The Georgia ballot challenge administrative hearings (Farrar v Obama and others) scheduled for January 26 is shaping up to be quite a show. I said before that it’s probably the most important Obama Conspiracy story of the year and birthers seem to think so too, based on the participants lined up to appear [link to Taitz web site]. (Photo right of previous birther rally in Atlanta taken by Loren Collins.)
Looking at Orly’s witness list, I see half of the people relate to her claims that Obama uses a fraudulent social-security number. I fail to see how this is relevant to whether Obama can appear on the Georgia primary ballot. Likely Judge Malihi won’t see it either.
Taitz has claimed to have hired a real attorney to help her just in case. She is excusing herself as having been too busy with her personal lawsuit (Liberi v Taitz) to properly prepare. She says that the timing is not a coincidence – so this implies what – that Phil Berg and Gary Kreep are in Obama’s pocket?
At this point, I suggest that readers unplug any irony meters they have, and put on a pair of irony-reducing glasses to prevent injury. Here’s what Taitz said about the Liberi suit:
Unfortunately since the civil rights movement of the 60s, the federal court system was used as a tool of harassment of political dissident leaders, where such leaders were harassed by bogus law suits,
Cue the explosion in 3, 2, 1 …
I think it is Orly’s argument to prove that Obama is using a fraud SSN. What does this have to do with Obama being placed on the ballot. Since every citizen living in the US, including the POTUS has a SSN, the SSN is the government’s method of verifying that person’s identity with the US government. If Orly can show Obama’s SSN in fraud or inconclusive, The US government cannot verify the identity of Barack Obama. Therefore, Obama’s name cannot be placed on the ballot because Obama’s identity with the US Government cannot be verified. It’s like placing Mickey Mouse on the ballot. Mickey Mouse has no verifiable identity with the US government.
And yes, I too agree that the GA hearings are a pivotal “main event”, for the same reasons you do. 🙂
I’m not sure that six people really constitute a “rally.”
My head is spinning . . . someone, could you please briefly describe what the hell this Georgia case is about? I’m sorry to be so dense, but I can’t keep track of what’s been going on in New Hampshire, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, etc.; it all sounds the same and all seems equally ridiculous. Thanks in advance!
A social-security card is not an identity document. There is nothing on the card that ties it to any individual. A drivers license is an identity document because it has a photo. Further a social-security number doesn’t imply citizenship either.
Your explanation doesn’t make any sense.
Regardless, it still ranks high up on the list of largest birther rallies ever! 😉
The Georgia Secretary of State determined that Barack Obama should appear on the Georgia Presidential Preference ballot. Under Georgia law any Georgia voter can challenge the eligibility of a candidate for office and their appearance on the ballot. Several Georgia voters, including Mr. Farrar, made such a challenge, and an administrative law court will examine the challenge and issue an advisory decision as to Obama’s eligibility back to the Secretary of State. The decision can be appealed.
In Hawaii Taitz is trying to enforce a subpoena to have Department Of Health director Fuddy appear at the Farrar hearing on the 26th along with some birth certificates.
Unlike the vast majority of birther lawsuits that were dismissed, the petitioners here have a legal right to raise the challenge and to have it heard in court. However, there was no social security when the Constitution was written and having a valid number is not a requirement of a US President. Farrar will raise other issues. The other witnesses, Vogt and Polland, will presumably testify that Obama’s birth certificates are a forgery and I assume someone will introduce President Obama’s father’s citizenship as an objection.
I, and I assume the other anti-birthers out there, want the birthers to make the best case they can (and want the same for Obama’s attorney) so that the result (and any appeal results) can be considered decisive.
12 in total.
The State of Georgia, in this Administrative Hearing, only cares if a candidate is eligible for the office which he/she seeks access to the ballot.
Eligibility, in this case, is defined in the Constitution, by NBC, age, residence, and term limit.
The State of Georgia is only interested in those four Constitutional Eligibility issues.
The State of Georgia may ask to see the Birth Certificate to satisfy the NBC and age requirement.
The State of Georgia may ask for a notarized affidavit confirming the residency requirement (but will probably take it as a public known).
The State of Georgia will undoubtedly take the term limit requirement as a public known.
The State of Georgia is not the U.S. Government.
The State of Georgia does not care if a candidate has a Social Security Number.
The President’s Social Security Number, whether valid or fraudulent or non-existent, is completely, 100%. irrelevant to the State of Georgia.
Access to the ballots in the Georgia Primary and the Georgia General Election has nothing to do with whether or not the President has a ‘verifiable identity’ with the U.S. Government’.
Mickey Mouse cannot get on the a ballot in Georgia not because he has no ‘verifiable identity’ with the U.S. Government’, but because he simply cannot, to Georgia’s satisfaction, demonstrate eligibility for any elective office. At the most trivial level he cannot sign a candidate’s declaration.
There’s a couple others: lack of conviction of treason or impeachment.
Over the years, I’ve worked with a lot of people who at various times were in the US on various visas. If they were permanently or temporarily able to work legally in the US, they all had SSNs and Social Security cards that were identical in every respect to ones issued to US citizens. There are many documents that can used to obtain a Social Security number, including a green card, a student visa that allows one to serve as a paid research assistant, refugee documents, etc.
I also remember there was a time when children weren’t required to have SSNs until they either were looking to work or turned 18. I didn’t get my SSN until I was 15. These days a child has to have a SSN in order for parents to claim that child as a dependent on Form 1040, but it is possible to not claim a child as a dependent and not have to get a SSN for this child.
I can assure John that the Social Security Administration and USCIS has far more conclusive methods of determining legal status for President Obama than using Self-Check or E-Verify. It’s akin to someone trying to get verification in a system that’s sensitive to spelling. I remember trying to get into a system where for first-time users, one had to enter the name exactly as it was recorded by the system in order to obtain a user name and password. It rejected me a few times because I have several variations on my name, which look slightly different on my credit cards, my driver license, and my passport/passport card. A human being seeing any one of my identity documents can figure it out using common sense, but a pure electronic system might be a stickler for getting the information 100% matched up with the database.
Addition to Obama’s inconclusive identity with the US government, Orly will also argue that Obama’s name is inconclusive too. This is do in part because documentation indicates that Obama has been known or gone by other names in the past namely Barry Sorotoro and Sobarka. Since no evidence of any name change has been offered, Orly will argue that even Obama’s name is in question since it can not be confirmed due to conflicting documentation.
Thanks for the explanation!
I assume they will try.
Even if given the opportunity to bring forward witnesses, Orly would first have to establish that Vogt and Polland are forensic document experts. Neither come close to what a court would consider experts, so there’s no way they would be allowed to testify as such.
IN essence all the witnesses are gathered solely so that there can be on-queue wailing and gnashing of teeth when they are denied, IMHO.
Even if Obama can verify his identity, Orly will then argue that he is not a natural born citizen. Orly should call Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio and Herb Titus as potential witnesses. Obama’s lawyer will probably use Jack Maskell and his report and cite Ankeny Vs. Indiana along with WKA. Mario and Leo have done an excellent job refuting all of these authoritive sources and Herb Titus can give the clear meaning of NBC.
Here’s another question: if Vogt and Polland testify, presumably under oath, wouldn’t they be committing prejury by knowingly presenting false information about the President’s birth certificate? Or is it more likely that their “evidence” will simply be ignored or dismissed?
Did Daniel just answer my question before I actually posted it?
Assuming the President offers into evidence a paper COLB or LFBC, Mr. Vogt and Mr, Polland will not have examined that document so will not have anything to base their phony expert tesytimony on.
Sorry, John, but every year when Obama files his Federal tax return the U.S. government verifies his identify. The SSN on his tax return is compared with the number which is in the records of the Social Security Administration. If the numbers and names did not match, his tax returns would have been rejected.
I don’t see that anywhere in my copy of the Constitution. I admit I only scanned the most obvious sections looking for it just now, but I don’t remember any such requirements from my past readings.
Can you help me out with a reference to the location those requirements are established?
Thanks in advance.
I guess you could be referring to Amendment 14 Section 3?
That seems to mention elector for President or Vice President, I don’t think it applies to President and I see no bar against someone who was impeached.
Obviously the provision was originally meant to apply to Civil War rebels, but would still apply to anyone meeting the criteria.
Georgia cannot apply additional requirements beyond those in the Constitution to elections for Federal office, so even if Georgia applies those to State offices they cannot consider them for the President.
The following link presents a more cogent argument- than much of what I have read- for the birther side regarding citizenship, even though you will certainly take issue with the points raised.
Exactly! For that very simple and self-evident reason, the whole Birther SSN sideshow is a stupid meme on its face.
For more on this subject, look up Daubert Challenge, including this article here:
Consider, if you will, what is the product of zero and one million. ( 0 x 1,000,000 = ?)
Now make the following substitutions into that equation:
zero => “the cogency value of what you have read (previously) for the birth side”
one million => “the cogency value of the cited ‘American Thinker’ essay
The result is the cogency value of the entire argument.
If someone like Dr. King were here, he would take the article point by point, and explain why it is wrong. Not many have the mentality of Dr. King.
Vot and Polland havenot expressed any opinion on an original paper COLB or LFBC. The only question for those is whether the signature of the Hawaiian official certifying the document is genuine.
OK, I read the entire article: More cogent in its presentation, perhaps… but still based on a bunch of bunk and intentional distortion in order to Concern Troll its point.
Sorry, but all this “2 citizen parent” nonsense is a work of fiction created by Leo D’onofrio in late 2008. There is simply no real support in the case law or history to back up his nonsense, without playing the manipulative and fully selective cherry-picking and out-of-context tricks that are used to prop up and misrepresent cases such as Minor, Wong Kim Ark, deVattel, etc., while ignoring everything that goes along with it and utterly quashes those “arguments”.
The whole “Justia scandal” is just more faux-outrage with the intent to mislead, distract and obfucate the issue. Sorry, but there is no actual scandal or “scrubbing” here as the con artists would like to trick you into believing. Simply put, an online source with a few software glitches in how it links and presents certain footnotes is simply a glitch – that is all. It is an entirely irrelevant issue and doesn’t change the reality of these cases and the content of their documents, which exist in many places and libraries in their full form.
It really is just another version of the intentional distraction arguments of arguing over supposed “artifacts” in online scans and PDFs, instead of dealing with the only meaningful issue – the actual certified paper document and the official authority responsible for its generation, which fully back it. Utterly irrelevant arguments of intentional distraction – that is all.
The author of this American Thinker article also plays up disingenous “dual citizen” and comparison to McCain’s birth arguments – also both irrelevant.
For one thing, any “dual citizenship” claims Obama may have had at birth expired by the time he was 23, so that has no relevance to his running for President in his late 40’s. Not to mention that any argument claiming some other nation’s ability to bestow citenzenship would somehow trump the supreme authority of US law over its own citizens in nonsense in the first place…
Second, the whole distraction argument of McCain’s situation is irrelevant, as it is entirely different. The whole question of McCain’s citizenship only arises BECAUSE McCain was NOT born on U.S. Soil. Obama WAS. Completely different scenarios – period. The author of your article questions why there is NO scholarly discussion about Obama’s citizenship. Well, the answer is quite simple – because there is NO serious scholarly question about birthright citizenship for those born ON U.S. soil at all. The author’s attempts to trick you into thinking otherwise are disingenuous at best.
Consider this argument:
Professor Peter Spiro, in his 2008 scholarly article supporting his favorable opinion of McCain’s eligibility, concluded with this general remark: “The prospect of a dual-citizen president proves the obsolescence of requiring our chief executives to be natural born citizens.” Spiro’s statement appears to suggest that dual citizens are not natural born,…”
Obsolete is much different than “never was.”
Another thought, not from the AT article, just a question that I have:
Child Citizenship Act of 2000
Wouldn’t this be another category of citizens, conflicting with the idea that there are only two classes of citizens?
But, zero times one million is zero negates any discussion.
If by cogent you mean completely disconnected from reality…sure.
The use of the word cogent just has no place in describing a birther argument. This “article” is just a regurgitation of the same, completely bogus, birther arguments. The same BS claim the Minor defined natural born citizen, the same complete misrepresentation of both the Tribe opinion and the Senate resolution. It misses the point….the reason academia is ignoring it is because it is universally accepted as settled law. You don’t get published in acdemia by discussing settled law.
John, you forgot to post that Georgia statute that requires a candidate to have a SSN in order to be on state’s presidential primary ballot. Would you be a dear and please lnform us of that law?
Oh wait …
That is from the AT article.
A1S3: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
A2S4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
All the points in the article have already been discussed, point by point, over and over again. I think even Dr. would get tired of it after about the 223rd time.
As you know, during the past three years, Dr. C. et al., spent countless hours explaining, point by point, why birther arguments are unsupportable, only to see those patient, carefully constructed explanations have absolutely no effect on the deluded convictions of bithers.
At some point, you get tired of trying to kick the football and decide to just call Lucy a fraud.
Except that nothing in the statement suggests anything of the sort. If anything just the opposite. If Prof. Spiro is saying that the prospect dual-citizen president proves the NBC requirement is obsolite, then is the statement is presuming that a dual-citizen president is possible, so in fact he is suggesting that dual citizens can be NBC.
Charo, in reading that Child Citizenship Act of 2000 link, it seems to me that it is just describing the Naturalization Process applied to these classes of children. Thus they are Naturazlied, not Natural Born. The type and speed of that process of naturalization is what differs for their situation, not the type of citizenship itself.
All the processes explain FORMS that apply for conveying that citizenship onto these children. HINT: Forms = a process of naturalization, regardless of whether the form makes it immediate (automatic) with the completion of certain forms, or is a long process of application, before naturalized citizenship is finalized.
BORN citizens (i.e. NBC) do NOT require any naturalization process or similar such forms in order to grant them that citizenship.
So no, I do not see anything other than the same 2 basic types of US citizenship here – born and naturalized. This does not create any separate 3rd class of US citizenship.
It’s a naturalization statute. Therefore they are naturalized citizens. Still only two catagories, still no problem. Why would you think they were anything else?
Obsolescence is the state of being which occurs when an object, service or practice is no longer wanted even though it may still be in good working order. Obsolescence frequently occurs because a replacement has become available that is superior in one or more aspects. Obsolete refers to something that is already disused or discarded, or antiquated. Typically, obsolescence is preceded by a gradual decline in popularity.
I am trying to find where I read that they have to go beyond the naturalization requirements.
Charo, no question about what obsolesense means. I think you are missing the point that we didn’t see that his use of the term in that context led to the implication that you are making.
I’m trying to come up with a simple and short way to put it – in essence, Sprio’s argument seems to be the same one that regular poster “Scientist” at this site makes all the time.
So you are saying that the natural born citizen clause is obsolete? That is what I am getting at. I find that an entirely different argument than the natural born citizens clause includes the definition of dual citizens.
He doesn’t think the NBC is irrelevant. It seems to me that the SC feels the same. [ I had not heard of Spiro before.]
wait… I mean he doesn’t think it is relevant, as in irrelevant…
Also, I believe that Pres. O’s attorney will present the SHORT form, as it is the only certified copy that the state of HI issues — or most states — and is considered the acceptable proof of evidence for all sorts of official proof.
I believe that the long-form that Pres. O acquired to squelch the birther tumult created by Trump was also certified but only for the purposes of posting as official. I suspect that Jablonski won’t submit that because he doesn’t have to and he won’t want to pander in anyway to the nut cases. Not presenting it will certainly make for more protests, and they also think the short-form is forged (or say so anyhow, I think half of them know it is real but won’t admit it to themselves!). But as noted about, being a scanner salesman doesn’t cut it with the Courts.
Going “beyond” standard naturalization requirements would simply just another form of naturalization.
NOT having any requirements for US citizenship at all – that would be the other option – Birthright citizenship. I.e. NBC.
Yes, I think we are now on the same page…I think.
Scientist does in fact think the NBC clause has become obsolete (i.e. no longer serves any purpose in how today’s world works). However, at the same time, he fully recognizes that the NBC clause exists in our Constitution as a requirement.
So, from Scientist’s POV, he would be someone who would support a Consitutional Amendment to do away with the NBC requirement for President. But he fully understands that it is part of existing law.
That seems to be the same argument gist that I get from Spiro’s actual words.
So yes, both seem to be espousing an opinion advocating that they wouldn’t have a problem with changing the law, but at the same time, fully acknowledging the current reality that the law exists.
They are both certainly entitled to their opinion – and it is clearly expressed as just opinion in both cases. It also seems clear that their opinion is probably a minority one at this point – simply put, there is no overwhelming call advocating for such a Constitutional Amendment to be put forward at all.
Just to be clear where I stand – I understand and respect Scientist’s POV on this, but I am fine with living with the law as it is written and have no desire or need to see it changed.
The effective date of the Child Citizenship Act is February 27, 2001. Children who met these requirements on that date automatically became American citizens. Children who were 18 years of age or older on that date did not acquire American citizenship from the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.
The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 allows certain foreign-born, biological and adopted children of American citizens to acquire American citizenship automatically. These children did not acquire American citizenship at birth, but they are granted citizenship when they enter the United States as lawful permanent residents (LPRs).
So, you have some who automatically become citizens who do not need to follow through with any kind of process.
That argument is specious. Several US Presidents were elected under names that differed from their legal name, for example, Jimmy Carter.
Why would there be a need for a change of the law unless it does not allow for dual citizens to be President? I read a more recent article of Leo’s (he has some new posts), and I don’t see anything wrong with civilly debating the points. The first post I read raised a couple of interesting claims, but given the hostility toward him, I won’t re-post any of them.
I find the whole discussion interesting, but after being away for a couple of months, I am reminded that this simply is not a good forum for discussion of the issues. If you have a bond with a group of people with whom you disagree, you can have discussions lasting late into the night and “leave it on the court” so to speak. That simply can’t happen here, and I know that. I still crave that kind of interaction, and it all gets misinterpreted.
I don’t think ANY of these you listed (including Maskell) would qualify as an expert witness on the meaning of the US Constitution. Better they should call Laurence Tribe or Theodore Olson.
One look at the web sites of Apuzzo or Donofrio would prove beyond question that they are biased. As for their arguments, it’s only the intellectually challenged that are fooled by them.
“and” should be “but” it all gets misinterpreted
I read the article. It is unadulterated crap. The opening sentence says academia is ignoring the issue, then rails for pages about academia saying what he doesn’t like. The article is misinformation strung together with logical fallacy. This is par for the course at The American Thinker (which I really ought to add to my “Ugly” links. I found the section on Dr. Solon particularly misrepresenting the facts. Solon didn’t change anything; he clarified what he said because some folks were misunderstanding him.
Daubert only dealt with scientific knowledge, but it has been extended to non-scientific expert testimony through Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (found at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1709.ZO.html). In Kumho the plaintiffs sought to offer the testimony of a tire failure analyst whose opinion was based on a visual and tactile inspection of a tire that blew out and caused a fatal accident.
Georgia’s version of the Daubert standard is codified at O.C.G.A. § 27-9-67.1. Subsection (d) of the statute provides that, upon motion of a party, the court may hold a pre-trial hearing to determine whether a witness qualifies as an expert and whether the expert testimony satisfies the requirements of the rule. The new standard was tested in Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al., 283 Ga. 271, 275, 658 S.E.2d 603, 608 (2008), where the trial court had excluded one of the plaintiffs’ experts because the witness’s methods were based solely on her own experience and opinions that had never been tested or published in any scientific journal; on appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the exclusion.
Unless Vogt and Polland can offer “expert” opinions based on tested or peer-reviewed methods, Orly will not be getting any testimony out these two.
I would call them naturalized citizens.
No, no, no. I fear you are failing to grasp what they are saying again.
They are merely arguing that such concerns of requiring NBC status in the first place are no longer relevant concerns in the developed modern world, where kings no longer exist. If you remember the arguments of Scientist and Paul P, etc., they point to examples of many other countries who have been led by those who were not even born in that particular country in the first place.
It is simply an arugment they make for why it doesn’t matter. They are NOT saying that dual-citizenship in any way, shape, or form invalidates a nation’s soverignity over its own citizens and laws. Not at all. No other nation’s claims of citizenship on this nation’s citizen’s supercede our own citizenship authority to our own people – PERIOD.
I hope this helps make it a little clearer and that you can grasp the clear distinction between the two.
The author is actually a “she” but the article laid out some of the common issues I have read on and off.
Been there, done that.
See for example:
You seem to have ignored the full section I quoted from that same link you provided, in which it shows that FORMS are still required to be completed first, even in the situations which then confer automatic citizenship at that point. Please re-read that full section again.
It still is a naturalization process – it just goes into effect immediately. But it still requires forms.
Natural Born is automatic, without any need of particular citizenship paperwork, merely based on being born within the conditions that grant it. (most commonly, being born on US soil…)
It is the interpretation of the clause that lead to the move to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court did not actin the Obama case. If the Court would have considered the idea that if he had dual citizenship, it expired. We’ll simply never know for sure whether the Court would have seen it that way or another way. We are still left with the same issue with some other future candidates. Hard core activists will raise the same issue with Rubio and others.
Exactly. This argument was creating as a way to move the goal post when other challenges were made by birthers and dismissed when proof surfaced (e.g., why are the there no contemporaneous birth announcements, etc.)
The problem as you point out is that these arguments were brought up by those with a definite agenda to demonize Pres. Obama. While there has always been dissent for even the most accepted interpretation of the Constitution, the only meaningful opinions have to come from those without an agenda. And 99.99999 percent of them think Natural Born Citizen means born on US soil, regardless of parentage. Period.
No, G, the children are automatically citizens when they enter into the country, if they meet the conditions. Filling out a form to show you meet the conditions is not the same thing as a “process.”
Absolutely, Doc! Anyone know if this is a public hearing?
I hope the birthers are allowed to air all of their “grievances”, the defense admits a short list of documentation, no doubt Birthers will attempt some objections over some items. And then the judge issues a devastating, concise, point-by-point, scorched earth leveling of the birther memescape.
But so many of their favorites are so stupid, so irrelevant (SSN-o-rama, PDF Madness, Name Games, Dual Citizenship Shuffle), why would the court bother?
I’d love to see a court consider Doug Vogt’s qualifications.
And I would argue that if they do, they’ll fall flat and get nowhere trying to make that argument either.
These “activists” have only one serious recourse if they wish to “restrict” the interpretation of the NBC clause (and “restrict” is exactly what that would be) – to get a Constitutional Amendment passed in order to do so.
There is no serious cirlce of thought that believes the Supreme Court would rule to do so.
Well, you are partially correct. There is no evidence showing he legally changed his name in the first place. Shall we look at the “conflicting documentation?”
Forms that show a name other than Obama – 1 (and that is a supposed school form filled out by somebody and also happens to mention Obama was born in Hawaii. The form does not even state where it is from).
Documentation that shows his name as Obama – 1,000+ (staring with the Birth Certificate in all its forms, his tax forms, an immigration form for SAD – and strikeout means, it was was corrected so that part is not evidence – yearbooks, his Selective Service form, and many others).
John, you have an odd definition of conflicting.
We seem to be reading the same things and coming to different conclusions. As IANAL, I am not qualified to say that I’m interpreting this correctly.
I’ll leave it for anyone here who is more knowledgeable to weigh in and explain it and will defer to what they find. Until then, I simply do not see it as you do and have arrived at a different conclusion, based on the limitations of my understanding of how such things work.
I certainly don’t expect that – nor would I want to see the court allow such an endless trip down irrelevant side-tangents and meaningless rabbit-holes.
For one, it would get nowhere and just deter from any actual judicable issue at hand and waste time.
Secondly, it is an absolute waste of time to entertain appeasing the unappeasable and not reality-based. No matter how clearly a judge would waste time rebutting or refusing all their points, they would just ignore it, dismiss it and should “treason”, etc and claim that the judge was “bought off”. We’ve seen this reaction from them time and time again, so to expect a different result is to join in the same type of wishful insanity that they display. Simply a waste of time and bad form to do so.
The courts do not exist to waste time going down unrelated tangents that don’t directly impact and move the arguments of a case forward.
That would be a fair statement of my position, though I think the arguments of that fellow Hassan that the clause is superceded by the equal protection clause of the 14th should be at least given a hearing in court (though I accept that he would have a low likelihood of winning).
I think charo is confusing issues of dual citizenship and natural born. They are different. A concrete example-someone is born in the US of US citizen parents; everyone including Donofrio and Apuzzio agrees they are a natural born citizen (99.9% believe the parents’ citizenship is irrelevant). They later move overseas and acquire citizenship in some other country that doesn’t require them to renounce US citizenship. US law allows then to remain US citiizens and they continue to file US taxes every year.. Then they move back to the US, and after 14 years of residency run for President. Are they eligible? I see absolutely no reading of the law or the Constitution that would say they are not.
That doesn’t mean that their opponents cannot raise their dual citizenship as a political issue. They certainly can. My own perspective is that I could see valid political concerns about someone that was a dual citizen while in office, especially if they acquired the other citizenship deliberately as an adult. I certainly don’t see an issue with a citizenship by accident of birth or circumstance that lapsed or was renounced prior to taking office.
Wheter the NBC clause is obsolete is an academic argument that I have no opinion of. And you are correct, that is an entirely sepatate discussion. And that was the agument being made, and that argument was based on the fact that dual citizens can be president, and that defeats the underlying purpose to the NBC clause, thus making it obsolete.
My understanding is that foreign adoptees would not be eligible to be President under current law, because they were not citizens at birth. Children born overseas to one or more US citizens are, because they became citizens at birth, though I realize a minority of people disagree.
I respect your position, but if a law is outdated and makes no sense, why not change it? I’m not saying it’s the most important issue Congress has to deal with, far from it, but given the time they spend naming post offices (which may close soon anyway) why not fix this? I realize that would cause this site to disapppear, since there would no longer be arguments over what natural born meant and even birth certificates would be superceded by proof of citizenship, like passports, since any citizen would be eligible. Also, the residency requirement should be clarified-no one knows whether it is 14 years consecutive at any time, 14 years cumulative or the 14 years immediately preceding taking office.
They are being made citizens. Naturalization is the process of removing alienage. The are foreign children being made citizens. Their citizenship is not by virture of their birth. Therefore they are naturalized citizens. Either you are born a citizen, or you are made a citizen later, thus naturalized. These children are naturalized citizens.
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that trial courts (including administrative law courts ) do not call witnesses on constitutional questions, no matter how expert they might be. They listen to the arguments made by the opposing counsel and they do their own research. Witnesses are there to testify to objective facts, not matters of law. So, I don’t think even Tribe or Olson could testify. They could write amicus briefs, I suppose, but they wouldn’t be called as witnesses.
The Court does not act on issues that it considers decided law. Since the Court has passed on every opportunity to address the issue, it can be read that they have no problem with, and see no issue with dual citizens as President. Seeing that not a single justice even requested that a respondent file a response to any of the birther petition for cert, we can safely assume that they don’t buy any of the arguments the birthers have thrown at them. Hard core nut jobs will never be convinced that their deulsions have no basis in law, so why should anyone alter their course of action for those already consumed by delusion?
First of all, as a pragmatic, I simply don’t see the concern even fitting within the top 1000 more important concerns our country should instead be focused on to fix our problems and move forward.
Second, for such a unique position, in which only 1 person has the opportunity to fulfill it every 4-year period, I don’t see any problem or much realistic limitation with it having an additional requirement restriction at all. The role is a priviledge, not an entitlement and I don’t find the requirements in the Constitution to have created any undue burden in the 44 times it has been held.
Naturalized – Requires Statute
Natural Born – No Statute required
Somewhat misleading but I understand that you may only have read the ‘American Thinker’ article so I do not blame you
and misrepresents quite a few of them. Should that not cause you some concern?
In the US, one is a citizen when one has the nature of a citizen.
One may have the nature of a citizen at birth, or one may obtain the nature of a citizen later.
If one has the nature of a citizen at birth, one is a natural born citizen.
If one is not natural born, then one may only be naturalized later.
Hence the two, and only two, classes of citizen; natural born, and naturalized.
Well, but here is this site and dozens of others where almost 4 years after the election, some people still want to argue. Now, imagine if any citizen could run. No more discussions of Vattel. No more discussions of birth certificates. Show a passport and you’re eligible. Verified by the US government. No further discussion. Of course there is residency, but if the definition of the 14 years was clarifiied, it would be hard to argue there either.
Also, from the point of principle, the voters should be treated as adults and not have their choices restricted without a strong reason to do so. And 225 year old worries about King George’s younger sons or other European royals.just doesn’t cut it for me.
Scientist, that’s wishful thinking! The only difference would be that birthers would need a new name 😉 Doc’s site would be fine, because as long as there is Obama, there will always be new Obama Conspiracy Theories!
Yes. James Earl Carter vs Jimmy Carter. William Jefferson Clinton vs Bill Clinton. James Danforth Quayle vs Dan Quayle. Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. vs Al Gore. Someone posted a scan of Obama’s eligibility affidavit submitted to one state. It included both his full legal name and the name that he wished to have placed on the ballot. Nothing unusual there. His full name of our President is Barack Hussein Obama II, and that’s how it was listed on the affidavit I saw under his full name.
At least it wasn’t like the movie The Distinguished Gentleman where Eddie Murphy’s character is elected to Congress. His name is Thomas Jefferson Johnson, and he runs after a long-time Congressman named Jeff Johnson dies of a heart attack while bonking his secretary. Our T.J. Johnson decides to run by shortening using a shortened version of his middle name. I don’t know how that would work in real life, as I’d think there might be some laws that are meant to reduce ballot confusion. I could imagine someone intentionally having a name change or with a similar name to a major candidate placed on a ballot simply to cause confusion.
NBC, the additional paragraph from Spiro you quoted came after these statements:
“The significance of citizenship is fading, as well it should. The circumstances of birth say nothing about the quality of an individual’s tie to the national community. The threats motivating the natural born requirement have evaporated. There is no danger of a Trojan-horse candidate usurping the presidency and serving the interest of a foreign power. Once considered indissoluble, birth allegiance is now easily cast off. Political and security processes (in addition to vigorous journalistic vetting) would pick up any suspect foreign connections. It is improbable that a major presidential candidate would be in a position to do the bidding of foreign actors.”
The concluding statements quoted in the AT article followed the paragraph you quoted. That paragraph in its entirety:
“The prospect of a dual-citizen president proves the obsolescence of requiring our chief executives to be natural born citizens. There may well come a day when the qualification no longer applies. The McCain episode supplies an incremental step in that direction.”
It appears to me that Spiro was talking about dual citizenship at birth in the first paragraph, then dual citizenship acquired later in life in the next.
He is probably correct, the NBC clause in the constitution addresses the citizenship status at birth, not later in life. Spiro then essentially concludes by stating that the natural born requirement should be considered obsolete because dual citizenship should not be an issue nowadays.
Dr. King was a Doctor of Divinity, not a Doctor of Jurisprudence and would not have presumed to speak authoritatively on something of which he was not expert in.
OK. My eyes were blocked somehow. Thanks. My only comment is that impeachment is not conviction. Clinton was impeached, but not convicted. That is a cop out though, because I know what you meant.
I certainly acknowledge that, with that slight elaboration, you are correct. There are 5 eligibility rules.
I should have said “There’s a couple others: lack of conviction of (treason or impeachment). Ain’t the English language fun?
Sure there is:
Arnie for Presernator in 2016
So Arnie could be President.
Yes, actually we have a very good idea. For two reasons: 1) being born on U.S. Soil to parents who do not have diplomatic immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. law or are members of an invading army is sufficient to establish NBC, full stop. 2) any person can be claimed as a citizen by any country on earth according to the laws that that country choosed to put in place to govern itself but that claim does NOT trump the U.S. law on the subject. IANAL and I do not have the SCOTUS precidents on the subject of the U.S. Law v Foreign Law operating on its U.S. Citizens, but I am absolutely positive that SCOTUS has ruled on that topic before.
LOL! I realize you are snarking here and yes, we are all aware that at one time, a good half-a-decade ago, there was some GOP rumblings about fantasizing about Arnold being Prez.
However, in terms of addressing this issue seriously, his supporters pretty much soured on him as Gov of CA in his last few years of his term there and his political career is entirely toast, after the revelation of him fathering a kid with his maid… Even in the heyday of the GOP fantasies of such, there was still no serious effort even proposed to get the Constitution amended in order to make that even possible…
And that disagreement is based on the fact that that citizenship, though automatic at birth, is granted by dint of legislation.
Agreed! Their irrational hate has no real basis in NBC issues… that’s all just a cover front.
If the issue didn’t exist, as JPotter correctly pointed out, they would just come up with a different angle of myths to use as their excuses to behave just as badly and just as irrationally.
Sorry I hit submit too soon.
This is the gray area that McCain was in. He was vulnerable to a technicality based attack that the Congress chose to paper over, as was the right thing to do.
The Georgia statute references Kumho.
Exactly… And in fact, for a while such children, under US law, where not considered to be citizens.
And as SCOTUS showed in Rogers v Bellei can be as easily taken away. That’s why I don’t think it is really NBC, which is granted by the Constitution.
That has been my position as well, of course, the case did not involve two US citizen parents but the logic appears to be similar.
Rogers v Bellei
I see you have a problem with Thomas Jefferson. Was he a usurper? Or does he get by under the Grandfather clause?
The point is that many people are dual citizens at birth and may not even know it. The USA even officially warns Americans of Polish descent to be careful when visiting Poland: like a few other countries, Poland does not like it when people who are entitled to Polish citizenship, visit Poland as a tourist on a foreign passport. Another funny example: Nicole Kidman is a natural born citizen of the United States (born in Hawaii, like Obama) AND a natural born citizen of Australia (two parents who were Australian citizens).
She could therefore run for President of the United States. She could probably simultaneously run to be an Australian member of parliament. Of course, voters would probably not vote for her, but that is another question. Second problem and a major one: it seems almost impossible to reconcile both oaths necessary to actually assume the jobs if she were elected.
If you are thinking about Nicole trying to even become Prime Minister of Australia, know that the job of Prime Minister does not even exist under the Australian constitution – it is all common law at that point. So, Julia Gillard did not need to be an Australian NBC. The only relevance to the birfer story is that Julia was born in a Welsh town called Barry (but birferologists should note that Barry once elected a British MP called Lakin and that one complete 1987 Doctor Who serial and two isolated episodes in 2005 were shot in Barry)
If you have that strict denotation (McCain is a citizen by statute) then McCain is not natural born and therefore not eligible to be President. You have the defense of McCain’s citizenship by some prominent scholars, not the Supreme Court. The person who made the challenge was unfortunately deemed not to have standing; a court resolution would have brought us a long way forward.
The law, as written, seems to place these children in two categories:
Specifically, P.L. 106-395:
Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide automatic U.S. citizenship for a child born outside the United States when the following conditions are met: (1) at least one parent is a U.S. citizen; (2) the child is under 18 years old; and (3) the child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence. Applies such provision to an adopted child meeting certain definitional requirements who is adopted by a U.S. citizen parent.
Provides for issuance of a certificate of naturalization for a child born outside of the United States when the following conditions are met: (1) at least one parent is a U.S. citizen who has been present in the United States for not less than five years, at least two of which were after having attained the age of 14, or who has a citizen parent meeting such requirements; (2) the child is under 18 years old; and (3) the child is residing outside the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent, is temporarily and lawfully present in the United States, and is maintaining such lawful status. Applies such provision to an adopted child meeting certain definitional requirements who is adopted by a U.S. citizen parent.
(I couldn’t paste the actual Act)
If I were a child born under the first condition, I would argue that I should be considered a natural born citizen if McCain is considered a natural born citizen. Both use the statutory creation to confer citizenship. There is no mention of the word naturalized as for the second condition. Also, I would argue that if both of my parents are American citizens and I am born in another country but brought here as an infant I am not a natural born citizen. Yet a child born on a tourist visit to two Chinese nationals and raised in China (there is an industry for this) is eligible to become President (assuming the other conditions are met). Of course it can be argued that one does not have to vote for the child raised in China. Nonetheless, the child born under the conditions of the statute is barred. So, there are a host of discussion points for the obsolete argument. No matter what reasonable observations can be made, we don’t have any certainty at this point as to why the SC did not take up the eligibility issues. Poorly written? Not ripe? No standing? No desire to ever get involved again after Bush/Gore?
Who SHOULD be considered eligible for the Presidency? I am not aware of a plethora of academic discussion on the issue.
I think it would be fair to say that Jefferson was a life-long Francophile and would have been favorable towards France, regardless of whether he held citizenship or not. Adams was similarly favorable towards Britain, even though he was not a British citizen after US independence. That was certainly a factor in the personal animosity between them.
The idea that the passports one holds (or could hold) rule one’s heart and head is foolish. Romney and Gingrich both lived in France and probably secretely admire all things French, despite their denials (the gentlemen protest too much, in my opinion), even though neither is a French citizen (so far as we know). Santorum is almost certainly an Italian citizen under Italian law, as are Apuzzo and Donofrio. If he got the nomination, the birthers would be obliged (on pain of being called hypocrites) to vote for Obama, since someone who once was but is no longer a dual citizen ought to trump (pun intended) someone who still is one today.
I hope I made clear that there is no legal barrier to a dual citizen being President, nor would I favor there being one. I was merely pointing out that political opponents are free to raise any issue, including an opponent’s holding other citizenships. If I were a political advisor to a presidential candidate who did hold another citizenship, such as an American of Polish descent or Nicole Kidman, my advice would be to go to the nearest Polish or Australian consulate and renounce, to forestall anyone from making an issue of it. In Ms Kidman’s case, though, I might be too busy examining her “other attributes” to think of that. None of this applies to Obama, whose rights to Kenyan citiizenship lapsed automatically long before he ran for offiice.
Australians surely would, and she would most certainly be elected too, assuming she chose to run as a member of one of the major (Liberal or Labor) parties. Either party would crawl over broken glass to have her, assuming she was prepared to take the flak she would undoubtedly be subjected to by the other jilted party. Which ever party she chose, she would be assigned a ‘safe’ seat, and you can take that to the bank. There is no NBC criteria in Australia, of course, but politicians, at any level, are not allowed dual citizenship. If Nicole has accepted American citizenship, she would have to do ‘everything in her power to renounce her USA citizenship’ before she could nominate.
There are, of course, two opposing stories of entertainers entering Politics to ‘prove the rule’. One got a safe seat ride to the Ministry, the other went head to head with the longest serving Prime Minister since Menzies and ended his career.
Peter Garret (lead singer for Midnight Oil) was given a safe seat when he decided to join the Labor Party and run for Parliament. Of course he is a (real) lawyer, was President of the Australian Conservation Foundation for ten years and had run for the Senate (and missed by only a few votes) as a member of the Nuclear Disarmament Party, before crossing over to Labor. He was appointed Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts (“shadow” means he was the opposition spokesman – Labor was not in Government). When Labor won Government he was appointed Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. He was later demoted over a failed home insulation program which was rushed out as a spending project in response to the Global Financial Crisis. It is widely held that he was scapegoated to take the fall for the program, as he repeatedly reported the problems with the program and was ignored. He is currently Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth.
Maxine McKew, on the other hand was not given a safe seat at all. McKew was a career journalist and broadcaster and had hosted the ABC flagship current affairs programs Lateline and The 7:30 Report. She challenged John Howard in his seat of Bennelong where he had been the member for 33 years, and Prime Minister for 10 years. She won, becoming only the second person to unseat a sitting Prime Minister in their own electorate. She served in a couple of Parliamentary Secretary roles before losing her seat in the next election. She doesn’t seem to have been impressed with the support she got from the Labor campaign.
Perhaps as an ordinary member, but if she were running for Prime Minister the fact of having lived most of her life outside Australia might become an issue. In the most recent Canadian election, the Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, was born and raised in Canada, but lived most of his adult life in the UK and then the US, where he was a renouned scholar and journalist. He returned to Canada only a couple of years before he won the party leadership. Under Ignatieff, the Liberals made their worst showing in Canadian history, for the first time being neither the government nor the official opposition. Was the perception of Ignatieff as a “Canadian of convenience” a factor? I think it was,
And there is actually a debate in academia as to whether McCain was an NBC. Some academics claim that only those born on US soil are NBC, since only they have their citizenship by common law, and not statute. Those claim that people who have citienship by statute are naturalized, albeit, naturalized at birth, but still naturalized. McCain’s situation is particularly interesting since the statute by which he claims his citizenship was enacted after his birth, and his claim was due to a retroactivity clause in the statute. But as you said, the Supreme Court has not addressed this situation (I tend to doubt they would declare someone like McCain not an NBC…not a particularly popular move to declare someone born to parents serving the US abroad to be excluded from the office of the presidency).
As for the two catagories, it does seem to provide for both NBC and naturalized…and as you said, it comes down to whether people like McCain are NBC or not. Statutes seem to claim yes, and I get the feeling the SCOTUS will just defer to the legislature on that point.
Well, yes and no. First, it isn’t ‘Common Law’, it is ‘Convention’, and second according to the Constitution, the Governor General ‘appoints the Cabinet’ and under the Westminster system the head of Cabinet is called the Prime Minister.
Of course ‘according to convention’ the Prime Minister is actually selected by Parliament and the Governor General is bound “by convention” to accept that advice. When the GG violates the convention and goes against the advice of Parliament, like he did in 1975 (look up Gough Witlam) all hell breaks loose over the Constitutional Crisis. Australians still argue about 1975 to this day, but all are in agreement that Governor General Kerr was a horses patootie.
Quoting from Wikipedia on the Australian Constitution:
charo-I don’t know whether McCain meets some technical definition of NBC. I would bet a large sum of money that had he won the election, he’d be sitting in the White House today.
As for why the Supreme Court didn’t take any eligibility cases, perhaps they consider it one of those areas where Congress, not they, are supreme. There are several such areas: for example, impeachment. Who defines “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Congress, not the Supreme Court. And suppose a particular Congress adopts a definition that most scholars don’t think matches the intent (say consensual oral sex with an intern), could a President removed from office appeal to the Supreme Court? Nope.
There actually was a bit over McCain due to his particular situation (I believe it was Michigan did an entire symposium on the topic). The reason it only focused on McCain is because he’s the only one that was in a questionable catagory. No one discussses Obama in academia because there is no requestion about his status. Born on the soil not to diplomats, no question he’s NBC.
If it was her first election run, she would not be “running” for Prime Minister. Nobody steps off the street into the Party Leadership, it just doesn’t happen. Even Bob Hawke,a Rhodes Scholar and a popular head of the Australian Council of Trade Unions for 10 years had to ‘sit an apprenticeship’. It took him three years (and two elections, I think) before he was able to maneuver Bill Hayden and take over as leader. He subsequently became the longest serving Labor Prime Minister in Australian history.
Interesting that I was just looking at this from the Tribe memo:
(I could not paste it) Persons born abroad to US citizens were natural born.
Yet, we needed this statute to confer citizenship on children who had at least one US citizen parent:
What Are the Requirements of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000?
The child must meet the following requirements:
Have at least one American citizen parent by birth or naturalization;
Be under 18 years of age;
Live in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent; and
Be admitted as an immigrant for lawful permanent residence.
So, we have STATUTORY citizenship granted to a child with at least one American citizen parent born overseas. If both parents are American citizens and you are a child born overseas, you are a NBC, according to Tribe.
I am trying to pull my thoughts together, but I have to go now.
I’m wrong, he took over the day the his second election was called (it was sort of an accident that it was the same day). The other elections I am thinking of were by-elections, where Bill Hayden was blamed for Labor’s poor performance.
I remain squarely convinced that Congress could suspend its business one morning, impeach a President on (unspecified!) “high crimes and misdemeanors”, pass it in a voice vote, then there would be a delay for the reprographic/courier requirements that prevent a bill from going immediately to the Senate, but once it got there, the vote could carry and a President, impeached at dawn, could be removed from office by lunchtime. This is because “high crimes and misdemeanors” are whatever the Congress says they are, provided they can also persuade the Senate. Won’t happen, if for no other reason, the Congressmen need their theatre.
Yes, that is a widely held, including by me, view of the situation. McCain occupies a technical gray area.
The argument is exactly that: noone doubts he is a citizen, but is someone born overseas to citizen parents NBC because citizenship is ‘from birth’ even though that citizenship is granted by dint of legislation. More succinctly: ‘natural born’ or ‘naturalized at birth’?
Any challenge to McCain would suffer the same standing problems as challenges to Obama: the Courts have no role in deciding Presidential eligibility. None. Nada . Zip.
Congress is charged by the Constitution to determine eligibility. In the case of McCain, Congress knew that had he won the Electoral College vote, he was vulnerable to challenge on those technical grounds, and not only that but he could be attacked politically during the election itself on those grounds.
Congress chose, quite wisely in my opinion, to short circuit that problem. It is inconceivably ridiculous to punish John McCain because his parents chose to serve their country overseas. Part of the problem is that the Founding Fathers did not conceive of a standing army, let alone one stationed overseas.
So Congress, in its wisdom, chose to put the issue out of question, and declare that they would not countenance a challenge to him on those grounds, and they did so before the election to remove it from the table as an issue.
Obama had no such technical gray area to defend, a similar resolution was not needed for him.
I’ve always believed that the real goal behind Mario’s attacks on Obama’s status as NBC wasn’t as much the quixotic goal of somehow removing him from the presidency, but popularizing the notion that children born on US soil from alien parents (ie “anchor babies) are somehow second-class citizens.
In the case of Michael Ignatieff in Canada, he returned to Canada in 2005 after 30 years in the UK and the US and was elected to Parliament in Jan 2006. That same year he announced his run for party leader, which he lost by a very narrow margin. He became interim leader in 2008 and was confirmed as leader in 2009. Of course he spent his career writing and teaching about politics, so he wasn’t a neophyte. But he had never held elective office.
You can’t seem to comment without being judgmental and accusatory in your tone. I voted for McCain.
I’m just curious, charo, about your position on Rick Santorum. I know you are a conservative Catholic, as is he, and I believe you are from Pennsylvania, as is he. His father naturalized before Rick was born, but it is highly unlikely he went to the Italian consulate to renounce his biirth citizenship (the number of naturalized citizens who do so is miniscule). Therefore, he remained an Italian citizen as far as Italy is concerned and passed that on to his son. Does Rick Santorum’s likely dual citizenship concern you? You are certainly free to decline to answer, but I’m curious.
I saw nothing judgmental or accusatory in Keith’s post.
Me neither, It made me do one of those confused dog looks…’tilts head’ rurrr?!?!?
I appreciate your question, and it is fair. I think the whole area of the NBC is gray. I would not care if someone challenged Santorum on citizenship. There were questions on McCain’s citizenship that I knew existed. I still voted for him, but if circumstances happened such that he won and was removed for ineligibility, I would not have rioted in the streets. The same would be true of Santorum. It is the precedent that is set without a determination that I find disturbing. No one has standing so let’s just let the peopIe decide what is Constitutional. I disagree with Keith that this is not in the Court’s domain. It is up to the Court to interpret the Constitution. Let’s get finality and move on. That is where I differ from Keith and others.
Does that mean that someone who feels differently than I do is a … fill in the blank with whatever term you choose. Not in my opinion.
Call it intuition based upon past experience.
I think what Tribe was saying is that anyone who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. However, Congress has always thought that it was necessary to make children born outside the United States of US parents citizens at birth, recognizing that otherwise they aren’t or that it is questionable that they are. The confusion stems from the question of whether the British statute that makes the children of British subjects born overseas themselves subjects should be considered part of the common law for US purposes or not.
I think the naturalization act of 1790 makes it plain that the Framers considered jus soli to be the only source of natural born citizenship under the Constitution, and so they needed to make provision for children of US citizens born elsewhere.
Who decides what “high crimes and misdemeanors mean”? Can a President who is impeached appeal the decision to the Supreme Court?
Impeachment convictions cannot be appealed (see US v Nixon — the judge, not the president). Impeachment is a “political question” assigned to one branch of government, the Congress. Congress defines “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
WorldNetDaily had an article in which they argued that “high crimes and misdemeanors” just meant “bad behavior” and that impeachment was a referendum on presidential performance. I don’t think much of anybody buys that.
Interesting question. I’ll have to look back to some of the impeachment trials for some guidance. My understanding is that an impeached and convicted President is still liable for criminal prosecution so that would involve the appeals process through the courts. I have an appointment, but I would like to reflect more on the issue.
And “natural born citizen”.
Impeachment and criminal trial are two separate processes. The impeachment happens first and cannot be appealed. The impeached President could then be tried as an ordinary criminal defendant and would have the same rights as anybody else to appeal.
I know that they are two separate processes. I was trying to think of how to defend the notion that a crime, even if committed, rises to a level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
I am now officially going to be late…
If his mind is truly that much warped, then maybe yes.
Because if I wanted to get at “anchor babies”, I’d start with those where both parents were undeniably aliens, not one with a citizen mother.
Likewise, if I wanted to popularize strict views on illegal immigrants, I wouldn’t do so by trying to prove how many of them had a common ancestor with Stalin.
They do insofar as eligibility for certifying the election, but I don’t think the role of defining the term is exclusively given to Congress by the Constitution. Eligibility has come up in state primary elections and I think the Courts have a role through those challenge.
I could easily imagine the adminstrative judge in Georgia declining to rule on eligibility, leaving Obama on the ballot and saying that it’s a matter for Congress post-election.
Since the case is an eligibility complaint, and the Court refused a motion from Obama’s attorney to dismiss, I cannot see it declining to rule on eligibility. That’s all there is.
Did the judge give his reasons for refusing to dismiss? It could be that he likes circuses and missed Ringling Bros. last time they passed through Atlanta. I still think there is a decent chance he punts the whole thing as a political question.
It was because the GA law referred to all candidates for state and federal office, and spelled out no exceptions. He also stated the cases defense cited weren’t controlling.
Of course the slippery slope that this kind of thinking leads to is the path to a semi-parliamentary system- where Congress doesn’t so much impeach a President for crimes but in essence has a ‘no confidence’ vote, more for politics than for actionable items.
Clinton’s case came close to that- if he had been impeached and convicted I think the next Democrat controlled House would have found some reason to have impeachment hearings against a Republican President.
I wonder if an impeached and convicted government official (for high crimes and misdemeanors) could be tried again in a criminal court. Wouldn’t that be double jeopardy?
My understanding (from the Clinton impeachment) is that impeachment is really a political process, so “high crimes and misdemeanors” is whatever a Bill of Impeachment from the House of Representatives and a trial in the Senate says that it is.
The judge’s decision is here:
The decision does not address the merits of the challenge. It only affirms that the plaintiff’s have a right to make the challenged under Georgia law.
Obama’s attorney filed a Pre-Trial Order in which he indicates that he intends to challenge the admissibility of all the plaintiffs’ exhibits. He also does not plan to introduce any exhibits, although it would not surprise me if he has a COLB from Hawaii in his briefcase to give to the judge if necessary.
Thanks, Rickey! I had not seen the pre-trial submission. What a hoot!
Defense is taking the case seriously, and thoroughly, and at the same time, an undercurrent of “Yougottabeeffin’kiddin’me” shines through … Direct examination: 20 min … if necessary.
I note that it was written prior to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, so the judge has already expressed an opinion on many of the points here.
The highpoint is the very end …. “Chances of mediation? Extremely unlikely.” 😉
As silly as the reason given for the challenges is (birtherism), the points raised are intriguing (especially in regards to the relationships between party, primary, states, and electoral college), and I look forward to the decision.
It’ll be Informative and entertaining! 😀
Charo – what are you seeing that I’m not???
I saw nothing either judgmental nor accusatory in that post you replied to. Can you please explain yourself here?
Nothing in Keith’s post you cited that denigrates McCain. Nothing in it that denigrates you either.
Wow. You are in an awfully defensive mood today. One that seems without provocation.
Therefore, I can only assume that this is another instance where you are taking out frustrations in your personal life and projecting that animosity onto others.
Please pause and put your personal emotional feelings in check. Nothing on here so far has earned the accusatory and defensive attitude you are bringing. You are coming across like you are looking to start a fight.
In other words, you have NOTHING in that post to base it on. Just trying to throw punches, when none have been thrown at you today.
You are holding onto some past grudge and looking for a fight. Charo, if you are not in the right mental state to post here without trying to start a fight, maybe you need to do something else, until you can participate in a conversation without bringing past difficulties or other unrelated emotional anger into here.
You are simply the one not being a fair player here. Again, if you are not in an emotional frame of mind to be a good Christian today, then I suggest you take time away to fix whatever is vexing you and come back sometime when you are capable of acting in good faith and character again.
That’s my intuition based upon past experience, too.
My point exactly
That’s what the dissenting Judge in US v Wong Kim Ark observed and lamented that this could not possibly be true… And yet. Even the dissenting judge understood that the ruling had found WKA to be a natural born citizen.
Willard Mitt Romney objects.
That comment was made about 2am my time, after 24 hours with no sleep.
Never-the-less, I fail to see how I could have possibly offended you by my comment.
I thought I made it abundantly clear that I believed that McCain should have every right to be President had he won the election. And I believe that the Congress held that view as well, and actually made a positive effort to ensure that anyone trying to exploit a technicality would be discouraged from doing so.
Please tell me how that offends you. Would you rather I and Congress were rampaging about his lack of NBC status? I don’t understand.
I was reading many comments and skimmed yours; the one I quoted was not the one I wanted to, but nonetheless, after looking again at the comment I intended to reference, I don’t see what I thought (it concerned the idea that those serving should not be punished or something to that effect and I misread into it that you thought I was being disrespectful of those serving). Anyways, I apologize for my comment. You just yesterday made an accusation that I was trying to highjack a thread that had one comment, Doc’s. Doc addressed the issue of high jacking and in that instance, didn’t find it offensive. You are one of those who jump right in with a negative comment to me. Nonetheless, I should have been more careful before posting.
OK. I see how you got into a bad mood about me because of that highjack comment. I actually aimed that comment at myself, and I didn’t really detect the offense you took in your follow up. I see it now.
I apologize for my offense to you, I honestly did not mean to do so.
I am a serial offender when it comes to taking threads off comment, as far as I am concerned. I’m trying to clean up my act, and the comment you took as offensive was an attempt to out myself. It didn’t work very well, because jst a couple of hours after that thread I was discussing the Australian Constitution in some thread or other that took that thread on a definite wild goose chase. Thankfully, most folks ignored my rantings.
This very thread it seems. I’m incorrigible.
Everybody is guilty of it now and then. Thanks for your reply.