H. Brooke Paige was one of many birthers who unsuccessfully sought in court to remove Barack Obama from the 2012 ballot. His argument was that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen because his father was not a US Citizen. The lower court dismissed Paige v. Condos, saying in 2012:
While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
The Vermont Supreme Court, noting that the election is over, has rejected an appeal from Page to the decision and declared the question moot—Obama cannot run for President again. The Court noted that Paige lacked standing to bring a suit in the first place, because he showed no particular and individual injury, and also that the Court has no power to grant the relief demanded by Paige, writing:
…a declaration by this Court with regards to plaintiff’s “natural born Citizen” argument would have no impact on the qualification-related laws and orders to which plaintiff refers, since a ruling by this Court would bind no other state or federal presidential election authority. Whatever the merit of his argument, plaintiff’s cure in the form of declaratory relief is futile and so beyond this Court’s constitutional jurisdiction.
In the court of original jurisdiction, defendants argued:
… the Secretary of State does not have the authority to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility
That is very close to the question before the Alabama Supreme Court of whether the Secretary of State has a duty to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility. In the Alabama case (McInnish v. Chapman), the question is of a more general nature, and the Court may well not consider it moot. However, contrary to birther expectations, there will be no trial of Obama’s eligibility before any Alabama court.
- Barre Montpelier Times Argus
- Burlington Free Press
- Honolulu Star Advertiser
So again a Supreme Court had to tell birthers that no state court can remove a sitting President. Because they didn’t get it the first 200 times. *sigh*
Birthers of course may spin part of this as a win because the court says the issue could become non-moot again when somebody like Cruz or Rubio or Jindal runs for President.
So what I gather from this is that birthers will now put their next last hope on Cruz running because that’s the only way they can ever “relitigate the Obama presidency” again (speaking from their interpretation of reality).
Apuzzo, he luzzo.
The only question remaining for this case is will Brooke Paige return to this website?
The Time has Come to Bid All of You a Fond Farewell !”
I have found my time with you most enlightening and entertaining AND quite addictive ! However, the folks on my side of the fence are now criticizing me for spending so much of my time with you and at their expense.So I find it necessary to bid you a fond adieu! I have enjoyed my visit thoroughly, it is far more interesting to chat with those with whom you have a substantially different viewpoint. I am not really “into” lengthy conversations that are little more than a mutual admiration society – at the same time I do not wish to ignore and enrage those who have supported and encouraged by efforts,
If I am successful, I will not return – never much for gloating! However if I am not successful I will return to receive my just chastisement – I promise !
H. Brooke Paige
Plaintiff/Appellant, pro se
Paige v. State of Vermont, et al.
Nah. He won’t be back. Birthers aren’t much on facing the music. They’re more of a “Music! I don’t hear any music! In fact, music does not exist! Liberals invented that lie!”
The quality of Mr. Paige’s promise depends upon how he understands the word “successful.” Based on past experience, it’s clear that birthers (and Tea Partiers) are unable to comprehend failure, and will always conceive their epic fails as major pwnage. What n00bs.
It appears that birther “Joe Mannix” is a reader of this site. He just left a link to Doc’s post in the most recent article at Birther Report.
Dear Brooke Paige: Here is my e-mail to Mario Apuzzo. Let’s hear from you:
There is no excuzzo for Apuzzo.
Received this email a short time ago.
Mario Apuzzo failed miserably once again.
“It appears that birther “Joe Mannix” is a reader of this site. He just left a link to Doc’s post in the most recent article at Birther Report.”
I still believe “Mannix’ is a CCCP member and may be Sergeant Major Z himself. It must be pretty quiet today in the offices of the CCCP and Birther central.
Frog-marching yesterday and frog-marching tomorrow, but NEVER frog-marching TODAY.
I have not received a reply from Paige, nor Apuzzo. The silence is deafening.
Yes, yes he always does…
unfortunately not, no such grand comedy there. “joe mannix”, who also posts under “steve mcgarrett” and multiple other sock-puppets, was outed a while back. i won’t give the name but i will say that it is not zullo nor is he an AZ resident.
I hope the Vermont ruling is added as an addendum to the Alabama Democratic Party’s Amicus Brief in McInnish v. Chapman.
It’s just as moot.
Klayman is every bit as worthy of a state Supreme Court beat down as Apuzzo.
Thanks, and thanks.
Paige/Apuzzo are pleased with the decision.
On to the SCOTUS?
*rolls eyes* Yeah…because THAT always works out so well for the Birthers…
He really is Charlie Sheen “winning”…isn’t he? What a Putz.
As someone said above they are utterly incapable of grasping the notion of failure.
In Apuzzo’s case, I think he’s doing this because (a) he’s being paid to do it, and (b) it stirs up the birthers’ fetid cauldron of bigotry. But Page is a sad case.
I used to think Mario was being paid to birf, but now I think he’s become a true believer (or he has always believed the lies he tells). Certainly he is a despicable person.
I just love their underlying assumption that SCOTUS will even grant them a writ of certorati…
“It is the view of Mr. Paige and he says also that his advisor Mario Apuzzo, that they are pleased with the decision and were given every possible advantage to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
I don’t know, I can think of a few advantages they might yet lack.
The Associated Press has this story, picked up by the Honolulu Star Advertiser.
“Paige, in an interview Friday, said the high court’s decision was ‘as positive a ruling as I could have anticipated.'”
Burlington Free Press
So he went into it knowing the best he could hope for was to lose. That’s quite strategy.
Under what legal theory could they hope to pursue an appeal to the SCOTUS?
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.
The only remotely viable legal theory available for cert. review is that the Vermont Supreme Court wrongly applied the mootness doctrine.
But that’s not enough: The U.S. Supreme Court is a court of policy, not a court of error; it could (privately) acknowledge a (purported) error, but decide this case not a good vehicle to address the underlying legal issues, and let the (purported) error stand.
Mario actually believes that this ruling has the judge agreeing with the Apuzzo definition of NBC. Not sure if he’s really that stupid, or just trying desperately to spin it that way to keep his supporters bowing.
Sorry Children Can’t Play Right Now – I’m doing grown-up stuff!
I am in Philadelphia this weekend visiting with and caring for my 85 year old mother AND my 84 year old mother-in-law! I am responding to you pleas for attention at a .35/min. Kinko’s (Fedex Office) business center.
Back in Vermont Monday, will answer you cries for attention Tuesday.
Have a Nice Weekend, Now go outside and play nice!
H. Brooke Paige
P.O. Box #41
Washington, Vermont 05675
e-mail at: email@example.com
postscript: the Vermont Supreme Court has opened the necessary path to present arguements as to mootness and the “NBC” question before SCOTUS. Would I have enjoyed an affirmative decision defining “NBC”? SURE, however if that had happened who would have appealed the ruling (then binding only in Vermont) to SCOTUS? The Vermont Supreme Court has confirmed that they are not the judicial tribunal with the constitutional authority (U.S.) to define the presidential qualification for the entire country (obviously), directing Plantiff/Appellant toward the proper tribunal in Washington, D.C., REPEAT AFTER ME “The Supreme Court of the United States”. Any Questions?
He seems nice.
So, Ted Nugent then, eh?
You are half correct (which is more than I can say for your “counsel,” Apuzzo). Cert. can only be sought on the ground that the Vermont Supreme Court used to dispose of your case — mootness. The U.S. Supreme Court cannot address the natural-born citizenship issue because it played no part in the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision.
If you decide to further waste your money and judicial resources, I can guarantee you that the U.S. Supreme Court will deny your cert. petition. And President Obama will remain the president.
Is there anything stopping Paige/Apuzzo from writing a petition that is 2 pages about the moot issue and 38 pages on their meaning of NBC?
I mean in reality it doesn’t matter as the Justices are going to deny it anyway.
Not a question but some advice. Read this article and have Mario read this article. It may help.
That’s the way I’d bet regarding both their actions and the outcome. At the very least it should give Paige and Apuzzo another tour as the darlings of the birther movement.
Thanks for dropping by. I’ve been busy too, serving dinner at the Special Olympics last night, and building a Habitat house this morning.
Given that the Supreme Court hasn’t granted cert in any of the birther cases, I can’t see any reason for optimism in yours.
You called the Vermont decision the best outcome you could have expected, but being granted cert by the Supreme Court would be the worst possible outcome for you, because you’d lose and there would be no excuse any more to hawk your crank legal theories. It would define “epic fail.”
In case you haven’t figure it out from the prior posts, the Vermont Supreme Court didn’t rule on NBC. Because your lawsuit was ruled to be moot, it was unnecessary for the Court to rule on the supposed merits of your arguments.
The best which you could theoretically hope for from SCOTUS is a ruling that the Vermont Supreme Court erred in declaring that your lawsuit is moot. That won’t happen, of course, but all it would do is send your case back to Vermont. Then you and Mario would spin your wheels and lose again.
Shouldn’t your DWI attorney be able to explain this to you?
i’ve actually done work for nugent on a few occasions. i’ve always dealt with management and never directly with ted so, unfortunately, i’ve yet to have the opportunity to ask him if he is joe mannix and/or mike zullo.
Are you kidding? I have it on good authority that Ted Nugent is Julio Schwartz!
The Supreme Court of the U.S. has a big neon sign on the roof that says:
“NO, WE’RE NOT GOING TO DECIDE YOUR SILLY BIRFER CASES”.
Since you’re already in Philly, perhaps you should drive down to D.C. and see for yourself. It’s there, honest.
Mr Paige, I am curious, is this actually you talking, or is it your pretend counsel telling you what to say? If this is really your sentiment, I can understand it, you are dead wrong, but I can understand it. If it is your alleged counsel, then he is doing you a great, and in fact, gross disservice. The US Supreme Court is not going to, and in fact cannot, look at anything other than the reason(s) your case before the Vermont Supreme Court was denied, and that was for mootness. There is no way the NBC issue will ever get before the court on this matter, no matter how prolix Puzzi tries to get. The only issue the court will ever look at here is the one of mootness, and on that you will lose yet again. That you and your alleged counsel, are both absolutely dead wrong on the NBC matter, and every court that it has come before has ruled against your position, despite what Puzzi claims is simply an absolute and immovable fact. It is a dead issue, an ex-parrot, and the parrot is going to stay very very dead. The court is not going to revisit Won Kim Ark, and that stands as precedent. Puzzi can claim all he wants that the founders were secret Vattelists, but the fact is, that he is relying on the wrong part of the text, and in any case, that is not what was written in to the Constitution, and since Vattel is not part of the legal heritage the colonies had at the time of the founding, the only legal precedent goes back to English common law of the period, which directly and totally disagrees with your, and Puzzi’s theory. To put it bluntly standing common law trumps a legal dictionary any day, no matter how good or authoritative. If you feel the urge to waste still more money on this, then by all means continue, but the end result is going to be the same. More unintended comedy.
So Paige is going for the “I am bleeding, and therefore the victor!” method of denial.
‘Tis but a flesh wound.
But ‘Tis enough!!!
Coverage at the Barre Montpelier Times Argus.
Close. This is the actual sign:
Weird, it used to say “Eat at Joes!”
The birther belief that “the judge, upon seeing our irrefutable evidencery of the usurperationationation, will immediately drop all briefs, *oops*, and call in a superspecial prosecutorator, preferably Lord Admiral Mike Zullo, and order his personal flying monkeys to frog-march-arrest the President, drag him to his court and slap him with both the law and the back of his hand until he admits to have been born in Keynonesia” seems to be even stronger when SCOTUS is concerned.
Actually, no, ONLY the “mootness”.
Even I, a foreigner, understood that rather simple poiint. Didn’t your meretricious counsel explain it to you? Probably not.
Based on precedents, it’s unlikely SCOTUS will overrule your state SC. And the NBC issue will NOT be heard.
As I said above, you come out rather sad-looking.
I think Paige read “Go for no”, but the message was completely lost on him.
Mr Paige we’ve been through this before the last time you came here and got spanked. WKA went into the meaning of Natural Born Citizenship liking it to England’s Natural Born Subject. Your own state constitution uses the term natural born subject. You’ve lost. The constitutional drunk tank Mario Apuzzo was one of the worst decisions you’ve made.
The problem as I see it, is that Mr Paige, and those who support him, and encourage him, are all equally vague on the reality of not only what the law says, but what the law is. it is not what they wish it were, but what was written, and what has been in practice for all these years, and all their earnest and sincere belief is not going to change that one bit. The law as written, as interpreted, and as enforced since the founding, disagrees with them wholly and absolutely, and every court case on the matter to date has done nothing but confirm that. As Magic M points out, it would appear that the true believers simply either slept all the way through civics and American History while in school, or more obviously simply never attended. What they in fact are looking for is not “one honest judge” but in fact a crooked and ignorant or dishonest one who will disregard law, procedure, and reality, and give in to their fantasies and pander to their prejudices, as that is the only way they will find anyone willing to give credence to the fantasy, hearsay, and outright fiction, which to date is the sum total of the accumulated birfer ebidnece.
Same thing I run into with Kenyabornobamacorn on twitter. Last night she quotes cases which have absolutely nothing to do with citizenship from The Venus to Minor V Happersett to the slaughterhouse cases. She thinks any mention of vattel automatically means the supreme court was agreeing with the birther interpretation of Vattel (not what vattel actually said) of two citizen parents needed for natural born citizenship. I pointed out that the cases she’s citing have absolutely no relevance. She then jumps to John Bingham who I point out wasn’t an original framer of the constitution. Birthers claim that only the original interpretation must apply while at the same time looking to people like bingham. She tried arguing that Bingham would be considered a constitutional framer because he sat on a committee involved in the 14th amendment.
So, ignoring the mootness issue, let’s imagine the Supreme Court actually took up the issue of improper venue (i.e., the Vermont Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction). Any ruling would likely be an affirmation that, yes, Vermont does not have jurisdiction. That’s it. They would have affirmed and you, Mr. Paige, would need to start over in the federal courts. Sorry, no ruling on NBC.
As it is, your case in SCOTUS will proceed as follows, with different dates, of course:
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.
Nov 29 2010 Petition DENIED.
FEDERAL COURTS ARE NOT THE PATHWAY TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION!
I am sure that I have said this before however I will say it again, the only way that a citizen can raise the “constitutional qualification” is through the state courts with a case that in time results in a decision in that state’s Supreme Court. There is no pathway through the Federal Courts (due to the Constitutional mandated Separation of Powers) this is why all of the “birther” cases, as you call them, have failed. Ideally, the Vermont Supreme Court (VCS) would have voiced their opinion as to the meaning of “NBC” to be applied to the “constitutional qualification” of candidates for President and their inclusion on the ballot in Vermont. Had they done so (or concluded that there was some other meaning of “NBC” such as “native birth” only) the case would have been appealed to SCOTUS for final determination for the entire country, as an incongruity among the states as to the qualification would have been unacceptable. By deferring to SCOTUS in their ruling I believe that they have done the equivilant – and that if SCOTUS reverses the mootness issue, they may see clear to rule on the “NBC” issue at this time OR rule in my favor as to the mootness issue only and return the case to Vermont where the VSC would again voince their (correct) opinion that it is SCOTUS’s responsibility to interprate the U.S. Constitution.
Please don’t give me this Federal Courts “stuff”, don’t believe the poor little pro se, plaintiff in this case – READ Daniel Tokaji’s The Justucuability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?.
If you folks think this is easy or fun – think again! Then place yourself in my shoes for just a moment – We have a “de facto” President of the United States sitting in the White House who is “Constitutionally unqualified” to be at the levers of power, doing untold harm to our Nation. Without exception: the members of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, all of the functionaries of both political parties are all disinterested in even reviewing Mr. Obama’s Constitutional credentials. What would you do? Trust me, I understand that someone other than the retired newsboy from Vermont and the general practice attorney from New Jersey should be leading the charge – but they are not. What choice do I have but to press on – do I understand my chances of success OF COURSE!
So criticize me if you like, mock me if you wish, but I am doing all I can to save us all.
H. Brooke Paige
H. Brooke Paige
P.O. Box #41
Washington, Vermont 05675
e-mail at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks for dropping by.
I agree that the Federal courts are not the pathway to resolve the question. Of course, in the case of Obama, I don’t think that there is any question, noting that all state courts that have commented on Obama’s eligibility have said he was eligible.
For background, I would suggest Charles Gordon’s paper “Who Can Be President Of The United States: The Unresolved Enigma” (links in this article).
The problem with pursuing this in state court is that the states seem to be coming to the consensus that it’s a federal question. Some state secretaries of state historically have refused ballot positions to obviously ineligible candidates, but to my knowledge no federal appeals court has ever reviewed this action. In recent cases, they are arguing in court that it’s not their problem. It may even be unconstitutional. The Constitution talks about who may be President, not about who may run for President. It may well be that anybody can run for President. If this is right, then the only arbiter of who may interpret Article II and decide who may become the President is Congress.
Even in the case of the legitimate question about foreign-born persons, the Constitution insofar as I understand it, assigns the certification of the election, and the case of a president-elect failing to qualify, to Congress. If so, then the Political Question doctrine would keep the courts out of the matter entirely.
There is one other thing I want to reply to. You said that the Supreme Court’s responsibility is to “interpret the Constitution.” The Constitution does not say that and the Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions. Indeed all three branches of government interpret the Constitution every day. The role of the Supreme Court is to hear cases and controversies. It is the role of Congress to decide who got elected and what to do should the President-elect fail to qualify. Here’s the section from the 20th Amendment for reference:
I do not understand why you think you are the person to fix the country, nor why you would persist after all the loses in court. I would never put myself in that position because I know that there are millions of people who know more about stuff than I do. I humbly suggest that you have an unwarranted high opinion of your own competence.
“If you folks think this is easy or fun – think again! Then place yourself in my shoes for just a moment”
Mmm lemme try that.
“LOOKIT ME! I’M DUMB ASS HELL!!! I DIDN’T GET BELTED ENOUGH AS A CHILD! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!”
…Nah, I like my life better!
No, you don’t get pity. I don’t pity windmill chasing ignoramuses. Obama is our legally elected president. You lose! Don’t come back blubbering to us that the courts rightfully told you “No” again. Now, go build a bridge and get over it…or jump off of it. Really, either is fine.
The Vermont Supreme Court did not “defer” its ruling on natural-born citizenship; it ruled it lacked jurisdiction to make any ruling because the case is moot.
Paige failed to explain how the Vermont Supreme Court erred in concluding the case was moot (and that the exceptions did not apply) and why the U.S. Supreme Court should use his case to clarify the mootness doctrine.
Is there any way the courts can black ball people like Paige? To prevent them from filing such cases?
I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand it, typically someone needs to repeatedly bring frivolous cases before judges do anything more than tell them to GTFOOMC and even more to get them to declare the person a vexatious litigant. I think Mario is (rightly) afraid of bringing a birther case because he’s a lawyer (and should know better than to make such a frivolous argument), but I don’t think Mr. Paige is in any danger. Besides, he’s just going to be denied cert without comment at the SCOTUS and that will be the end of it, so his potential for future frivolity would seem limited.
Oh, so then there’s at least hope that Orly Taitz will get the E. Honda of legal pimp-slaps then.
Help us, H. Brooke Paige. You’re our only hope!
If he really wanted to help, he’d donate his brain to science. Its not like he’s using it or anything.
Actually, Orly’s already on the hook in Mississippi. Once the judge inevitably dismisses the case (keep in mind that he’s slower than molasses in the arctic circle), it seems nearly certain that the defense will file a motion seeking sanctions from Taitz and given that they offered to let Orly settle the case for 25K, I suspect they will be seeking considerably more. Even Orly doesn’t get anything more than GTFOOMC sua sponte, the difference here is that the defense will probably be asking.
Often the most prolific abusers are those who plead poverty and file cases for free. So an effective half measure is to throttle the ability to file free suits. IIRC, SCOTUS did impose that penalty on one birther.
Courts maintain a do-not-file list for the extreme abusers, which means a judge has to review the filing before allowing it to be filed.
But a person cannot be outright banned from filing suits without threatening the First Amendment.
Fixed if for you.
All of the birther cases? You must have been napping through all of the state birther lawsuits which have been filed and dismissed. I count at least 109 of them. Why you believe that there is any chance that your case will turn out differently is a mystery, other than perhaps your inability to take “no” for an answer.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself WHY the only attorneys who are willing to file eligibility challenges are the likes of Mario Apuzzo and Orly Taitz? If there were a competent Constitutional Law attorney who believed that your theories had more than a snowball’s chance in hell of prevailing, you would have no trouble getting adequate counsel. Did you know that when Apuzzo appealed the Kerchner case to SCOTUS he didn’t even bother to learn how the Court operates? He refused to believe it when an experienced Supreme Court lawyer told him that his appeal was dead the moment that no member of the Court called for a response from the respondents.
I don’t need to be saved, and I certainly don’t need to be “saved” by you and others who would like to invalidate the votes I cast in the last two Presidential elections.
Oh it’s fun because we know you losing makes you angry. Birthers are spinning their wheels when caselaw is well decided on this.
You’re doing nothing to save us all from your insanity and stupidity. The courts decided this ages ago. There is no question as to the President’s eligibility to be President.
I’m curious as to what you would consider sufficient evidence that President Obama is, in fact, eligible to be president. Surely you haven’t been right about everything your entire life, so there exists a chance that you are wrong in your belief that what you are doing “can… save us all“. If there is a chance that one is mistaken, intellectual honesty (and the scientific method, if you care about that) demands that you determine what would constitute sufficient evidence to accept that you were wrong and change your mind. I suspect that if we resurrected the Founders, the writers of the 14th Amendment and all of the parties and Justices involved in Wong Kim Ark to explain to you why President Obama is eligible, you would still refuse to believe it. Is that correct?
I have sent this e-mail to Mario Apuzzo. He has not responded in 63 days, and counting:
You aren’t “saving” anything except your vision of a white majority 1950’s America that no longer exists except in your own fevered imagination.
If anyone needs “saving”, it’s the rest of us from zealots like yourself.
Dear Mr Paige:
I for one neither criticize you, nor mock you; but like many well-intentioned people, you are the victim of a con man (Mario Apuzzo) who is using, abusing and even distorting your honest political opinion (to which you are entitled) to bolster an ill-conceived and mendacious crusade.
Like people who contribute money to fake charities, I truly feel sorry for you, and can only hope that you will regain some sense of sanity. My own parents, who are very charitable, were the victims of such an unscrupulous scheme so I feel strongly about this issue.
If you genuinely wish to help your country and steer it away from what you obviously consider the wrong path, please redirect your efforts towards electing opposition candidates and lobbying for policies you believe in.
If your heart is in the right place, send the meretricious Mr. Apuzzo packing, and get involved in real politics.
Right now, the victim is not your country, it is you.
Of course he would. He’d claim the Founders are ashamed of slavery and suffer from “white guilt” and “fear of being called racists”.
BFD: I live here.
Is that what you learned reading the National Enquirer between customers?
Thanks. I’m having more fun than I did with my ex-wife.
If you want to save us, start with the neo-Confederates who threatened to burn down the house and the whole country. If you want to save us all, have Ted Cruz committed. You’d be doing a real service to humanity – that is, if you consider Cruz part of humanity.
Ted Cruz’ father’s favorite slogan: “Gott mit uns.”
No thanks. Wrong size, and I’m worried about Athlete’s foot.
Like Bush stealing the election in 2000?
Like illegally invading Iraq, with fabricated stories, so Cheney’s cronies could get their paws on oil?
You gotta stop handing me these openings…
No more, Misha! If I do one more rimshot, my arm will fall off!
Did you hear about the band drummer, whose drumstick broke in half during a riff?
He accidentally picked up his chicken dinner.
Mr. Paige, you may want to look back at the Georgia cases last year. The non-Orly one went through the Georgia Supreme Court and SCOTUS denied cert. The state route has been done before and failed.
There was a state appellate case that actually did include the “merits” but that one was not appealed.
Mr. Paige: I am worried sick about this, so please help me get some relief.
Of the newspapers you sold, was the ink made from soy, or petrochemicals?
Thanks in advance.
I had written lengthy response which was lost when sent, most probably the fault of FairPoint Communications and not Kevin’s website!
In any case the heart of the writing was you folks (most of you) have lost sight of civility – there is little chance of having a reasoned discussion here.
You can count on the fact that I am a fellow who is not know for quitting in the middle of a task, regardless of the difficulty – I will fight until I here the final bell (SCOTUS).
Vermont’s V.R.A.P.40 allows for further consideration and correction of the record – which is the next step in this process so that no one can claim that the case was not fully developed in the state courts before its removal to SCOTUS.
H. Brooke Paige
H. Brooke Paige
P.O. Box #41
Washington, Vermont 05675
e-mail at: email@example.com
Paige, what’s your endgame when the SCOTUS slaps you down too, hmm? Notice I said when, not if.
Speaking for myself, I apologize if anything I have written offended you.
Before you go and to complete the record, could you post a link to your Vermont Supreme Court brief? I don’t believe it has been published on the internet. Also if you have a link to the response from the Assistant Attorney General, could you post that?
The analogy of Don Quixote comes to mind. He was persistent and honorable, but his perceptions of the world around him were distorted.
Whenever I come up against an obstacle, I include the possibility that I’m going the wrong way among the possible solutions. An objective review of the evidence should lead you to the conclusion that your quest is mistaken.
In all fairness, I must admit that your quest is mostly harmless. I just hope that once SCOTUS fails to grant cert. in your case (which even you must admit is the most likely outcome), you will consider your task done and not go around the Internet dissing the Court and claiming you were right.
You are such a blubbering little birther with a self-centered chip on his quivering shoulder. Do you not recall what you promised when last you left us?
“If I am successful, I will not return – never much for gloating! However if I am not successful I will return to receive my just chastisement – I promise!”
You failed. You came back. You received the mildest of chastisements, and now you leave, moaning of incivilities and whining of failed discussions. Just to remind you H. Brooke, you only posted four times, you never engaged in any discussion, and the focus of your comments was to trumpet your own greatness, e.g., “I’m doing all I can to save us all.”
Buy a mirror, write your name on the frame, and look at it closely. There you will see a self-indulgent ass and a braying hypocrite. Go shake your ears.
A Few Answers for Kevin’s Followers
Gorefan – Every filing is posted to WestLaw, in fact all parties must submit a digital as well as 8 printed copies of the filing with the Clerk of the Court. If you don’t find it there the Vermont Judicial System maintains a website that should be easily accessible.
Andrew Vrba, PmG (and others) – Of course a decision by SCOTUS will once and for all resolve the question for everyone. My desire is to have the exact definition of the Constitutional Qualification plainly enumerated by the court: one citizen parent, two citizen parents, native born (born in country) OR born in country to two citizen parents. Whatever definition SCOTUS embraces wil be the qualification – defined precisely for all to understand, no more speculation, no more politicial gaming depending on the candidate!
Misha Marinsky – I mentioned Philly only to explain that I was over 400 miles from home and without internet connection (except at Kinkos at .30/min.) To your question, I believe that Ted Cruz suffers from the double disability of being born out of the country (to parents not in the service of their country during their absence) and lacking two citizen parents (mother was citizen, however father was not yet naturalized. Yes, I will again make a challenge in Vermont to exclude Senator Cruz and all other unqualified candidates from the Vermont Presidential Ballot in 2016.
Arthur and Minority Will – I am far from self absorbed, self centered or egotistical – I look in the mirror every morning and see a balding, sixty-something fellow – no movie star or super hero here. Yea, I’m doing all I can to see this issue resolved and understand that most believe it’s not much or worth attempting. While we are on the subject, my I inquire what you have done to help resolve this question? Oh, that’s right you don’t think there is a question! Maybe you could do more to convince the millions of citizen that don’t agree with you that your crystal ball has allowed you to divine the one true definition.
I am sure all (or most) of this will fall on deaf ears, but I figured I would give it a try!
I guess I’ll swing by the Green Mountain Daily to let them take thier best shots!
Nothing is better at keeping one focused than swimming with sharks!
H. Brooke Paige
H. Brooke Paige
P.O. Box #41
Washington, Vermont 05675
e-mail a: firstname.lastname@example.org
I got a question Brooke Paige in your opinion do you think Tom Vilsack current cabinet member and Secretary of Agriculture is eligible to be President?
That was a very long winded non-answer Paige.
I asked you what you’re gonna do, when the highest court in the nation turns you away.
And therein lies the disconnect from reality. The Supreme Court has already decided the issue with respect to people like Obama. Your inability to recognize such must thus stem from dishonesty or ignorance of the law. While I would like to believe it is only ignorance, you have had people on this blog point out to you that much of your argument is simply false. Such is not a matter of opinion. What courts have said in the past is a matter of fact, not opinion. And to claim any court ever said one needed citizen parents is simply a lie. To say that Wong Kim Ark did not define who was natural born is simply a lie. This type of behavior is pretty offensive for people who take the law seriously. Indeed, if you were an attorney, you could lose your license making such claims as the entire profession take great offense at misrepresenting case law. If you have respect for the law and yourself, I suggest you take your brief to a real constitutional scholar to find out if you are peddling a bunch of lies. I don’t think you will like the answer you get.
You may be a balding senior citizen (most birthers are), but your inability to acknowledge or learn from your failures in court betray your narcissism. As far as “resolving” the issue, you need to face the fact that your actions have accomplished nothing. Moreover, while you may not believe the NBC question has been resolved, court decisions and federal statutes say otherwise. Your grandiose fantasy of taking an appeal to the Supreme Court will never happen, but even that failure will be insufficient to free you from your delusions.
Any competent attorney will tell you that the Supreme Court will not hear your case. It is not even remotely possible.
Andrew Vrba – Obviously, I do not accept you premise that my appeal will not be heard, equally obvious is the fact that regardless of how the high court rules – the decision will become the law of the land. I will be pleased with any decision which puts the question to rest – however, I suspect that anything short of a decision that confirms your belief that “natural born citizens” and “citizens of the United States” are equivilents will not set well with you.
H. Brooke Paige
Who believes that?
H. Brooke Paige, it’s already the law of the land, and has been for the last 115 years. The Supreme Court ruled all the way back in the 1898 that our citizenship law came from English Common Law, and that Subject in English Common Law was analogous to Citizen in America. They spent 4/5ths of the decision using that logic. Every court that has “ruled on the merits” has acknowledged this fact, and rejected your interpretation of U.S. law that has gone away for the last 237 years. They cite authority after authority on that, including this quote from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice (Swayne) in 1866.
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
They quoted Smith v. Alabama which directly said: ” The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
The logic of wong is this:
The terms in the constitution are framed in English Common Law, and therefore, we must look towards English Common Law for our interpretation of our citizenship law.
The English believed in the place of birth as citizenship, and that transferred over to the colonies.
Therefore, Mr. Wong is a Citizen.
Now, with that clear precedent, do you really think that the Supreme Court will go and revist that, and declare that our citizenship law doesn’t come from English Common Law?
And nice straw-man argument that you’re constructing on the equating of Natural-Born, and Citizen of the United States. Nobody is arguing that they are exactly the same. They’re arguing that your definition of Natural Born is not correct.
“Citizens of the United States” includes two, and only two, classes: Natural Born, and Naturalized. Natural Born are those who’s citizenship is bestowed upon them because of their birth (get it: BORN NATURAL). Naturalized are those who were made citizens after their birth (get it: MADE NATURAL). Your straw-man fallacy will not work.
And when the Supreme Court refuses to hear your appeal, will you come back for another bout of “chastisement,” i.e., you complain of ill-treatment, reaffirm your role as savior, and insist that you’re right and everyone else is wrong?
And again, hear, hear.
The only true goal of a bigoted birther jackass is to be a jackass.
” . . . ay, there’s the rub.”
Of course, the case was dismissed because it was moot and the court lacked jurisidiction to grant relief. It would those questions that the Supreme Court would address and if it reversed it would remand the case back to Vermont to address the merits of the case. Of course, the issues of mootness and jurisdiction in Vermont courts are matters of state law that the US Supreme Court will defer to the Vermont Supreme Court on which is why your chances are basically zero even if you had an argument that made sense.
I really don’t understand your thinking on this–how is losing your case “the equivalent” of winning it? You hoped your case would establish a conflict among the states/courts, thereby presenting something that the U.S. Supreme Court might review to resolve the conflict. But that legal strategy didn’t work. You acknowledge that federal courts lack jurisdiction “due to the Constitutional mandated Separation of Powers.” But the U.S. Supreme Court is a federal court, bound by the same separation of powers. I do not see how a lack of conflict, and a lack of state and federal court jurisdiction, gets you the equivalent of your hoped-for result.
As for mootness, I just don’t see how this raises a federal question for the U.S. Supreme Court. The Vermont Supreme Court applied its own mootness doctrine–based upon the Vermont state constitution’s jurisdictional limitations and related Vermont case law. Will you be arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court is better suited than the Vermont Supreme Court to interpret and apply Vermont’s state constitution? Or will you be arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court has–and should exercise–the authority to impose a new uniform mootness doctrine on all state courts to force jurisdiction upon them–regardless of the judicial limitations codified in their state constitutions? If the latter, by what authority could the U.S. Supreme Court do so? The mootness doctrine in federal court is based upon Art. III jurisdictional limitations on Art. III courts; the Vermont courts are not Art. III courts. Assuming arguendo that you could persuade the Court to exercise such an overreach of federal authority over state constitutions and state courts, wouldn’t you be concerned about setting such a precedent against state’s rights?
No one ever said they are equivalents as the class “citizens of the United States” includes both naturalized and natural born citizens.
By your logic “natural born citizens” can not be Senators or Representatives as the Constitution requires they must be Citizens of the United States.
What does H. Brooke Page know that Steve Ankeny doesn’t?
What Mr. Ankeny knew was that he should not appeal his loss on the merits to the Supreme Court, which might actually have affirmed, and thus left the Birthers with the sole argument that someone had bribed or threatened Justice Scalia.
Imagine that, a decision adverse to the Birthers. And no attempt to get it to the Supreme Court. That could only be the work of the great legal minds like Dr. Taitz, Mr. Apuzzo, and the like.
I am truly disappointed with your accusation. How can you denigrate Mr. Paige’s universal knowledge on any given subject? Mr. Paige had the unique opportunity to read an almost infinite number of newspapers and magazines, on a daily basis.
He read not only High Times, but the Legal Times. He probably has confused the two, but that is common.
Please – show some compassion.
I hope you’re not including me as I thought I was being very considerate.
I note you also decided to not answer my comment at all, and instead preferred to engage in the same dead end arguments with others.
From where I sit it seems you prefer to troll those who are rude to you instead of engaging into a honest debate that goes outside the narrow box which you have built.
I will repeat my point: you are being conned by a meretricious attorney who is exploiting your grievances. There are ways to deal with the issues you raise (their validity is not my concern) but not in the fashion you outline. Again: you are being duped.
Whereas birthers have convinced themselves that the Founders so much hated the British that they redefined every single term from Common Law to say something totally different (and never bothered to tell anyone).
In a way, it’s Kafkaesque – imagine someone being indicted for violation of the Constitution, being told “you know exactly what you did wrong!” and finding out the law wasn’t meant to say what it says on its face but that the “secret meaning” intended by the lawmakers is controlling.
Outside of Kafka’s “The Trial”, you would only expect this in the worst dictatorships where the law can be changed “on the fly” to allow a “guilty” verdict.
– “Call me a taxi.”
– “OK, you’re a taxi.”
We will sell no wine before its time.
Is it 4:20 yet?
The expected outcome of your particular windmill tilt, denial of cert by SCOTUS, will do nothing to resolve the question of Cruz’ NBC status. That can only come if someone litigates his candidacy. Are you up for the job?
So…do I follow up with a comparison about how Birtherism is like a drunken Orson Welles, during his decline?
And in 00Bob Gard’s fevered imagination.
Well, considering what you’ve put forward as an attempt at a reasoned discussion, I’d say there is indeed little chance. And whining about incivility after all the passive aggression and condescension you’ve engaged in is a bit de trop, as Bugs Bunny once said.
Shorter H Brook Paige;
“You cannot win, for if I had prevailed I would be vindicated. But now that the courts have struck me down, I HAVE BECOME MORE POWERFUL THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE!!!”
*Weeps for the time that star wars references actually were cool”
Exactly. See for example, Paige’s initial post,
“Sorry Children Can’t Play Right Now – I’m doing grown-up stuff! I am in Philadelphia this weekend visiting with and caring for my 85 year old mother AND my 84 year old mother-in-law! I am responding to you pleas for attention at a .35/min. Kinko’s (Fedex Office) business center. Back in Vermont Monday, will answer you cries for attention Tuesday. Have a Nice Weekend, Now go outside and play nice!”
He deserves every ounce of scorn that has been heaped on him. Like so many birthers, he is, as Majority Will observes, a jack-ass.
Care to put money on that? ‘Cause I’m willing to bet the farm… literally. I’ll even give you long odds. Really, I’m not kidding.
It isn’t my problem that you have an anaphylactic reaction to reality. I just wish you wouldn’t burden taxpayers by wasting the courts’ time with your drivel.
I’m just curious where you got this nonsense.
No one on this site, and to my knowledge, no one anywhere else has ever argued that “natural born citizen” and “citizen of the United States” is equivalent. Birthers attribute this to liberals/Obots/anti-birthers, but it is a complete fantasy.
On the Internet there are three factions, listed in increasing class size:
1 Natural born citizen = BORN A CITIZEN of the United States, in the United States to two US Citizen Parents.
2 Natural born citizen = BORN A CITIZEN of the United States, in the United States.
3 Natural born citizen = BORN A CITIZEN of the United States
There is universal agreement that natural born citizens must be BORN citizens. Others add additional requirements as above.
“Citizens of the United States” includes persons who are not born citizens and cannot be President. Nobody here says otherwise.
So if it is not heard, will you admit that folks here understand how the Supreme Court works better than you? If it is heard, I will certainly extend the same courtesy to you.
I did not mean to ignore or over look your comment.
I have re-argument due in 14 days. VSC has clearly stated its opinion that SCOTUS and not the VSC is the final arbiter of the constitutional question. Informing SCOTUS that should they find that the action is not moot, the VSC considers the decision on the constitutional question to be their responsibility.
I have no idea how this will all turn out – I believe it is my obligation to see it to its end. Understand that I will be pleased whatever the outcome, especially if SCOTUS voices a clear unmistakable definition of the qualities required to be an “natural born citizen” and thus resolve this issue that has caused so much disunity and hostility among us once and for all.
H. Brooke Paige
P.O. Box #41
Washington, Vermont 05675
e-mail at: email@example.com
In my 63 years on this planet, I gained three important life insights. Even though they may sound trite, each came as the result of a hard lesson, and each has been very helpful to me. I will share them with you:
1. Life is difficult
2. It’s not about me
3. Some things are my problem, and some things are not my problem.
Obama’s eligibility is not your problem, and the birther movement is not my problem. I did this web site initially because I enjoy researching and debunking. When I was in college, I enjoyed proving theorems in mathematics. Debunking isn’t all that different. Later I found that I enjoyed writing, and this topic has gained me a readership. I don’t to this site because birthers are my problem.
The Fogbow forum has a byline: “Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.” While I agree with that statement, I do not believe that individuals on the Internet have a responsibility to be the internet-wide challengers of falsehood. The Media largely has that responsibility. In my personal life I am responsible to challenge people who speak falsehood to me individually, but the larger battles on the Internet are “not my problem”, and such controversies are “not about me.”
In a way, the judicial doctrine of “standing” is a codification of the “it’s not about me” principle.
Let us know what happens in your case.
Once again, I’m willing to bet all that I have, that you will NOT be pleased wit the outcome.
You do realize that being pleased with the outcome will logically mean you will stop your birtherism… right?
The Vermont Supreme Court clearly stated in its opinion that it lacks jurisdiction because of mootness. End of story.
Please quote any contrary language in the decision.
I don’t know how many times I must say it – I am not a “birther” as I accept as fact that Barrack Hussein Obama, II was born in Hawaii – it is his father’s British Citizenship that disqualifies him from being a “natural born citizen”. If his father had naturalized before his sons birth, if we were to find that Frank Marshall Davis was his father (and there had been no fraud in covering up that fact), if he had been born out of wed lock and his father could not be determined – his birth on U. S. soil to a “citizen of the United States” mother – would all be conditions that would make him a “natural born citizen”.
So you already have your wish. H. Brooke Paige is not a “birther” and trust me when I tell you, I anger many when I say this!
H. Brooke Paige
P.O. Box #41
Washington, Vermont 05675
e-mail at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Personally, I would not be pleased to be rejected by the Supreme Court, and have my efforts thrown into a very large pile of lost or dismissed lawsuits, accomplishing nothing.
According to popular usage and the definition I use on this site, you are a birther. Birthers come in two flavors (or a swirl of both), those who deny that Barack Obama was born a citizen (in Africa or Canada or Indonesia or whatever) and those who accept the official biography of the President, but say he’s ineligible anyway (your position). Look at mainstream news stories now about “Cruz birthers”–they’re working from the same definition of natural born citizen that you are.
As far as I am concerned, they are equal nonsense and it is no more negative to call someone “birther” for one reason than for the other.
If it’s any consolation, you are not a “birfer.”
You’re a birther, Paige. Their stink is your stink.
Yes, by contemporary definitions of the term, you are a birther. A person who doubts the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency because he doesn’t believe Obama is a natural-born US citizen, is a birther. You don’t appear to be a conspiratorial birther (i.e., someone who believes the media and all three branches of government are protecting Obama) but you still hold the irrational belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and despite your own court losses and those of other birthers, you persist in your delusions. You’re a birther.
See, for example, Wikipedia, which observes,
“During Barack Obama’s campaign for president and in the years following his election, many conspiracy theories have been circulated, asserting that he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and consequently, under Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, is ineligible to be President of the United States.
“Such claims have been promoted by fringe theorists (‘birthers’), some of whom have sought court rulings either declaring Obama ineligible to take office, or granting access to various documents which they claim exist, and which they claim would evidence such ineligibility; none of these efforts have been successful. Some political opponents, especially in the Republican Party, have expressed skepticism about Obama’s citizenship or been unwilling to acknowledge it; some have proposed legislation which would require presidential candidates to provide proof of eligibility.”
I like to show an expanded list of citizenship classes:
A “Citizen of the United States” is:
1. A Natural Born Citizen.
** One who is BORN A CITIZEN:
.. 1a. In the United States
…. 1a(i) to two U.S. Citizen Parents
…… – Exemplar: Virginia Minor
…. 1a(ii) to one U.S. Citizen Parent
…… – Exemplar: Barack “Barry” Hussein Obama
…. 1a(iii) to zero U.S. Citizen Parents
…… – Exemplar: Wong Kim Ark
…… – Exemplar: Piyush “Bobby” Jindal
.. 1b. Outside the United States
…. 1b(i) to two U.S. Citizen Parents meeting legal requirements
…… – Exemplar: John McCain
…. 1b(ii) to one U.S. Citizen Parent meeting legal requirements
…… – Exemplar: Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz
2. A Naturalized Citizen.
** One who is NOT BORN A CITIZEN
.. 2a. granted citizenship after birth
– Exemplar: Arnold Schwarzenegger
.. 2b. there isn’t a 2b.
* Anyone who is a member of either set ‘1’ or set ‘2’ is a member of the super set ‘Citizen of the United States’.
* Anyone who is a member of either set ‘1’ or set ‘2’ is a member of the super set ‘United States Citizen’.
* Anyone who is a member of either set ‘1’ or set ‘2’ is a member of the super set ‘American Citizen’.
** The sets ‘Citizen of the United States’, ‘United States Citizen’, and ‘American Citizen’ are exactly equal. This list may not exhaust the possiblities of set names.
* All Members of either set ‘1’ or set ‘2’ have exactly the same citizenship priviledges except that only members of set ‘1’ are eligible to be President. Presidential eligibility is the only difference of privilege between members of set ‘1’ and members of set ‘2’.
* All Members of subsets ‘1a(i)’, ‘1a(ii)’, and ‘1a(iii)’ have exactly the same citizenship privilidges. All members of these three subsets are eligible to be President as all are ‘Natural Born Citizens’.
* Members of subset ‘1a’ are “14th Amendment Citizens”.
* Members of subset ‘1b’ are NOT “14th Amendment Citizens”.
* All Members of subset ‘1b’ have exactly the same privilidges as members of subset ‘1a’ except that they are not subject to the protection of the 14th Amendment. All members of these two subsets are eligible to be President as all are ‘Natural Born Citizens’.
* Members of set 2 are also “14th Amendment Citizens”.
* The Supreme Court Case ‘Minor v Happersett’ stated that there was no doubt that members of set 1a(i) (such as the subject in the case, Virgina Minor) were Natural Born Citizens, and while there were doubts about members of the other subsets it had no need to decide about them.
* The Supreme Court Case ‘Wong v US’ removed the doubts expressed in ‘Minor v Happersett’ as regards members of set 1a(iii) (and by implication set 1a(ii)). A citizen, born in the United States (i.e. any member of set 1a.) is a Natural Born Citizen.
* There is no specific Supreme Court Case that applies to anyone in Set ‘2’ that describes them as ‘Natural Born Citizen’. There is however general academic agreement (and minor academic disagreement) that this is the case. More importantly, there is the Congressional precident declaring John McCain a ‘Natural Born Citizen’. This is a non-binding precedent, but one which would be very difficult to ignore in future.
Edit: I tried to make the outline readable. It doesn’t look like I did a very good job. Sorry.
The opinion does not state that SCOTUS is the final arbiter of this–not clearly nor obscurely nor remotely. Indeed, for all we know, the members of the Vermont Supreme Court may actually agree with your other statement–that the federal judiciary cannot decide this issue “due to the Constitutional mandated Separation of Powers”. We’ll never know, since the subject didn’t even come up in the VSC’s opinion.
I liked it. I think it’s clear and to the point, and very readable.
I think you mean subset 1b, don’t you
Mr. Paige, the Vermont Supreme Court said no such thing. Your reading comprehension skills need improvement.
As I have said here before, all birthers are racists. You are no exception. Despite 200+ court cases going against your position, despite your position being supported by no member of Congress (at least to the extent of actually taking an official action), and despite the fact that no Supreme Court justice has expressed the slightest curiousity in hearing any birther case, you persist in trying the 201st case and can’t even read the state court decision where you lost. And you have the nerve to repeat the canard about Frank Davis being Pres. Obama’s father.
You sir, are a racist. Plain and simple.
you shoulda seen it before i added the dots at the front of the lines
Another interesting goalpost.
Let’s enter this particular “what if” world:
First, even fraud would not make the election moot, regardless of what parallel universe Constitution you read.
Second, your condition is impossible to meet as it again places the burden of proof (proof of non-existence) on Obama – how could he “prove” he never knew his biological father was different from the father on his BC?
On the contrary, if it were proven FMD was his father, you would have to immediately accept he’s an NBC even by your definition – and then try your best to prove he knew it.
Actually I thought it was outstanding. Bravo.
I can only hope for your sake that this is not costing you a dime.
My parents were conned by an unscrupulous company that kept enticing them to spend more money and go deeper into a completely ludicrous scheme with the promise of a big pay-off at the end. At every step, what ought to have been seen objectively as a “loss” was portrayed a mere speed bump on the road to ultimate victory.
Ultimately they lost about 20,000 euros that way, and there was virtually nothing one could do to get redress and/or the money back.
In the same fashion, you are clearly being suckered into a similar kind of scheme. Everyone sees it. It is totally obvious. Your mendacious attorney is preying on your sense of justice and desire to redress what you see as some kind of harm needing to be fixed tin order o convince you go deeper into the rabbit hole.
If this isn’t costing you a dime, then I guess it’s just as harmless as looking for the Peretual Motion Engine. But if not, you are, sadly, being suckered.
My friend Lupin, you are too kind to Mr. Page. His body is filled with bile. He will never accept a (half)black man superior to him. That is why our friend John Reilly calls him a racist. And we can only hope that Mr. Page pays more than he can afford. He is not being suckered, he is the sucker.
Two posts of mine have gone into moderation – I wondered if it was because of my new email address so I’m trying this with my old address
Oops. That part is supposed to be about Set 1b not Set 2.
Here’s the thing. You already have a clear, unmistakable definition of the qualities required to be a “natural born citizen”, you just don’t accept it. And you wouldn’t accept a Supreme Court decision unless it backed you up 100%.
The birthers didn’t make up the two-parent test until Obama ran for President. It was quite clear that it wasn’t in effect during any sort of historical settlement, and in fact we’ve had Presidents before Obama that were born to foreigners, and nobody cared.
Chester A. Arthur’s enemies knew that he was born to a non-citizen. They wrote the
Secretary of State[Senator Bayard – Doc] to ask him if someone became a citizen due to their father naturalizing, if that made them a Natural Born Citizen. Seems rather specific to not know. Remember, these people were trying to find an argument to make Chester A. Arthur not a Natural Born Citizen. He even published an entire book arguing throughout the pages of it that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada, and therefore ineligible for the Presidency. If the definition was what you and Mario say that it is, why didn’t they just use the fact that his father was a foreigner, and leave it at that? Why spend all this time and energy trying to argue that he was born in Canada, when he had evidence that Arthur’s father was not a citizen when he was born? Not one page in his book was spent to the argument that because Arthur’s father was not a citizen, then Arthur could not be a Natural Born Citizen. My question to you is: why?
But the Supreme Court ruled a few years later, that our citizenship law comes directly from English Common Law, and that Natural Born Citizen is analogous to Natural Born Subject in English Common Law, directly rejecting the exact argument that you tried to present.
It seems clear to me that members of set 1b are citizens only by Acts of Congress, thus making them naturalized, even if they are naturalized at birth. Does that mean that they are not NBC? I am not sure, and I think this is the only area which needs Congressional or Judicial clarification. Did English Common Law in 1787 define these people as Natural Born Subjects? If so, then the question is definitively resolved by WKA.
That is the crux of the academic disagreement.
My opinion is that the Act of Congress doesn’t say ‘this set of folks are to be considered citizens at birth’ – it says ‘this set of folks do not need to be naturalized because they are citizens at birth’.
Since Congress has authority to write laws about naturalization, it has the authority to indicate who can be naturalized. Clearly, those who are already citizens do not need to be naturalized.
A citizen who is not naturalized, must, by simple process of elimination be a natural born citizen.
Ah, but the Supreme Court has suggested that those who receive citizenship by virtue of statute are in fact naturalized.
Read US v Wong Kim Ark for the first impression of the court. More recent ones can be found as well.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s father and Obama knew about it. How would that disqualify Obama from being President? What law would Obama have broken by saying that Barack Obama was his father? Where in the Constitution does it say that a President must be truthful about his parentage?
The reason that we know that you are a birther and a racist is that you demand verification from Obama which you never demanded from any previous President. Your questions are just another variation on “Show us your papers, boy.”
If only Obama would say that his mother was a slut, and he is a bastard, Paige might be satisfied, so long as Obama has a good reason for not saying it earlier…
Of course, since Obama Sr. would still legally be presumed to be his father, he’ll still have to produce evidence to prove that Obama Sr. is not the biological father… I guess he can at least start by unsealing his DNA….
Birthers love to make up all kinds of legal obstacles for becoming President (including “failing to register for Selective Service”) that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution and have been unheard of until the black guy became President (who ever asked which other President may not have registered for SelSrv?).
The funny thing is birthers have no problem claiming they believe “everything” Obama ever said was a lie, yet are very willing to believe him whenever it suits their theories.
Birthers don’t care anymore, they’ll believe several conflicting stories at the same time. Anything to make that scary black man leave their nice white house.