through and concern illogic isn’t going to help him.

    ( doomed. )

  275. avatar
    Northland10 June 21, 2012 at 7:15 am #

    Al Halbert: Section 4 discusses the pledging of delegates from the “political party” for use at the National Convention. If this were not so then a political party (private entity) could nullify and disenfranchise the citizens of Florida’s “cast vote per ballot” and do as they choose.

    What we have here is one simple premise;

    1. Freedom of Association.

    Your are hinting that the legislature dictates how the state Democratic Party may nominate their candidate to the Democratic National Convention. However, there are limits on what a state government may instruct a private entity on how they may nominate. I see the legislature, in their laws on Presidential Preference Primaries, not stating how a party may select a candidate for nomination but, if that party chooses to use state resources in, what rules they must follow. Let us look again to 103.101.

    1(b) Each political party other than a minor political party shall, on the date selected by the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee in each year the number of which is a multiple of 4, elect one person to be the candidate for nomination of such party for President of the United States or select delegates to the national nominating convention, as provided by party rule. Any party rule directing the vote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary, if one is held.

    “candidate for nomination” “by party rules” “if one is held”

    The legislature is not dictating how a party must go about selecting a candidate. Instead they are saying, if you are going to use our resources for an primary election, you must let us know your rules, you must follow your rules, and the apportionment of delegates should reasonably reflect the results of an election. In short, Florida is stating, if you are going to use our resources for a primary election, don’t waste our time by ignoring the results later on.

    There was no primary election held so the the state party, nor the national party, are bound by the primary election rules. Without the election process neither a state government, nor a non-member of the party has any standing to tell a private entity who they may declare as a candidate for nomination for their party.

  276. avatar
    misha June 21, 2012 at 9:19 am #

    JPotter: Here’s my working theory: the nomination of Obama was a massive blow to the rightwing psyche, and some event near the end of his second term (the nomination of another “other-than-white-male” candidate) sets off a birtherpocalypse.

    I am legitimately concerned about another Oklahoma City, if Obama is re-elected.

  277. avatar
    misha June 21, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    john: I believe Klayman is dead on right

    I believe Klayman is brain dead.

    – He sued his own mother, and took it to trial.
    – He owes at least $70K in child support.
    – He joined Jews For Jesus. He is a latter day concentration camp capo.

  278. avatar
    Al Halbert June 21, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    JPotter: Al chooses to bail on the statutes governing presidential elections in FL (ch. 103) when inconvenient. Those statutes exists to accomodate and govern the unique nature of Presidential elections, the only electoral process in our dual sovereignty system which operates above the level of the states. By instead sliding back to ch. 99 (“… we must look elsewhere for the answer…”), he seeks to treat the Presidential election as if it were any other election, confined to the state of FL. That isn’t going to fly. Florida has no power to dictate to a national political party, or to disenfranchise other states by dictating the nominee of a national party! The primary voters of a state are not ‘disenfranchised’ if the party as a whole decides to nominate someone other than who FL’s delegates were pledged to! Such happens all the time, and in every case, the primary voters still had their say, their chance to influence the party’s process.

    For extra cover for his statutory shell game, he accuses the defense of the same offense he has indulged in, and throws the state under the bus to boot (“for some reason the Secretary of State was aiding this effort.”).

    A true conspiracist, he sees’em everywhere! All isn’t wrong, Al isn’t lying …. no, the whole world is against him.

    This funhouse mirror of an argument, an attempt to subvert the Presidential electoral process through and concern illogic isn’t going to help him.

    ( doomed. )

    Please note a “Presidential Preference Primary” was held on January 31, 2012:

    http://election.dos.state.fl.us/calendar/elecdate.shtml

    Obama’s name was left off the ballot per 103.101 Section 4. Which is consistent with 101.252 and that Obama has affirmatively stood for nomination by executing qualifying documents per 99.061 (predicate affirmation). If it does not operate as I laid out Florida law, how are delegates ever pledged to vote at the National Convention as the Citizens voted if Candidates do not exit 103.101 a “declared” nominee from the State of Florida for their party.

    Section 103.101 Section 1 (b)

    (b) Each political party other than a minor political party shall, on the date selected by the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee in each year the number of which is a multiple of 4, elect one person to be the candidate for nomination of such party for President of the United States or select delegates to the national nominating convention, as provided by party rule. Any party rule directing the vote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary, if one is held.

    This is what you refer to in your answer, “if one is held” was placed into the statute in the eventually that a primary was not held, when only “one” person stood for nomination of any and all political parties and no other individual came forward and filed for qualification per 99.061, in this case “NO” presidential primary would be held, however one was held with Romney leaving 103.101 having his delegates pledged to him, as Obama exited being nominated and the delegates pledged as he was “declared nominated” per 101.252 and 103.101 section 4. The other reason for this portion is to make sure a “presidential preference primary” is always held, as each “party” must nominate one candidate. So that one is “guaranteed” to happen in a presidential election year that is a multiple of four and held on January 31, 2012.

    Much less how are delegates enjoined to “vote” the will of the people from Florida from the primary if not through 103.101 Sections 1, 4, 5 & 6 at the National Convention, section 1(b) says they must reflect the “will of the people” from the primary? If delegates are not enjoined by “law” then a “private entity”, (Democratic Party) has complete control of an election process, which was not the intention of Florida election law (the entire chapters 97 thru 107)! What you advocate is anarchy by government allowance and complete and utter nullification of any “votes” cast by citizens in a “presidential preference primary.” Herron, Nordy and Obama would love to have their way, so that he slides into home without having to face the “natural born citizen” issue, why?

    If he has the documentation is this not the perfect venue to clear his name beyond any doubt prior to the ELECTION, doesn’t his latest birth certificate show with absolute certainty, why didn’t they provide his entire bona-fides as proof and dismiss this as nonsense with absolute proof instead of this nonsense about election law?

    No, that is not what happened; Obama and his attorneys claimed in the discovery hearing that doing so was unduly burdensome to him, why? What is he hiding that he will not and cannot stand and clear his name, and why do you advocate that he does not? If someone smeared my good name I would stand and fight, I suspect you would to and not hide beyond technicality after technicality and privacy laws and executive orders, but throw your bona-fides down for all the world to see!

  279. avatar
    Al Halbert June 21, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t know if those premises have any validity at law or not, so I won’t comment on them, except that I don’t accept them for the sake of this argument.

    That’s not the impression I got. The Defense contention is that no one is nominated for or elected to office by a Presidential Preference Primary in Florida, whether it is held or not. But I agree that they argued that one cannot challenge an election where no one is certified as being nominated or elected, and that objection if valid at all cannot be filed until Obama is certified as the winner of the general election in November, should that happen.

    You go on to cite the Florida statute that quite plainly says – 103.101 (1)(b) – that whoever wins the Preference Primary is a “candidate for nomination”, not someone nominated. In section (4)(b) this principle is repeated when the law says: “the purpose of the primary is for the ‘political party’ to have only one candidate come out of the election and the ‘party’s’ delegates will be pledged to that candidate. Again, the winner is a candidate for nomination, not someone nominated.

    You then say:

    However, this seems to be exactly what the law anticipates when it says rather clearly that party rules requiring delegates to vote in accordance with the results of the Primary ONLY APPLY if the primary was held. “Any party rule directing the vote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary, if one is held”– 103.101 (1)(b).

    You then go on to cite 99.061 which seems inapplicable to me since we are not talking about a nomination in the Preference Primary. So I reject anything that argues from this statute.

    If I understand what comes next, you argue that BECAUSE Obama’s name was not listed on the Presidential Preference Primary, that could only have been the result of the Secretary of State applying 101.252 (and admitting that it applies), and therefore that statute must apply because the Secretary appliedit. However, my understandingis that the Democratic Preference Primary was not held, not that it was held with Obama’s name omitted. If this is the case, then your argument falls on this point.

    So I don’t buy your argument in total, and I doubt the judge will either. Frankly, based on your representations, I was expecting better.

    Please note a “Presidential Preference Primary” was held on January 31, 2012:

    http://election.dos.state.fl.us/calendar/elecdate.shtml

    Obama’s name was left off the ballot per 103.101 Section 4. Which is consistent with 101.252 and that Obama has affirmatively stood for nomination by executing qualifying documents per 99.061 (predicate affirmation by the CANDIDATE which must happen to be able to be “qualified” for NOMINATION by a party). If it does not operate as I laid out Florida law, how are delegates ever pledged to vote at the National Convention as the Citizens voted if Candidates do not exit 103.101 a “declared” nominee from the State of Florida for their party, and CANDIDATES would be forced to run against their will. That is what 99.061 is all about in conjunction with the other statutes.

    Section 103.101 Section 1 (b)

    (b) Each political party other than a minor political party shall, on the date selected by the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee in each year the number of which is a multiple of 4, elect one person to be the candidate for nomination of such party for President of the United States or select delegates to the national nominating convention, as provided by party rule. Any party rule directing the vote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary, if one is held.

    This is what you refer to in your answer, “if one is held” was placed into the statute in the eventually that a primary was not held, when only “one” person stood for nomination of any and all political parties and no other individual came forward and filed for qualification per 99.061, in this case “NO” presidential primary would be held, however one was held with Romney leaving 103.101 having his delegates pledged to him, as Obama exited being nominated and the delegates pledged as he was “declared nominated” per 101.252 and 103.101 section 4. The other reason for this portion is to make sure a “presidential preference primary” is always held, as each “party” must nominate one candidate. So that one is “guaranteed” to happen in a presidential election year that is a multiple of four and was held on January 31, 2012.

    Much less how are delegates enjoined to “vote” the will of the people from Florida from the primary if not through 103.101 Sections 1, 4, 5 & 6 at the National Convention, section 1(b) says they must reflect the “will of the people” from the primary? If delegates are not enjoined by “law” then a “private entity”, (Democratic Party) has complete control of an election process, which was not the intention of Florida election law (the entire chapters 97 thru 107)! What you advocate is anarchy by government allowance and complete and utter nullification of any “votes” cast by citizens in a “presidential preference primary.” Herron, Nordy and Obama would love to have their way, so that he slides into home without having to face the “natural born citizen” issue, why?

    If he has the documentation is this not the perfect venue to clear his name beyond any doubt prior to the ELECTION, doesn’t his latest birth certificate show with absolute certainty, why didn’t they provide his entire bona-fides as proof and dismiss this as nonsense with absolute proof instead of this nonsense about election law?

    No, that is not what happened; Obama and his attorneys claimed in the discovery hearing that doing so was unduly burdensome to him, why? What is he hiding that he will not and cannot stand and clear his name, and why do you advocate that he does not? If someone smeared my good name I would stand and fight, I suspect you would to and not hide beyond technicality after technicality and privacy laws and executive orders, but throw your bona-fides down for all the world to see!

    You certainly are capable of understanding the statutes so please argue the “facts” and stand back and criticize.

  280. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 21, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    As I see it, the Republican Primary was held and the Democratic Primary was not. However, in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think it matters. Whether it was held or not, the winner is still just a candidate, not a nominee.

    Al Halbert: Please note a “Presidential Preference Primary” was held on January 31, 2012

  281. avatar
    JPotter June 21, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    Al Halbert: throw your bona-fides down for all the world to see!

    You seem to have missed it the second time:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM2GJn6hpJE

    This is transparency far above and beyond what is reasonable. Your concerns have been addressed, to a greater extent than you are entitled. Enjoy.

    What you advocate…

    …is the normal operation of the Presidential election process. And equal respect for the sovereignty of all states.

    Is this your first go ’round?

  282. avatar
    Al Halbert June 21, 2012 at 10:30 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    As I see it, the Republican Primary was held and the Democratic Primary was not. However, in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think it matters. Whether it was held or not, the winner is still just a candidate, not a nominee.

    You may be right, however a “candidate” and “nominee” are a person at the end of the day 103.101 is operative (candidate must execute affirmative qualification for nomination 99.061) in this case Obama is the Candidate and he is the Nominee and has in FACT been nominated per 101.252 for the State of Florida for the Democrats this November with delegates “pledged” to vote the “will of the people” at the National Convention in September.

  283. avatar
    JPotter June 21, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    misha: I am legitimately concerned about another Oklahoma City, if Obama is re-elected.

    Unfortunately I agree. Can’t give in to the darkness, tho. Have to hold on until it breaks. Imagination is a great and terrible thing. We see it in birther lawsuits, the birthers imagine how right they are, how the strong their arguments are, how well they will be received, the great effect they will have. And then the reality comes to pass, and the result is awkward, embarrassing, time wasted, thoroughly underwhelming.

    The same misbegotten process leads to violence. Some nutter gets all worked up, thinks that they can Do Something, strike a Blow for Freedom or whatever, and then comes the reality. A stupid waste, crime, tragedy.

    There can be a great price to pay in learning the difference between an idea in a person headspace and its realization in the real world. When a person is isolated in their own mind, the calculations become skewed. The only good that comes from the results is the possible wake-up call for likewise deluded individuals.

    Yes, another Obama term would shove extremists farther into their hiding places, increase their desperation and frustration. We’ll survive.

  284. avatar
    Lupin June 21, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    JPotter: Yes, another Obama term would shove extremists farther into their hiding places, increase their desperation and frustration. We’ll survive.

    It depends how you define “survive”.

    It is impossible to accurately predict the future, and historical analogies only go so far. With these caveats in mind, myself, I see the US as in the early start of a “Gorbachev” phase of transformation. Whether that transformation will be relatively orderly (as was the case in Russia) or catastrophic (like the US Civil War), I don’t know. I hope, orderly. But I’m convinced that the US as we knew it in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. is gone for good — like the old USSR.

  285. avatar
    JoZeppy June 21, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    Please note, you are still wrong. The January 31, 2012, set by the RNC and the Flordia state legislature violated DNC rules requiring a Florida primary be after March 6. You recall 4 years ago they did the same thing, and the prirmary was also voided by the DNC then (and the candidates boycotted campaigning in the state). Well this year, first they declared it a non-binding primary, and then ultimately cancelled it (you can confirm this with that wonderful google thing that helps you poke around the internets). So no, there was no Florida Democractic primary.

    Al Halbert: Please note a “Presidential Preference Primary” was held on January 31, 2012:

  286. avatar
    Al Halbert June 21, 2012 at 11:37 am #

    JoZeppy:
    Please note, you are still wrong.The January 31, 2012, set by the RNC and the Flordia state legislature violated DNC rules requiring a Florida primary be after March 6.You recall 4 years ago they did the same thing, and the prirmary was also voided by the DNC then (and the candidates boycotted campaigning in the state).Well this year, first they declared it a non-binding primary, and then ultimately cancelled it (you can confirm this with that wonderful google thing that helps you poke around the internets).So no, there was no Florida Democractic primary.

    Please show in 103.101 where their must be a “DEMOCRATIC” primary? The law is succint, it states “presidential preference primary.” The law is clear it uses the language “political party” meaning any-and all parties, not separate primaries for each party. Whether is it binding or not is the prerogative of the “party”, however Florida law is clear in 103.101 Section (1):

    (b) Each political party other than a minor political party shall, on the date selected by the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee in each year the number of which is a multiple of 4, elect one person to be the candidate for nomination of such party for President of the United States or select delegates to the national nominating convention, as provided by party rule. Any party rule directing the vote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary, if one is held.

    Which was written to make sure an election was held in each presidential election year. The democrats did not have a “candidate” on the ballot per section (4) which is provided for in 101.252, since Obama stood un-opposed, he exited the “presidential preference primary” the “declared nominated” and becomes the Candidate Nominee for the State of Florida for the National Convention:

    101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.—
    (1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office.
    (2) Any candidate for party executive committee member who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for such an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared elected to the state or county executive committee.

    DNC rules is NOT Florida LAW, Florida Law is! A private entitiy does not get to dictate to a State and it’s people, what planet are you from?

  287. avatar
    JPotter June 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm #

    Lupin: I’m convinced that the US as we knew it in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. is gone for good — like the old USSR.

    Of course it is! Everything changes, and this is 2012. Today’s world will be long gone in 2040. Regressive elements in society fight change …. literally fighting nature. The US continues to evolve (yes, evolve! 😉 ). Too much of our society still defines itself externally … that is, defines itself by decidingf what it is not. Creating “Others”. There was a great line in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (book, not movie …. was there any dialogue in the movie?) about the US flailing about in paranoia. I don’t recall the exact line. Anyway, we’ll get past that. There may be ugly times, tragedies even; scared, insecure people do stupid things. But we’ll get past it and reach greater heights.

    I’ll tell you this Lupin: the offline version of the US is far more inspirational than the online version!

    How’s post-election France?

  288. avatar
    linda June 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

    Please note in the statues you quote that it says “Each PARTY….shall…elect one person to be the candidate for nomination….” Candidate for nomination, not a nominee.

    It also clearly says “..the PARTY rule directing the vote of the delegates at national convention…” It is written into the law that the parties nominate the candidate.

    Also, it should go without saying, that President Obama has provided images of his birth certificates available to the public. The State of Hawaii has verified them, on numerous occasions. He is a natural born citizen, and Courts have ruled so.

    Why do you still have questions?

    Al Halbert: DNC rules is NOT Florida LAW, Florida Law is! A private entitiy does not get to dictate to a State and it’s people, what planet are you from?

    Al Halbert: (b) Each political party other than a minor political party shall, on the date selected by the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee in each year the number of which is a multiple of 4, elect one person to be the candidate for nomination of such party for President of the United States or select delegates to the national nominating convention, as provided by party rule. Any party rule directing the vote of delegates at a national nominating convention shall reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary, if one is held.

  289. avatar
    G June 21, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

    Bravo! Well said. I agree.

    JPotter: Anyway, we’ll get past that. There may be ugly times, tragedies even; scared, insecure people do stupid things. But we’ll get past it and reach greater heights.

  290. avatar
    G June 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    Well said!!

    JPotter: Unfortunately I agree. Can’t give in to the darkness, tho. Have to hold on until it breaks. Imagination is a great and terrible thing. We see it in birther lawsuits, the birthers imagine how right they are, how the strong their arguments are, how well they will be received, the great effect they will have. And then the reality comes to pass, and the result is awkward, embarrassing, time wasted, thoroughly underwhelming.

    The same misbegotten process leads to violence. Some nutter gets all worked up, thinks that they can Do Something, strike a Blow for Freedom or whatever, and then comes the reality. A stupid waste, crime, tragedy.

    There can be a great price to pay in learning the difference between an idea in a person headspace and its realization in the real world. When a person is isolated in their own mind, the calculations become skewed. The only good that comes from the results is the possible wake-up call for likewise deluded individuals.

    Yes, another Obama term would shove extremists farther into their hiding places, increase their desperation and frustration. We’ll survive.

  291. avatar
    G June 21, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    Transformation can still be quite messy, without requiring anything to reach the “catastrophic” levels that you mentioned and that many of the paranoids of the conspiracy mindset are always ranting about.

    I would argue that it is increasingly difficult for a “Civil War” level breakdown to occur in 21st Century America. Our structure of laws, although imperfect, are fairly sound and enduring. Our infrastructure (both physical and informational) is quite extensive. Our nation is quite sizeable, which also serves to mitigate the real physical damage that localized tragic events can bring. Yes, emotional scars can still form…but that is a whole different beast. Our various levels of government, including its ability to enforce laws and protect itself, is quite extensive and fairly well equipped.

    My point is that a “Civil War” in this country would require an unprecedented systemic breakdown of most of the underpinning infrastructures in place to occur BEFORE such a level of social unrest could be reached and carried out.

    Without that, any actions of “civil unrest” would be quickly detected and countered and therefore contained to localized police actions against unlawful seditionists. The rest of the nation would continue on and endure, even as these sensationalized acts of ugliness were occurring.

    Therefore, while a Ruby Ridge, Waco or Oklahoma City Bombing style threat always remains possible, I strongly argue that it would be extremely difficult and highly improbable for such acts to sustainably spread into a full-blown “Civil War” here.

    Lupin: It depends how you define “survive”.

    It is impossible to accurately predict the future, and historical analogies only go so far. With these caveats in mind, myself, I see the US as in the early start of a “Gorbachev” phase of transformation. Whether that transformation will be relatively orderly (as was the case in Russia) or catastrophic (like the US Civil War), I don’t know. I hope, orderly. But I’m convinced that the US as we knew it in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. is gone for good — like the old USSR.

  292. avatar
    bgansel9 June 21, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    Al Halbert: Which was written to make sure an election was held in each presidential election year. The democrats did not have a “candidate” on the ballot per section (4) which is provided for in 101.252, since Obama stood un-opposed, he exited the “presidential preference primary” the “declared nominated” and becomes the Candidate Nominee for the State of Florida for the National Convention:

    Obama HAS had challengers for the presidential ticket. The challengers have been listed on other states’ primary ballots (two of them are Florida residents, although the Florida ballot did not list them):

    The most well known was Randall Terry (I don’t think he’s a Democrat personally, but he decided to run as one. He qualified for the ballot in New Hampshire, Missouri, and Oklahoma. (He apparently got 18 percent of the vote in Oklahoma). He is a resident of West Virginia.

    Darcy Richardson is a Florida resident and a blogger from Florida. He qualified for the ballot in New Hampshire, Missouri, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas. He got 6.36 percent of the vote in Oklahoma. Richardson suspended his campaign on April 2012 (AFTER the date for the Florida non-binding primary date).

    The other Florida resident Democratic primary challenger was Cornelius O’Connor, who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot, got 266 votes.

    Other Democratic challengers:

    Bob Ely: appeared on the ballots of New Hampshire, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.

    Keith Russell Judd (a prison inmate in Texas): appeared on the ballot in West Virginia and got 41% of the vote.

    Jim Rogers: an Oklahoma resident, appeared on the Oklahoma ballot, received 14% of the vote.

    Vermin Supreme: a performance artist from Massachusetts, he appeared on the New Hampshire primary and got 833 votes.

    Ed Cowan, a Vermont resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot, finished in the #2 postion with 945 votes

    John D. Haywood, a North Carolina resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and got 423 votes

    Craig Freis, a California resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and received 400 votes

    Edward T. O’Donnell, a Delaware resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and received 222 votes

    Bob Greene, a California resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and received 213 votes

    Robert B. Jordan, a California resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and received 155 votes

    Aldous C. Tyler, a Wisconsin resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and received 106 votes after endorsing Darcy Richardson.

    Florida is NOT the only state in the union, and Florida DOES NOT choose the nominee. There are other people who were candidates for the Democratic primary in 2012, and you completely nullify their candidacies if you say Florida has a clear nominee.

    More on these individuals here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012

    here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2012

    and here (a piece on Randall Terry’s primary challenge in Oklahoma): http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/05/the-other-primary-in-oklahoma-pro-life-democrat-randall-terry-to-challenge-obama/

  293. avatar
    bgansel9 June 21, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    When I say Florida did not list them, what I meant was they were not qualified under the Florida ballot. They qualified on ballots for other state primaries.

  294. avatar
    Al Halbert June 21, 2012 at 5:32 pm #

    bgansel9: Obama HAS had challengers for the presidential ticket. The challengers have been listed on other states’ primary ballots (two of them are Florida residents, although the Florida ballot did not list them):

    The most well known was Randall Terry (I don’t think he’s a Democrat personally, but he decided to run as one. He qualified for the ballot in New Hampshire, Missouri, and Oklahoma. (He apparently got 18 percent of the vote in Oklahoma). He is a resident of West Virginia.

    Darcy Richardson is a Florida resident and ablogger from Florida. He qualified for the ballot in New Hampshire, Missouri, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas. He got 6.36 percent of the vote in Oklahoma. Richardson suspended his campaign on April 2012 (AFTER the date for the Florida non-binding primary date).

    The other Florida resident Democratic primary challenger was Cornelius O’Connor, who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot, got 266 votes.

    Other Democratic challengers:

    Bob Ely: appeared on the ballots of New Hampshire, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.

    Keith Russell Judd (a prison inmate in Texas): appeared on the ballot in West Virginia and got 41% of the vote.

    Jim Rogers: an Oklahoma resident, appeared on the Oklahoma ballot, received 14% of the vote.

    Vermin Supreme: a performance artist from Massachusetts, he appeared on the New Hampshire primary and got 833 votes.

    Ed Cowan, a Vermont resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot, finished in the #2 postion with 945 votes

    John D. Haywood, a North Carolina resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and got 423 votes

    Craig Freis, a California resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and received 400 votes

    Edward T. O’Donnell, a Delaware resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and received 222 votes

    Bob Greene, a California resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and received 213 votes

    Robert B. Jordan, a California resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and received 155 votes

    Aldous C. Tyler, a Wisconsin resident who qualified for the New Hampshire ballot and received 106 votes after endorsing Darcy Richardson.

    Florida is NOT the only state in the union, and Florida DOES NOT choose the nominee. There are other people who were candidates for the Democratic primary in 2012, and you completely nullify their candidacies if you say Florida has a clear nominee.

    More on these individuals here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012

    here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2012

    and here (a piece on Randall Terry’s primary challenge in Oklahoma): http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/05/the-other-primary-in-oklahoma-pro-life-democrat-randall-terry-to-challenge-obama/

    The question that is before the Florida Court is Voletz v. Obama, all the other candidates you mention did not qualify for FLORIDA by a positive affirmation (they needed to file documents with the State of Florida, they did NOT). The question that is posed to the Court is that Obama is not eligible for election in FLORIDA, per 102.168 3 (b). If these other person would have filed in FLORIDA, their would have been a BALLOT with all their names on it, including Obama’s.

    You cannot change the fact that Obama qualified for “nomination” per Florida 99.061 (all the others did not), Stood for election per 103.101 and was deemed “nominated” the Democrat Candidate per 101.252. The Delegates for FLORIDA are now pledged to VOTE Obama as their Candidate at the Democratic National Convention in September. Florida courts must deal with Florida Statutes.

    So what is your POINT?

  295. avatar
    Northland10 June 22, 2012 at 6:19 am #

    Al Halbert: Stood for election per 103.101 and was deemed “nominated” the Democrat Candidate per 101.252. The Delegates for FLORIDA are now pledged to VOTE Obama as their Candidate at the Democratic National Convention in September. Florida courts must deal with Florida Statutes.

    No, there was not primary election this year. As 103.101 mentions, delegate selection and participation in a Presidential Preference Primary is by party rules. In 2011, the party chose to select delegates by caucus in May:

    Florida Republicans chose to defy the rules of both national parties by setting the state’s Presidential Primary on January 31, 2012 – a move that pushed Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses to just after the New Year. As a result, the National Republican Party sanctioned Florida’s Republican delegation and cut half of the state’s delegates. On the other hand, the Florida Democratic Party chose to use a system that complies with the party’s rules. Our process begins with the county caucuses held on May 5, 2012. As a result of moving our first step to May, Florida’s Democratic delegation was awarded an additional 20% bonus in the number of delegates and alternates we will send to Charlotte.

    http://www.fladems.com/page/content/2012DelegateSelectionPlan/

    Mr. Halbert, it appears you are one of the big government types that want governments telling private organizations how they can handle their affairs. It is interesting that you should claim that the Florida Democratic Party is disenfranchising the voters of Florida, especially since a selection of delegates is a right held by the Democratic Party and their members. Whether or not they chose to participate in a state run primary election is their choice.

  296. avatar
    Majority Will June 22, 2012 at 7:04 am #

    Northland10: Mr. Halbert, it appears you are one of the big government types that want governments telling private organizations how they can handle their affairs.

    Either that or one party fascism.

  297. avatar
    Al Halbert June 22, 2012 at 8:18 am #

    Northland10: No, there was not primary election this year.As 103.101 mentions, delegate selection and participation in a Presidential Preference Primary is by party rules. In 2011, the party chose to select delegates by caucus in May:

    http://www.fladems.com/page/content/2012DelegateSelectionPlan/

    Mr. Halbert, it appears you are one of the big government types that want governments telling private organizations how they can handle their affairs. It is interesting that you should claim that the Florida Democratic Party is disenfranchising the voters of Florida, especially since a selection of delegates is a right held by the Democratic Party and their members. Whether or not they chose to participate in a state run primary election is their choice.

    States are soveirgn and free to act as the will of the people is weilded through their legislature by enacting laws, which are then applied through the justice system through the courts. Political parties are “private entities”which are nothing more than poliltical corporations which are subject to the “laws” of any state they choose to domicile.

    Therefore are subject to the laws of that State and Nation, CIVICS 101, I am not aware that corporations are given “law” making abilities or are able to declare to any soviergn states government on how the legislation will be applicable by law to them and the states people? Please provide enabling statutes for your claim from any state in the nation! They are however free to seek redress through the courts, if they believe their is a cause of action by discriminatory laws or state actions against them.

  298. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2012 at 8:20 am #

    There is an interesting case in Georgia.

    David Duke (of KKK fame) was running for President in Georgia and participated in several states’ primaries. The Republican committee asked that his name be removed from the primary ballot. The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Northern District of Georgia strongly affirmed a political party’s right to govern its own affairs.

    There were many issues in the decision that was rather narrow, but the principle is still affirmed.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/958452opa.html

    Northland10: Mr. Halbert, it appears you are one of the big government types that want governments telling private organizations how they can handle their affairs.

  299. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2012 at 8:34 am #

    Political parties are “associations” and associations are protected by the Constitution under the First Amendment. See NAACP v. Alabama:

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/449/case.html

    See also Duke v. Cleland

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/958452opa.html

    Al Halbert: States are soveirgn (sic) and free to act as the will of the people is weilded (sic) through their legislature by enacting laws, which are then applied through the justice system through the courts. Political parties are “private entities”which are nothing more than poliltical (sic) corporations which are subject to the “laws” of any state they choose to domicile.

  300. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2012 at 8:40 am #

    Poppycock. The Florida delegates must vote for Obama because he was chosen by the Florida Democratic Convention. The Democrats chose not to hold a Primary in FLorida. I’m sorry, but you’re just imagining things here.

    Al Halbert: The Delegates for FLORIDA are now pledged to VOTE Obama as their Candidate at the Democratic National Convention in September. Florida courts must deal with Florida Statutes.

  301. avatar
    Al Halbert June 22, 2012 at 9:05 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Poppycock. The Florida delegates must vote for Obama because he was chosen by the Florida Democratic Convention. The Democrats chose not to hold a Primary in FLorida. I’m sorry, but you’re just imagining things here.

    Lets follow your reasoning for a second now that Obama and his party “chose” not to hold a primary, they are claiming “no” primary was held therefore Obama is not NOMINATED? So by the doctrine of “laches” or “unclean hands” Obama is barred by LAW from making his argument in Voeltz v. Obama as in essence Obama has created the conditions that he says are at a disadvantage to him.

    Obama cannot claim his argument as he and his party created the condition in which he argues, so the “law” is inoperative by his and their own volition, acts and deeds he must live with the consquences. Had they chosen to follow 103.101 the matter would have been negated and Obama would have left the “presidential preference primary” nominated by law and not “in this twilight” condition you claim. Still want to make this argument?

  302. avatar
    AlCum June 22, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    Al Halbert: Lets follow your reasoning for a second now that Obama and his party “chose” not to hold a primary, they are claiming “no” primary was held therefore Obama is not NOMINATED?So by the doctrine of “laches” or “unclean hands” Obama is barred by LAW from making his argument in Voeltz v. Obama as in essence Obama has created the conditions that he says are at a disadvantage to him.

    Obama cannot claim his argument as he and his party created the condition in which he argues, so the “law” is inoperative by his and their own volition, acts and deeds he must live with the consquences.Had they chosen to follow 103.101 the matter would have been negated and Obama would have left the “presidential preference primary” nominated by law and not “in this twilight” condition you claim. Still want to make this argument?

    Obama will not be nominated until September at the convention.

  303. avatar
    Al Halbert June 22, 2012 at 9:18 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Political parties are “associations” and associations are protected by the Constitution under the First Amendment. See NAACP v. Alabama:

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/449/case.html

    See also Duke v. Cleland

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/958452opa.html

    Associations, Corporations, Partnerships, LLC, DBA are all registered and regulated by each individual States laws and legislatures that they choose to domicile as to the conduct of business for commerce, charity or benevolence take your pick. They are “legal entities” able to conduct their own affairs in “compliance” with law enacted by the legislatures of the state, nation or locality. They do not and cannot enact law or declare except through a legal action in the courts what laws they will or will not comply with based upon a legal theory or argument. What does this have to do with anything? At the end of the day they are still a private entity!

  304. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    Poppycock.

    First, it is not an argument; it is a fact. The Florida Democratic Party expressed its preference for who will be nominated by the national party through a caucus and convention system. There was no Democratic Presidential Preference Primary.

    Contrary to your statement, Obama did not decide for Florida not to hold a Democratic Presidential Preference Primary, the Florida Democratic Party decided that. Since the FDP is not a party to this case, nothing that they did can possibly bar President Obama from making an argument. You’re making up facts to support a specious line of reasoning.

    And even if there had been a primary, Obama wasn’t nominated to anything. Voltz’ case is toast (no butter, no jam, do not pass “Go,” do not collect $200).

    Al Halbert: Lets follow your reasoning for a second now that Obama and his party “chose” not to hold a primary, they are claiming “no” primary was held therefore Obama is not NOMINATED? So by the doctrine of “laches” or “unclean hands” Obama is barred by LAW from making his argument in Voeltz v. Obama as in essence Obama has created the conditions that he says are at a disadvantage to him.

    Obama cannot claim his argument as he and his party created the condition in which he argues, so the “law” is inoperative by his and their own volition, acts and deeds he must live with the consquences. Had they chosen to follow 103.101 the matter would have been negated and Obama would have left the “presidential preference primary” nominated by law and not “in this twilight” condition you claim. Still want to make this argument?

  305. avatar
    bgansel9 June 22, 2012 at 9:23 am #

    One state cannot choose the nominee for all states, as all states are sovereign.

  306. avatar
    bgansel9 June 22, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    Al Halbert: The question that is before the Florida Court is Voletz v. Obama, all the other candidates you mention did not qualify for FLORIDA by a positive affirmation (they needed to file documents with the State of Florida, they did NOT). The question that is posed to the Court is that Obama is not eligible for election in FLORIDA, per 102.168 3 (b). If these other person would have filed in FLORIDA, their would have been a BALLOT with all their names on it, including Obama’s.

    That would make complete and total sense IF the election were a state election, but since it is a NATIONAL election, you disenfranchise the voters of the other states by saying that their ballots entries have no meaning whatsoever simply because they didn’t appear on the FL ballot.

    FL is NOT a nation, it is a state, one of the many states contained within the jurisdiction of the nation of the United States and as such does not have power above any of the others, including the federal government (and federal elections).

  307. avatar
    JPotter June 22, 2012 at 9:49 am #

    If Al carries on this way, kicking agains the bricks of simple logic and the well documented history of 50+ presidential election cycles, I may begin to suspect* that birther are just arbitrarily contrarian. They literally got nothing.

    Contradiction is not an argument.

    Contradiction is not what I pad for.

    __________

    * 😉

  308. avatar
    Keith June 22, 2012 at 10:03 am #

    Al Halbert: States are soveirgn

    Nonsense. States are members of a union.

    and free to act as the will of the people

    Nonsense. States are restricted in their actions by the rules of the union of which they are a member. Those rules are codified in “The Constitution of the United States of America”. Ever hear of it?

    is wielded through their legislature by enacting laws, which are then applied through the justice system through the courts.

    Repeated for emphasis: within the limits of the Constitution.

    Political parties are “private entities”which are nothing more than political corporations

    And as such they are protected by the “free association” rule in the Constitution (1st Amendment – see NAACP v. Alabama).

    which are subject to the “laws” of any state they choose to domicile.

    Yes, and your point is what exactly? Who makes those “laws” of any state they choose to domicile? That’s right: state laws are passed by State Legislatures. Who populates State Legislatures? That’s right, two from two: they are populated by Representatives who are members of Political Parties.

    The simple fact is that the entire Primary Election system is for the benefit of the various Political Parties, and nobody but the political parties. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921); the primary is a “Party Election” – not a “Public Election”.

    Political Parties have, by getting their adherents elected to office, ensured that the taxpayers pay for their candidate selection process (in those states where a primary election is held). I’m not convinced that I think that that is necessarily a good thing, but it is at least more open to scrutiny than the back-room deals and old boy networks that used to be the norm in the US (and still is in Australia). And the taxpayers do get some benefit out of the process as a side effect; their election board gets to practice for the general election.

  309. avatar
    Keith June 22, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    Al Halbert: Therefore are subject to the laws of that State and Nation, CIVICS 101, I am not aware that corporations are given “law” making abilities or are able to declare to any soviergn states government on how the legislation will be applicable by law to them and the states people?

    That is the most nonsensical statement you have said here (today).

    Of course political parties are subject to the law. Elected representatives make the laws. In general, elected representatives are members of a political party. Political parties have agendas called platforms. They tend to enact laws in conformance with their platform so the voters who like that platform will vote for them again.

    And, for your continued rumination, since you brought it up, corporate ‘ownership’ of legislators is more important that political party affiliation these days, and it appears to me that Corporations now have the dominate role in “law” making abilities and most certainly can and do dictate how the law applies to them, not just at the State level but at the Federal level. Remember how Wall Street told President Bush’s regulatory agencies that they were doing everything just right and the agency could go jump?

  310. avatar
    Keith June 22, 2012 at 10:20 am #

    JPotter: Contradiction is not an argument.

    It can be.

    Contradiction is not what I paid for.

    Yes it is.

  311. avatar
    Thomas Brown June 22, 2012 at 10:42 am #

    Keith: Al Halbert: States are soveirgn

    Nonsense. States are members of a union.

    I love the smell of Nullification in the morning.

    It smells like tin foil.

  312. avatar
    JPotter June 22, 2012 at 10:54 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Northern District of Georgia strongly affirmed a political party’s right to govern its own affairs.

    Of course! Mr. Duke, and all other citizens have an equal right to ballot access, but no right to run in association with a particular party. He is perfectly entitled to run for President on his own dime.

    It seems Mr. Halbert has run into the morass of dual sovereignty. It has confused many a finer man. Spelling it right would be a good first step.

  313. avatar
    Al Halbert June 22, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Political parties are “associations” and associations are protected by the Constitution under the First Amendment. See NAACP v. Alabama:

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/449/case.html

    See also Duke v. Cleland

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/958452opa.html

    Doc;

    And we arrive at the TRUTH regarding these “private entities” the Democratic National Conventions is being ran by a “CORPORATION” of the DNC.

    THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the day of February 1, 2011, by and among the 2012 Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc., a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation (the “DNCC”) affiliated with the Democratic National Committee, a District of Columbia unincorporated association constituting the governing body of the Democratic Party of the United States (the “DNC”); Charlotte DNC Host Committee, and Committee for Charlotte 2012, both North Carolina nonprofit corporations (referred to collectively as the “Host Committee”); and the City of Charlotte, (the “City”) (collectively, the “Parties”);

    http://content.news14.com/DNC%20Contracts/Final%20DNC%20Master%20Contract.pdf

    You may also find this interesting, the DNC uses a Canadian Company to register their website. So much for “Made In America” from the Democrats. Got a call into Network Solutions that refers back from the RNC Webiste to see where they are incorporated.

    http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/registry-data.jsp?domain=democraticnationalcommittee.org

  314. avatar
    bgansel9 June 22, 2012 at 11:13 am #

    As I see it, states have limited sovereignty. They can legislate activity for the state (such as the state legislatures are doing now in regard to abortion laws and marriage) but, they cannot override the United States Constitution.

    For a state in this nation to have complete sovereignty would indicate it is NOT a part of the federation of states which are part of the United States. The federal government sovereignty still overrides the state power, but the state does have some limited power, according to the Tenth Amendment.

    States DO NOT HAVE SUPREME power though, they never did, they never will and if they want it, they need to secede from the union.

  315. avatar
    bgansel9 June 22, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    George Washington wrote in the Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution:

    It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.” – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/translet.asp

  316. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2012 at 11:44 am #

    The National Democratic Party is not a party in this suit. Your comment is irrelevant.

    Al Halbert: And we arrive at the TRUTH regarding these “private entities” the Democratic National Conventions is being ran by a “CORPORATION” of the DNC.

  317. avatar
    Al Halbert June 22, 2012 at 11:58 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The National Democratic Party is not a party in this suit. Your comment is irrelevant.

    Your right, it is Democratic Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc. is.

  318. avatar
    Majority Will June 22, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    “You may also find this interesting, the DNC uses a Canadian Company to register their website. So much for “Made In America” from the Democrats.”

    I would swear these birthers are competing with each other to come up with the most asinine observations ever.

    Did you know that America was named for an Italian merchant and explorer? OMG!

    Check your “American” flag and all of the flags of this nation flown in Washington D.C.

    Were they made in the U.S. or China?

  319. avatar
    JPotter June 22, 2012 at 12:05 pm #

    Al Halbert: You may also find this interesting, the DNC uses a Canadian Company to register their website. So much for “Made In America” from the Democrats. Got a call into Network Solutions that refers back from the RNC Webiste to see where they are incorporated.

    Now we’re getting to the extra-chunky nuttery goodness! You still have yet to explain how a state dictates to a national entity. Or even how a state chapter is entitled to dictate to its nat’l parent. Keep trying. You won’t get there, but what the hell.

    That’s right, our national parties are transnational coporations. Their board are comprised of members of the [insert superconspiracy of choice]ians. We’ve been had.

    Did I tell ya about the time I got an offshore call from the RNC telling me, in perfectly stilted, reading from a script, heavily-accented English, how the Red candidate for Congress in my district was fighting for my “Oklahoma family values”? I was deeply touched to know the subcontinent also valued “Oklahoma family values”… so many delicious ironies! Offshoring even the cheapest menial labor after fighting like heck to make this a “right-to-work” state …. !

    Who does the DNC pay to design, code, and otherwise maintain its website(s)?

  320. avatar
    bgansel9 June 22, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

    An explanation of state and national sovereignty, from Air University (United States Air Force):

    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30315.pdf

    “In conclusion, it would appear that the status of the state in the federal system has been strengthened by recent Supreme Court opinions. Although the Court has not scaled back the federal government’s substantive jurisdiction significantly, it has to some extent prevented the expansion of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause and under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Further it has created a variety of obstacles as to how these powers can be executed, forbidding the Congress under the Tenth Amendment from commandeering the authority of state legislative and executive branches, and limiting the authority of Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity. Ultimately, however, the Congress retains significant powers under the Constitution, and under the Supremacy Clause may require the enforcement of its laws in both state and federal court.

  321. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

    Gee, Al. Ya know’d ‘m not no lawyer, but I thought that, you know, when somebody was like a party to a suit, dey done put they name up ‘er at the top of the legal thingy. I looked two time, and for shore I didn’t see nuttin’ bout no Democratic Democratic (sic) Committee up ‘er. Are you tryin’ to pull dis ole boy’s leg?

    Al Halbert: Your (sic) right, it is Democratic Democratic (sic) National Convention Committee, Inc. is (sic).

  322. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

    It’s off-topic troll bait like this that got you banned in the first place.

    Al Halbert: You may also find this interesting, the DNC uses a Canadian Company to register their website. So much for “Made In America” from the Democrats.

  323. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 22, 2012 at 12:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s off-topic troll bait like this that got you banned in the first place.
    Al Halbert: You may also find this interesting, the DNC uses a Canadian Company to register their website. So much for “Made In America” from the Democrats.

    It also appears to be wrong. The whois record I see says democrats.org was registered by enom, inc.which is headquartered in Kirkland, WA…..America.

  324. avatar
    bgansel9 June 22, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    James Madison on complete state sovereignty and why it’s wrong:

    Federalist No. 44, January 25, 1788, James Madison – http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

    “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor.

    In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors.

    In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution.

    In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others.

    In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.”

  325. avatar
    Scientist June 22, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    bgansel9: In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.”

    That is a very good description of the Eurozone, isn’t it? Apparenly, Al thinks it is a good idea to have a bunch of sovereign states using a common currency.

  326. avatar
    bgansel9 June 22, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    CarlOrcas: It also appears to be wrong. The whois record I see says democrats.org was registered by enom, inc.which is headquartered in Kirkland, WA…..America.

    And the Democratic National Convention Committee uses Business Empire Consulting, which is a Raleigh, North Carolina based company. – http://www.demconvention.com/

    More on the unveiling of the website here: http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/queen_city_agenda/2012/05/dnc-organizers-unveil-new-website.html

  327. avatar
    bgansel9 June 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    Scientist: That is a very good description of the Eurozone, isn’t it?Apparenly, Al thinks it is a good idea to have a bunch of sovereign states using a common currency.

    But, Scientist, isn’t that a definition of “Agenda 21?” Hehe! 😉

  328. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 22, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    bgansel9: And the Democratic National Convention Committee uses Business Empire Consulting, which is a Raleigh, North Carolina based company

    Al is wrong. Oh my. As that great American Gomer Pyle would say: “Surprise, surprise, surprise.”

  329. avatar
    Northland10 June 22, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

    Ignoring your claim that Florida determine how the FDP can select their candidate, we still have

    1. 103.101 clearly states, “if one is held.” Obviously they do not require a primary.

    2. Primary or Caucus, Obama is not a nominee but only a candidate (and also President.)

    You can state that that Florida requires it but it should be noted, the Florida SOS is on Obama’s side in this case.

    Al Halbert: Lets follow your reasoning for a second now that Obama and his party “chose” not to hold a primary, they are claiming “no” primary was held therefore Obama is not NOMINATED?So by the doctrine of “laches” or “unclean hands” Obama is barred by LAW from making his argument in Voeltz v. Obama as in essence Obama has created the conditions that he says are at a disadvantage to him.

    Obama cannot claim his argument as he and his party created the condition in which he argues, so the “law” is inoperative by his and their own volition, acts and deeds he must live with the consquences.Had they chosen to follow 103.101 the matter would have been negated and Obama would have left the “presidential preference primary” nominated by law and not “in this twilight” condition you claim. Still want to make this argument?

  330. avatar
    Greenfinches June 22, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    Al Halbert: “laches” or “unclean hands

    You do know, Al, that these are two different things?

    If you don’t, then go back to the lawyer who told you all about laches – if you know how to pronounce it? Better still, don’t pontificate about the law when you don’t understand it as you make yourself look/sound ridiculous

  331. avatar
    G June 22, 2012 at 4:36 pm #

    +100 for the Monty Python reference! 😉

    JPotter: Contradiction is not an argument.
    Contradiction is not what I [paid] for.

  332. avatar
    G June 22, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    ROTFLMAO!!!

    Thomas Brown: I love the smell of Nullification in the morning.

    It smells like tin foil.

  333. avatar
    Rickey June 22, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    Al Halbert:

    CIVICS 101

    Thanks for mentioning that. Civics 101 is the course which teaches that anyone born in the United States (with a few exceptions) is a natural-born citizen who could grow up to be President.

  334. avatar
    chancery June 22, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    > So by the doctrine of “laches” or “unclean hands” Obama is barred by LAW from
    >making his argument in Voeltz v. Obama as in essence Obama has created the
    >conditions that he says are at a disadvantage to him.

    Not that it actually matters since unification, but anyone who purports to speak knowledgeably about legal matters and can, without cringing, contend that laches and unclean hands are doctrines “at law,” is “a ass.”

  335. avatar
    James M June 23, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    bgansel9: That would make complete and total sense IF the election were a state election, but since it is a NATIONAL election, you disenfranchise the voters of the other states by saying that their ballots entries have no meaning whatsoever simply because they didn’t appear on the FL ballot.

    FL is NOTa nation, it is a state, one of the many states contained within the jurisdiction of the nation of the United States and as such does not have power above any of the others, including the federal government (and federal elections).

    The only “national” Presidential election is the one that counts the electoral votes.
    There’s nothing in the Constitution that compels a state’s legislature to direct those electoral votes by any specific process. The fact that every state chooses electors in an at-large election is due to state laws and state constitutions and tradition, but not because the Constitution requires it.

  336. avatar
    bgansel9 June 24, 2012 at 11:14 am #

    James M: The only “national” Presidential election is the one that counts the electoral votes.
    There’s nothing in the Constitution that compels a state’s legislature to direct those electoral votes by any specific process. The fact that every state chooses electors in an at-large election is due to state laws and state constitutions and tradition, but not because the Constitution requires it.

    I never said there was. I am only stating that one state cannot decide for all states.

  337. avatar
    bgansel9 June 24, 2012 at 11:38 am #

    James M: The fact that every state chooses electors in an at-large election is due to state laws and state constitutions and tradition, but not because the Constitution requires it.

    Really? You’ve apparently never read Article Two:

    “Clause 2:
    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

    Clause 3:
    “The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.”

  338. avatar
    bgansel9 June 24, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    I shouldn’t post when I’m not awake.

    Birthers should read the Constitution before they try to tell people like me what’s in it though. They seem to not understand much about that document at all.

  339. avatar
    y_p_w June 24, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

    bgansel9:
    I shouldn’t post when I’m not awake.

    Birthers should read the Constitution before they try to tell people like me what’s in it though. They seem to not understand much about that document at all.

    I think you’ve figured out that it doesn’t require a popular vote on the national election day. It would be up to the state to determine their procedure. The winner take all popular vote is traditional but not required by the Consitution.

    Nebraska has a split system. I believe they allocate their two senatorial electors by a popular vote of the entire state and each Congressional district votes for its own elector. In 2008 they had one elector for Obama-Biden.

  340. avatar
    bgansel9 June 24, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

    y_p_w: I think you’ve figured out that it doesn’t require a popular vote on the national election day.It would be up to the state to determine their procedure.The winner take all popular vote is traditional but not required by the Consitution.

    Nebraska has a split system.I believe they allocate their two senatorial electors by a popular vote of the entire state and each Congressional district votes for its own elector.In 2008 they had one elector for Obama-Biden.

    I don’t think I’ve indicated anywhere that the popular vote chooses a president. But, someone stating that the Constitution doesn’t contain any information on how a president is chosen is simply wrong. While each state has it’s own format for choosing an elector, one state cannot accomplish the task of choosing the president on its own.

    ETA: Likewise, choosing delegates to elect a nominee is the same way – one state cannot choose a nominee on its own.

  341. avatar
    nbc June 24, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Al Halbert: The question that is posed to the Court is that Obama is not eligible for election in FLORIDA, per 102.168 3 (b).

    The problem is that the ‘election’ involved an internal primary party determination where people voted for delegates who pledge themselves to a particular candidate. President Obama was not elected nor nominated in any relevant sense.

    The Courts are not going to meddle with the well established right of the party to nominate their candidate, something which has not happened yet.

    The court will quickly reject these follies. Good luck next time. Of course, that there is NO evidence that our President is or will be ineligible for the office of the President also complicates matters ‘slightly’.

    But the issue before the court is much simpler right now. There is no public office at this moment involved and no nominations or elections have been taken place. In fact, President Obama was not even a candidate, the delegates were.

  342. avatar
    nbc June 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    Al Halbert: Obama cannot claim his argument as he and his party created the condition in which he argues, so the “law” is inoperative by his and their own volition, acts and deeds he must live with the consquences. Had they chosen to follow 103.101 the matter would have been negated and Obama would have left the “presidential preference primary” nominated by law and not “in this twilight” condition you claim. Still want to make this argument?

    I fail to see a legal argument here. Presidential Candidates who take part in a primary are not nominated or elected for any Office. All that happens is that their delegates will have an opportunity at the Convention to express their votes and preferences which in the end will result in a group of delegates for the electoral college to be voted upon at the General elections and the nomination of the party’s candidate for the office of the President. Under no reasonable interpretation of Florida law, can it be argued that the President somehow already has been nominated/elected to be the Party’s candidate for the office of the President, as the Convention where this occurs will happen in September.

    It’s not until the National Convention where the party will nominate its candidate for office of the President, until then, there are no nominations for the office of the President of the United States. The case Republican State v Graham has no relevance to the presidential preference primary, as Obama’s lawyers so carefully explain: Individuals participating in the Presidential Preference Primary have not qualified for nomination or election. Winning a Presidential Preference Primary in a State has no guarantees that the candidate will eventually be nominated to the office in question. The candidates for office will only be nominated at the nominating conventions.

    101.252(1) in which it is stated that ‘such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office’ has no relevance in the Presidential Preference Primaries as there is no office for which the Candidate is nominated, this will take place at the National Nomination Conference. The statute which does apply, 103.101(4), explains the differences and shows that 101.251(1) does not apply

    (4) The names of candidates for political party nominations for President of the United States shall be printed on official ballots for the presidential preference primary election and shall be marked, counted, canvassed, returned, and proclaimed in the same manner and under the same conditions, so far as they are applicable, as in other state elections. If party rule requires the delegates’ names to be printed on the official presidential preference primary ballot, the name of the presidential candidates for that political party may not be printed separately, but the ballot may reflect the presidential candidate to whom the delegate is pledged. If, however, a political party has only one presidential candidate, neither the name of the candidate nor the names of the candidate’s delegates shall be printed on the ballot.

    For clear reasons, the law does not declare the candidate to have been nominated, as of course such would be impossible.

  343. avatar
    James M June 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    bgansel9: Really? You’ve apparently never read Article Two:

    This is a rather insulting remark.

    “Clause 2:
    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

    If a State’s constitution specified that its legislature was to directly appoint its Electors, subject to those qualifications of course, this would be allowable under the US Constitution. You were attempting to refute my statement by quoting the Constitution, but the Constitution does not require at-large elections. State laws do generally require them, of course, and that becomes the legal standard that the states are held to. But it is because the States require it for themselves, not because the US Constitution requires it.

    Clause 3:
    “The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

    _AFTER_ they are chosen by whatever Manner the Legislature thereof has directed.
    This does NOT say that the Electors themselves are chosen by ballot or any other particular process. Only that the process must be consistent with the legislative (and/or Constitutional) direction of a particular State.

    I will say it again: There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a State to choose its electors by popular vote or any other specific system. There is a _tradition_ of elections in this country and in the proto-nation that was the foundation of the country and a very strong tendency toward a certain type of popular election system, so that’s what the states implement. But it’s not a requirement.

  344. avatar
    The Magic M June 25, 2012 at 8:38 am #

    nbc: Under no reasonable interpretation of Florida law, can it be argued that the President somehow already has been nominated/elected to be the Party’s candidate for the office of the President, as the Convention where this occurs will happen in September.

    The funny thing is that birthers claim Obama is not the President, despite having won the popular vote, the majority of votes in the Electoral College, having the EC vote approved by Congress and having been sworn in – yet somehow he is already the nominee, despite not having been nominated by anyone, just on the assumption that “it is impossible/unlikely that the DNC will *not* nominate him”.
    Cognitive dissonance at its best.

  345. avatar
    y_p_w June 25, 2012 at 11:33 am #

    James M: I will say it again: There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a State to choose its electors by popular vote or any other specific system. There is a _tradition_ of elections in this country and in the proto-nation that was the foundation of the country and a very strong tendency toward a certain type of popular election system, so that’s what the states implement. But it’s not a requirement.

    I could imagine a lot of different systems. Maine and Nebraska have slightly different forms where the electoral vote can be split among electors committed to different candidates.

    The Constitution only says that there is a time and place for the Electoral College to meet. The electors could conceivably be appointed by the governor of the state. They could be randomly picked the day before the Electoral College is to meet without necessarily being committed to one candidate or another.

    Of course it’s only by tradition that it’s a winner take all selection (per state in nearly all states) with all Electoral College voters in a particular state being committed to candidates for Pres and VP. There was a time when US senators were selected by each state’s legislature, and this was written into the Constitution. The Constitution isn’t that specific about how the electors are selected – only that each state’s legislature decides the process.

  346. avatar
    JPotter June 25, 2012 at 4:30 pm #

    Took a minute, but I found the problem:

    nbc: Under no reasonable interpretation of Florida law