Judgement day is coming Federal Judge Carter sets Trial Date for O
Leonard Abbott
Judgement day is coming
Federal Judge Carter sets
Trial Date for Obama*s Eligibility!
The expedited
trial has been set for Jan. 26,
2010!
Many concerned veterans and citizens
attended the hearing in Federal Court in Santa Ana in the lawsuit
against Barack Obama to determine his eligibility to be President and
Commander in Chief. Â About 150 people showed up, almost all in
support of the lawsuit to demand that Obama release his birth
certificate and other records that he has hidden from the American
people.
Judge David Carter refused
to hear Obama*s request for dismissal. He indicated there was almost no
chance that this case would be dismissed. Obama is arguing this lawsuit
was filed in the wrong court if you can believe that. Obama would
prefer a "kangaroo court" instead of a Federal court! Assuming Judge
Carter denies Obama*s motion for dismissal, he will likely then order
expedited discovery which will force Obama to release his birth
certificate in a timely manner (if he has one).
The judge,
WHO IS A FORMER U.S. MARINE, repeated several times that this is A VERY
SERIOUS CASE which must be resolved quickly so that the troops know that
their Commander in Chief is eligible to hold that position and issue
lawful orders to our military in this time of war. He basically said
OBAMA MUST PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY to the court! He said Americans deserve
to know the truth about their President!
The two U.S. Attorneys representing
Barack Obama tried everything they could to sway the judge that this
case was frivolous, but Carter would have none of it and cut them off
several times. Obama*s attorneys left the courtroom after about
the 90 minute hearing looking defeated and
nervous.
Great day in America for the U.S.
Constitution! The truth about Barack Obama*s eligibility will be
known fairly soon - Judge Carter practically guaranteed it!
Video from the press
conference after the hearing coming soon. Congratulations to plaintiffs
attorney Dr. Orly Taitz! She did a great job and won some huge
victories. Â She was fearless!
This
needs to be forwarded to everyone you know.... KEEP
THIS JUDGE & THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN GETTING THE TRUTH OUT IN PRAYER
Stephen Sprunk
>
> Judgement day is coming
> Federal Judge Carter sets
> Trial Date for Obama*s Eligibility!
> The expedited
> trial has been set for Jan. 26,
> 2010!
Barnett v. Obama was dismissed two weeks ago, you fool. Not that it is
even remotely relevant for nyc.transit...
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Vince
> Leonard Abbott wrote:
>>
>> Judgement day is coming
>> Federal Judge Carter sets
>> Trial Date for Obama*s Eligibility!
>> The expedited
>> trial has been set for Jan. 26,
>> 2010!
>
> Barnett v. Obama was dismissed two weeks ago, you fool. Not that it is
> even remotely relevant for nyc.transit...
>
> S
>
I didn't wish to appease this idiot, but now that you replied the
question would have been:
Why wasn't any of this on the news anywhere ever?
Ed(NY)
president into civil court (or criminal court, for that matter).
"Vince" <vpil...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4aff77ff$0$31281$607e...@cv.net...
Peter T. Daniels
> And if I have my constitutional law right, you can't bring a sitting
> president into civil court (or criminal court, for that matter).
Where were you during the Clinton presidency?
Peter T. Daniels
The whole Lewinsky business came to light because he gave a deposition
in the frivolous lawsuit by Paula Jones in Little Rock who was coerced
into falsely claiming that Clinton harassed her, or something like
that.
Stephen Sprunk
> "Vince" <vpil...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4aff77ff$0$31281$607e...@cv.net...
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> Barnett v. Obama was dismissed two weeks ago, you fool. Not that it is
>>> even remotely relevant for nyc.transit...
>>
>> question would have been:
>>
>> Why wasn't any of this on the news anywhere ever?
>
> president into civil court (or criminal court, for that matter).
That's roughly correct, though the actual legalese is a bit more
complicated than that.
The ruling from Barnett v. Obama is available online, for those who want
to read it for themselves, but to summarize:
SCOTUS precedent requires that a court address all non-constitutional
questions (e.g. standing) before considering any constitutional ones.
The vast majority of plaintiffs were rejected for lack of standing
because they failed to claim any actual injury as required by law, only
"theoretical or speculative" injury.
The only plaintiffs the court didn't reject on those grounds were the
third-party candidates, and only because it found the idea of preventing
candidates from questioning an election to be too slippery a slope, even
though the ones in question had no mathematical possibility of winning
because they didn't appear on enough states' ballots. Instead, it
considered whether the court had the authority to redress their claimed
injury. Since Obama has already been sworn in, the court found that the
only way it could redress their injury would be to remove him from
office. It then concluded that the authority to remove a sitting
President was vested solely in Congress by the Constitution, therefore
the judicial branch does not have the power to review his election, the
plaintiffs' injury could not be redressed by the court, and the
candidate plaintiffs also lacked standing.
The court noted several times that its ruling might have been different
had the case been filed before Obama was sworn in, but it's too late
now. It also may have indirectly set a new precedent by stating that,
by counting Electoral Votes for Obama, Congress had implicitly found him
to be eligible, a decision which no court (not even the Supreme Court)
can review.
Since all plaintiffs had been rejected for lack of standing, the case
was dismissed. Plaintiffs' counsel also got ripped a new one for
general incompetence and various forms of misconduct including suborning
perjury.
I suspect the case didn't get any media attention, except perhaps on
Faux News, because anyone with a brain _knew_ it was going to fail for
one reason or another.
Bolwerk
IIRC, the case involved a SCOTUS judgment that the President could be
sued in civil court.
Clark F Morris
Given the situation with Lewinsky, it is not obvious that Paula Jones
was making a false claim. If he had harassed her, he would have been
following in the footsteps of many other politicians of varying
stripes as well as prominent business people.
Clark F Morris
I wish the case had been presented competently and that the court had
ruled that the child of an American citizen is a natural born citizen
regardless of place of birth.
>
>S
Bolwerk
> I wish the case had been presented competently and that the court had
> ruled that the child of an American citizen is a natural born citizen
> regardless of place of birth.
I do wonder what the FFs thought of the term "natural born." I always
assumed it meant born within a U.S. territory myself. The concept of
the nation-state was in its infancy then. People at that time might
have been acquainted with the concept, but probably couldn't have seen
the U.S. as it was then as even a potential nation-state - with
Scottish, Germans, English, and Dutch all being sizable minorities.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:46:02 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
It has nothing to do with "obviousness." The American Spectator (I
think the subsequently repentant David Brock himself) invented out of
whole cloth the claim that Governor Clinton had his bodyguards summon
a "Paula" to his room. The Scaife operation then persuaded Paula Jones
that she was this nonexistent "Paula" and to sue for defamation or
some such.
Peter T. Daniels
What they thought is clear _because they wrote in the loophole that
would allow Alexander Hamilton (born in Nevis) to be president_.
Ed(NY)
always a degree of political gain to be had by spreading falsehoods, even
long after they've been proven false.
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9dfd5f35-90d6-4b06...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Bolwerk
I can't imagine he was the only political leader it benefitted.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to
the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States.
Peter T. Daniels
But you can't name anyone else known to the Founders who was in that
situation in 1787.
Bolwerk
Plenty of signers were Irish. Pierce Butler (SC), James McHenry (MD),
and Thomas Fitzsimons (PA) were born in Ireland. William Paterson (NJ)
was born in what is now Northern Ireland.
English and Scottish were also represented. Robert Morris (PA) was born
in England. Secretary of the Convention William Jackson was also born
in England. James Wilson (PA?) was born in Scotland.
I have no idea if any of those men had presidential ambitions though.
Peter T. Daniels
Exactly.
Stephen Sprunk
>>>
>>> No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
>>> United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
>>> Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of
>>> President; neither shall any
>>> Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to
>>> the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
>>> within the United States.
>>
>> But you can't name anyone else known to the Founders who was in that
>> situation in 1787.
>
> Plenty of signers were Irish. Pierce Butler (SC), James McHenry (MD),
> and Thomas Fitzsimons (PA) were born in Ireland. William Paterson (NJ)
> was born in what is now Northern Ireland.
>
> English and Scottish were also represented. Robert Morris (PA) was born
> in England. Secretary of the Convention William Jackson was also born
> in England. James Wilson (PA?) was born in Scotland.
That would have been irrelevant if those men had become citizens of the
US under the Articles of Confederation before they signed the
Constitution. Presumably they had.
Remember, the purpose of that clause was to prevent a "foreign king"
from ruling their country, as happened from time to time in Europe back
then. That's all.
> I have no idea if any of those men had presidential ambitions though.
AIUI, at the time everyone assumed Washington would rule for life,
similar to European kings, unless another revolution was brewing; it was
a shock to all when he stepped down after two terms (thus setting the
precedent that his successors would do the same, and the one exception
outraged people so much that we got the 22nd Amendment).
Stephen Sprunk
Keep in mind that the concept of US citizenship as we think of it didn't
exist at the time; people were citizens of a State, and US citizens were
simply the sum of the citizens of the States. The concept of granting
US citizenship directly didn't come about until after the 14th
Amendment. Also, the FFs couldn't conceive of the US having non-State
districts, territories, etc. because they were trying to get away from
European-style colonialism, though that was quickly washed away once the
US started expanding westward.
So, you have to turn to under what conditions the States granted
citizenship to people not born in those States, and I've never seen any
studies that show exactly what those conditions were. Simply being born
in a State or to one citizen parent was obviously not sufficient in all
cases, though, since either condition would have made citizens out of
slaves' children, and none of the FFs (even from non-slave States) would
have tolerated that.
Today, the States don't have _any_ laws on citizenship, except perhaps
some older States that haven't bothered taking the 150yo+ laws off their
books. Most natural-born citizens today get their citizenship via the
14th Amendment, and all naturalized citizens get theirs via federal law.
There is a major gray area between the two, but it only comes up in
rare cases when a statute citizen (such as Obama or McCain) is running
for President, so it's not surprising that the courts haven't nailed
down exactly what the rules are yet.
Some argue that someone cannot be a "natural-born citizen" if they got
their citizenship via federal law instead of the 14th Amendment, but
that's clearly false because the 14th Amendment didn't exist when the
clause was written, nor was something similar even proposed. Therefore,
it _must_ have been a status that could have been conferred by statute
law, such as the modern federal law that grants citizenship to children
of a US citizen.
IMHO, even if Obama _had_ been born in Kenya, he's still qualified to be
President. These "birthers" just can't accept a black President, so
they're clinging to any excuse they can to call him illegitimate.
Peter T. Daniels
> Today, the States don't have _any_ laws on citizenship, except perhaps
> some older States that haven't bothered taking the 150yo+ laws off their
> books. Most natural-born citizens today get their citizenship via the
> 14th Amendment, and all naturalized citizens get theirs via federal law.
> There is a major gray area between the two, but it only comes up in
> rare cases when a statute citizen (such as Obama or McCain) is running
> for President, so it's not surprising that the courts haven't nailed
> down exactly what the rules are yet.
How does Obama fall in the same "statute citizen" (whatever that is)
category as McCain? Maybe you're not aware that Hawaii had been a
state for almost two years when Obama was born there?
> Some argue that someone cannot be a "natural-born citizen" if they got
> their citizenship via federal law instead of the 14th Amendment, but
> that's clearly false because the 14th Amendment didn't exist when the
> clause was written, nor was something similar even proposed. Therefore,
> it _must_ have been a status that could have been conferred by statute
> law, such as the modern federal law that grants citizenship to children
> of a US citizen.
>
> IMHO, even if Obama _had_ been born in Kenya, he's still qualified to be
> President.
On what grounds?
Clark F Morris
In terms of the constitution, he is a native born citizen because his
mother was a US citizen.
Peter T. Daniels
If the Constitution said anything like that, there wouldn't be a
"birther" movement.
Being a US citizen isn't like being a Jew.
Phil Kane
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>Barnett v. Obama was dismissed two weeks ago, you fool. Not that it is
>even remotely relevant for nyc.transit...
>
Not only that, the idiot lawyer who filed it was fined $20,000 for
filing a frivolous lawsuit and failure to appear at a hearing on that
matter (the original fine was $10,000), and if she again refuses to
appear and pay that she will be a "guest of the people" for a while.
(I have a copy of that order but yeah, that's not remotely
related.....)
--
"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"
Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District
Phil Kane
wrote:
>And if I have my constitutional law right, you can't bring a sitting
>president into civil court (or criminal court, for that matter).
Not for what s/he does as the President, but it can be for what s/he
did before taking office. Remember the case where The House impeached
President Clinton for false statements made by him in the lawsuit
brought by one of his prior "companions"?
--
Phil Kane
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>I suspect the case didn't get any media attention, except perhaps on
>Faux News, because anyone with a brain _knew_ it was going to fail for
>one reason or another.
The "birther" case itself didn't get any attention but the antics of
the idiot lawyer were the talk of the legal community for quite a
while. Note that she had been discharged as the plaintiff's attorney
by the plaintiff before the latest sanction.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:55:14 -0500, "Ed\(NY\)" <e...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >And if I have my constitutional law right, you can't bring a sitting
> >president into civil court (or criminal court, for that matter).
>
> Not for what s/he does as the President, but it can be for what s/he
> did before taking office. Remember the case where The House impeached
> President Clinton for false statements made by him in the lawsuit
> brought by one of his prior "companions"?
(a) Impeachment has nothing to do with either civil or criminal court.
(b) It was not the fact of giving a deposition that is relevant here,
but the fact that the president himself was sued -- and it was only a
politicized court that allowed that to happen.
(c) The Paula Jones case was not brought by "one of his former
'companions."" She later admitted that nothing at all had happened.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Nov 16, 12:07 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Today, the States don't have _any_ laws on citizenship, except perhaps
>> some older States that haven't bothered taking the 150yo+ laws off their
>> books. Most natural-born citizens today get their citizenship via the
>> 14th Amendment, and all naturalized citizens get theirs via federal law.
>> There is a major gray area between the two, but it only comes up in
>> rare cases when a statute citizen (such as Obama or McCain) is running
>> for President, so it's not surprising that the courts haven't nailed
>> down exactly what the rules are yet.
>
> How does Obama fall in the same "statute citizen" (whatever that is)
A statute citizen is someone who gains citizenship by statute, as
opposed to the majority of us who gain citizenship via the 14th
Amendment. That is quite obvious from what you quoted above.
> category as McCain? Maybe you're not aware that Hawaii had been a
> state for almost two years when Obama was born there?
Obama was _allegedly_ born in Hawaii, but a Kenyan birth certificate has
also surfaced.
Exactly how he gained his citizenship is therefore unclear, but it is
also irrelevant; either way he's a natural-born citizen.
>> Some argue that someone cannot be a "natural-born citizen" if they got
>> their citizenship via federal law instead of the 14th Amendment, but
>> that's clearly false because the 14th Amendment didn't exist when the
>> clause was written, nor was something similar even proposed. Therefore,
>> it _must_ have been a status that could have been conferred by statute
>> law, such as the modern federal law that grants citizenship to children
>> of a US citizen.
>>
>> IMHO, even if Obama _had_ been born in Kenya, he's still qualified to be
>> President.
>
> On what grounds?
On the grounds that he's a natural-born citizen. Even if he were born
in Kenya, his mother was a US citizen and therefore, according to
federal law, he was a US citizen at birth. The key is that, either way,
he is not a naturalized citizen.
More importantly, per the ruling in Barnett v. Obama, Congress declared
him to be eligible by accepting Electoral Votes for him, which cannot be
reviewed by any court. Even if he weren't a US citizen at all (which
has never been alleged, AFAIK) or failed to meet the age or residency
criteria, he would still be the legitimate President. The only way to
remove him is via the impeachment process, the same as any other seated
President.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 12:07 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> Today, the States don't have _any_ laws on citizenship, except perhaps
> >> some older States that haven't bothered taking the 150yo+ laws off their
> >> books. Most natural-born citizens today get their citizenship via the
> >> 14th Amendment, and all naturalized citizens get theirs via federal law.
> >> There is a major gray area between the two, but it only comes up in
> >> rare cases when a statute citizen (such as Obama or McCain) is running
> >> for President, so it's not surprising that the courts haven't nailed
> >> down exactly what the rules are yet.
>
> > How does Obama fall in the same "statute citizen" (whatever that is)
>
> A statute citizen is someone who gains citizenship by statute, as
> opposed to the majority of us who gain citizenship via the 14th
> Amendment. That is quite obvious from what you quoted above.
Bullshit. You just made up that phrase. It does not exist. Not even
one google hit.
> > category as McCain? Maybe you're not aware that Hawaii had been a
> > state for almost two years when Obama was born there?
>
> Obama was _allegedly_ born in Hawaii, but a Kenyan birth certificate has
> also surfaced.
Bullshit.
You want to try to _continue_ to deny your political allegiance to the
most extreme rightwing wackos?
> Exactly how he gained his citizenship is therefore unclear, but it is
> also irrelevant; either way he's a natural-born citizen.
Bullshit.
> >> Some argue that someone cannot be a "natural-born citizen" if they got
> >> their citizenship via federal law instead of the 14th Amendment, but
> >> that's clearly false because the 14th Amendment didn't exist when the
> >> clause was written, nor was something similar even proposed. Therefore,
> >> it _must_ have been a status that could have been conferred by statute
> >> law, such as the modern federal law that grants citizenship to children
> >> of a US citizen.
>
> >> IMHO, even if Obama _had_ been born in Kenya, he's still qualified to be
> >> President.
>
> > On what grounds?
>
> On the grounds that he's a natural-born citizen. Even if he were born
> in Kenya, his mother was a US citizen and therefore, according to
> federal law, he was a US citizen at birth. The key is that, either way,
> he is not a naturalized citizen.
Bullshit.
> More importantly, per the ruling in Barnett v. Obama, Congress declared
> him to be eligible by accepting Electoral Votes for him, which cannot be
> reviewed by any court. Even if he weren't a US citizen at all (which
> has never been alleged, AFAIK) or failed to meet the age or residency
> criteria, he would still be the legitimate President. The only way to
> remove him is via the impeachment process, the same as any other seated
> President.
That case has no validity.
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk wrote:
>> Clark F Morris wrote:
>>> I wish the case had been presented competently and that the court had
>>> ruled that the child of an American citizen is a natural born citizen
>>> regardless of place of birth.
>> I do wonder what the FFs thought of the term "natural born." I always
>> assumed it meant born within a U.S. territory myself. The concept of
>> the nation-state was in its infancy then. People at that time might
>> have been acquainted with the concept, but probably couldn't have seen
>> the U.S. as it was then as even a potential nation-state - with
>> Scottish, Germans, English, and Dutch all being sizable minorities.
>
> Keep in mind that the concept of US citizenship as we think of it didn't
> exist at the time; people were citizens of a State, and US citizens were
> simply the sum of the citizens of the States. The concept of granting
> US citizenship directly didn't come about until after the 14th
> Amendment. Also, the FFs couldn't conceive of the US having non-State
> districts, territories, etc. because they were trying to get away from
> European-style colonialism, though that was quickly washed away once the
> US started expanding westward.
I never even looked into it, but I seem to recall that party bosses were
able to confer citizenship as late as the early 20th century to get more
people voting for them.
> So, you have to turn to under what conditions the States granted
> citizenship to people not born in those States, and I've never seen any
> studies that show exactly what those conditions were. Simply being born
> in a State or to one citizen parent was obviously not sufficient in all
> cases, though, since either condition would have made citizens out of
> slaves' children, and none of the FFs (even from non-slave States) would
> have tolerated that.
Exactly, but there hardly were any non-slave states at that point. PA
was the first to do it. I don't think many others followed until the
19th century.
> Today, the States don't have _any_ laws on citizenship, except perhaps
> some older States that haven't bothered taking the 150yo+ laws off their
> books. Most natural-born citizens today get their citizenship via the
> 14th Amendment, and all naturalized citizens get theirs via federal law.
> There is a major gray area between the two, but it only comes up in
> rare cases when a statute citizen (such as Obama or McCain) is running
> for President, so it's not surprising that the courts haven't nailed
> down exactly what the rules are yet.
Interestingly, there were some questions about McCain's eligibility too,
since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Interest disappeared
largely because he lost.
(Whoever won last year would have been the first President not born in
the contiguous 48 states.)
> Some argue that someone cannot be a "natural-born citizen" if they got
> their citizenship via federal law instead of the 14th Amendment, but
> that's clearly false because the 14th Amendment didn't exist when the
> clause was written, nor was something similar even proposed. Therefore,
> it _must_ have been a status that could have been conferred by statute
> law, such as the modern federal law that grants citizenship to children
> of a US citizen.
That I don't know about for sure, obviously because there's no case law
to show that. I don't get the impression that Congress could have
retroactively declared, say, the citizens born in the Louisiana Purchase
as "natural-born."
But that's a matter of interpretation. IMHO, they wouldn't have been
naturally born, but naturalized by statute --- meaning only their
children could become President.
> IMHO, even if Obama _had_ been born in Kenya, he's still qualified to be
> President. These "birthers" just can't accept a black President, so
> they're clinging to any excuse they can to call him illegitimate.
Yes, that's a more ambiguous case, but that argument seems easier to
accept.
Bolwerk
American citizenship, by federal law, is available to sprogs who have an
American parent.
The question is, are those children "natural-born"? Stephen says yes.
There is nothing to show the FFs say yes or no.
Peter T. Daniels
The FFs simply punted, putting off for 20 years (to 1808) the ban on
importing slaves, and said nothing about those born into bondage.
> > Today, the States don't have _any_ laws on citizenship, except perhaps
> > some older States that haven't bothered taking the 150yo+ laws off their
> > books. Most natural-born citizens today get their citizenship via the
> > 14th Amendment, and all naturalized citizens get theirs via federal law.
> > There is a major gray area between the two, but it only comes up in
> > rare cases when a statute citizen (such as Obama or McCain) is running
> > for President, so it's not surprising that the courts haven't nailed
> > down exactly what the rules are yet.
>
> Interestingly, there were some questions about McCain's eligibility too,
> since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Interest disappeared
> largely because he lost.
It was claimed here that McCain was born not in the CZ, but in a
hospital over the border in Panama.
> (Whoever won last year would have been the first President not born in
> the contiguous 48 states.)
>
> > Some argue that someone cannot be a "natural-born citizen" if they got
> > their citizenship via federal law instead of the 14th Amendment, but
> > that's clearly false because the 14th Amendment didn't exist when the
> > clause was written, nor was something similar even proposed. Therefore,
> > it _must_ have been a status that could have been conferred by statute
> > law, such as the modern federal law that grants citizenship to children
> > of a US citizen.
>
> That I don't know about for sure, obviously because there's no case law
> to show that. I don't get the impression that Congress could have
> retroactively declared, say, the citizens born in the Louisiana Purchase
> as "natural-born."
>
> But that's a matter of interpretation. IMHO, they wouldn't have been
> naturally born, but naturalized by statute --- meaning only their
> children could become President.
>
> > IMHO, even if Obama _had_ been born in Kenya, he's still qualified to be
> > President. These "birthers" just can't accept a black President, so
> > they're clinging to any excuse they can to call him illegitimate.
>
> Yes, that's a more ambiguous case, but that argument seems easier to
> accept.-
Clark F Morris
An that is why I wish the court had taken up the case and ruled that
if 1 parent is a US citizen, the child is a natural born citizen
Phil Kane
<cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>An that is why I wish the court had taken up the case and ruled that
>if 1 parent is a US citizen, the child is a natural born citizen
>regardless of place of birth.
The attorney was too weird to make a decent case.
Sancho Panza
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:e75c73c9-f165-4ad7...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> (c) The Paula Jones case was not brought by "one of his former
> 'companions."" She later admitted that nothing at all had happened.
Would you have a cite for that, preferably one that the reflects the
$850,000 award?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> President. These "birthers" just can't accept a black President, so
> they're clinging to any excuse they can to call him illegitimate.
It has nothing to do with him being black. It's because (1) the Dems
won and they lost and they can't stand the thought of that, and (2)
rightly or wrongly, they see him as a socialist with a socialist
agenda.
We have too many extremists on both the right and left out there these
days.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:e75c73c9-f165-4ad7...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > (c) The Paula Jones case was not brought by "one of his former
> > 'companions."" She later admitted that nothing at all had happened.
>
> Would you have a cite for that, preferably one that the reflects the
> $850,000 award?
I don't recall a court ever awarding anything to Paula Jones, indeed,
I believe the court eventually dismissed the whole damn thing.
I believe the money was a settlement.
FWIW, typical settlements in such cases were far, far less than that.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>> Clark F Morris wrote:
>>>> I wish the case had been presented competently and that the court had
>>>> ruled that the child of an American citizen is a natural born citizen
>>>> regardless of place of birth.
>>> I do wonder what the FFs thought of the term "natural born." I always
>>> assumed it meant born within a U.S. territory myself. The concept of
>>> the nation-state was in its infancy then. People at that time might
>>> have been acquainted with the concept, but probably couldn't have seen
>>> the U.S. as it was then as even a potential nation-state - with
>>> Scottish, Germans, English, and Dutch all being sizable minorities.
>>
>> Keep in mind that the concept of US citizenship as we think of it didn't
>> exist at the time; people were citizens of a State, and US citizens were
>> simply the sum of the citizens of the States. The concept of granting
>> US citizenship directly didn't come about until after the 14th
>> Amendment. Also, the FFs couldn't conceive of the US having non-State
>> districts, territories, etc. because they were trying to get away from
>> European-style colonialism, though that was quickly washed away once the
>> US started expanding westward.
>
> I never even looked into it, but I seem to recall that party bosses were
> able to confer citizenship as late as the early 20th century to get more
> people voting for them.
Unless one was from Asia, a "lunatic", "likely to become a public
charge", or didn't speak any English, there weren't any significant
controls on naturalization until 1921. Prior to that, any free white
(or "African" after 1870) who had resided in the US for at least 2 years
(1790-1795), 3 years (1795-1798), 14 years (1798-1802), or 3 years
(1802-1921) could become naturalized by applying with any common-law
court of record after a a 3-year (1795-1798), 5-year (1798-1802), or
3-year (1802-1921) notice period.
If party bosses had anything to do with it, it was most likely either
fraud to get new immigrants around the notice period, help getting all
the proper paperwork filled out, sent in, recorded, etc., or simply
ignoring the citizenship requirement and granting voter cards to
immigrants fresh off the boats. Heck, plenty of _dead_ people still
vote in the Northeast, and voter fraud has been cleaned up a _lot_ since
the early 1900s.
>> Some argue that someone cannot be a "natural-born citizen" if they got
>> their citizenship via federal law instead of the 14th Amendment, but
>> that's clearly false because the 14th Amendment didn't exist when the
>> clause was written, nor was something similar even proposed. Therefore,
>> it _must_ have been a status that could have been conferred by statute
>> law, such as the modern federal law that grants citizenship to children
>> of a US citizen.
>
> That I don't know about for sure, obviously because there's no case law
> to show that. I don't get the impression that Congress could have
> retroactively declared, say, the citizens born in the Louisiana Purchase
> as "natural-born."
I suspect they could have, if desired.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 declared "the children of citizens of the
United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the
United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided,
That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers
have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no
person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen
as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which
such person was proscribed."
(Their children under 21yo automatically became "citizens" as well,
though I'll spare you the quote. It's unclear which group children fell
in if born in the US to foreigners who later naturalized within 21
years; if they were also natural-born, that would be a retroactive
grant. Remember, back then simply being born in the US did _not_
automatically get you citizenship as it does today.)
That Act was soon repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of
1795, which changed the status of children born to US citizens abroad to
simply "citizens", with no clarification of whether they are
natural-born, naturalized, or something else. No law since has ever
mentioned natural-born status, whether for or against, either. Are we
supposed to assume something from the omission, or was it simply
considered obvious and unnecessary by people who were rewriting the
entire law literally by hand? No court has ever ruled on it, and you
can bet it'd have gone straight to SCOTUS if anyone had challenged Obama
(or McCain) before the Electoral Votes were counted.
Congress has also retroactively granted citizenship to other groups,
most notably Native Americans (who were exempted from the 14th Amd due
to tribal jurisdiction), and there's no reason to think it couldn't
retroactively grant natural-born citizenship specifically as well. In
fact, the law doesn't specifically say those people _aren't_
natural-born citizens, and if they were born on land that was part of
the US by the time their citizenship was retroactively granted...
This whole area of law is a giant cluster@*$# due to vagueness.
> But that's a matter of interpretation. IMHO, they wouldn't have been
> naturally born, but naturalized by statute --- meaning only their
> children could become President.
See above.
>> IMHO, even if Obama _had_ been born in Kenya, he's still qualified to be
>> President. These "birthers" just can't accept a black President, so
>> they're clinging to any excuse they can to call him illegitimate.
>
> Yes, that's a more ambiguous case, but that argument seems easier to
> accept.
See above.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Nov 17, 10:20 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 12:07 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> Today, the States don't have _any_ laws on citizenship, except perhaps
>>>> some older States that haven't bothered taking the 150yo+ laws off their
>>>> books. Most natural-born citizens today get their citizenship via the
>>>> 14th Amendment, and all naturalized citizens get theirs via federal law.
>>>> There is a major gray area between the two, but it only comes up in
>>>> rare cases when a statute citizen (such as Obama or McCain) is running
>>>> for President, so it's not surprising that the courts haven't nailed
>>>> down exactly what the rules are yet.
>>>
>>> How does Obama fall in the same "statute citizen" (whatever that is)
>>
>> A statute citizen is someone who gains citizenship by statute, as
>> opposed to the majority of us who gain citizenship via the 14th
>> Amendment. That is quite obvious from what you quoted above.
>
> Bullshit.
Wow, what a compelling argument! That's the same sort of childish
tactic that right-wing radio hosts use when they doesn't have any
rational response. I expect better from you.
> You just made up that phrase.
And your point is? I adequately defined it above--twice.
> It does not exist. Not even one google hit.
I get over a thousand hits, though I don't see any with the right
context in the first few pages.
>>> category as McCain? Maybe you're not aware that Hawaii had been a
>>> state for almost two years when Obama was born there?
>>
>> Obama was _allegedly_ born in Hawaii, but a Kenyan birth certificate has
>> also surfaced.
>
> Bullshit.
See above.
There are plenty of copies of a Kenyan birth certificate floating around
on the Internet, which look just as legitimate as the copies of his
Hawaiian one. It was also mentioned in the Barnett v. Obama ruling,
where the judge denied the motion for a writ quo warranto to request an
official copy from Kenyan authorities.
> You want to try to _continue_ to deny your political allegiance to the
> most extreme rightwing wackos?
Do you even realize that I'm arguing _for_ Obama's eligibility? Your
unfounded (as usual) accusation makes no sense (as usual).
Oh, and for the record, I voted _for_ Obama. In fact, he's the first
Presidential candidate I have _ever_ voted for (though I've voted
_against_ several in the past, both Rep and Dem).
> Bullshit.
See above.
> Bullshit.
See above.
>> More importantly, per the ruling in Barnett v. Obama, Congress declared
>> him to be eligible by accepting Electoral Votes for him, which cannot be
>> reviewed by any court. Even if he weren't a US citizen at all (which
>> has never been alleged, AFAIK) or failed to meet the age or residency
>> criteria, he would still be the legitimate President. The only way to
>> remove him is via the impeachment process, the same as any other seated
>> President.
>
> That case has no validity.
That depends on your meaning of "validity"; the case was properly
disposed of and the ruling is certainly valid, unless the plaintiffs
have managed to get an appeal heard and another ruling overturning the
first one in the last two and a half weeks without anyone hearing about it.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Nov 16, 12:07 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> IMHO, even if Obama _had_ been born in Kenya, he's still qualified to be
>> President. These "birthers" just can't accept a black President, so
>> they're clinging to any excuse they can to call him illegitimate.
>
> It has nothing to do with him being black. It's because (1) the Dems
> won and they lost and they can't stand the thought of that, and (2)
> rightly or wrongly, they see him as a socialist with a socialist
> agenda.
Trust me, it's because he's black. Living in the GOP-dominated South,
and I hear these idiots rant all the time about how he's a black Muslim
terrorist. The same people bitched a little when Clinton (who they also
incorrectly called a "socialist") won, but this is easily a couple of
orders of magnitude louder, and "black" is quite certainly a large part
of it. They couldn't make the "Muslim terrorist" part stick, and most
know better than to complain about him being "black" in public, so they
have shifted their public comments to the label they use for all Dems,
"socialist". Trust me, they would have hated Hillary too, but it
wouldn't be anywhere near what we're seeing now.
OTOH, the marginally less-dumb GOPers have latched on to the idea that
since we now have a black President, arguably the highest achievement in
the world, there is "obviously" no more need for Affirmative Action and
other "reverse discrimination" programs designed to help blacks achieve
social and political parity. They actually _want_ him to stay in power
to justify their position, plus if he fails that's just more ammunition
for them to denigrate minorities in the future.
Miles Bader
> This whole area of law is a giant cluster@*$# due to vagueness.
Where else (I mean, other than presidental eligibility) does the concept
of "natural born" matter...?
-miles
--
Accordion, n. An instrument in harmony with the sentiments of an assassin.
Bolwerk
> On Nov 16, 12:07 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> IMHO, even if Obama _had_ been born in Kenya, he's still qualified to be
>> President. These "birthers" just can't accept a black President, so
>> they're clinging to any excuse they can to call him illegitimate.
>
> It has nothing to do with him being black. It's because (1) the Dems
> won and they lost and they can't stand the thought of that, and (2)
> rightly or wrongly, they see him as a socialist with a socialist
> agenda.
They don't even know what socialism means if they identify healthcare as
socialist but see police, fire, education, medicaid, medicare, and
social security as something else.
Actually, they don't know what socialism means. Full stop.
> We have too many extremists on both the right and left out there these
> days.
I see the Democratic and Republican Parties on the right. Who's on the
left?
Bolwerk
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>> This whole area of law is a giant cluster@*$# due to vagueness.
>
> Where else (I mean, other than presidental eligibility) does the concept
> of "natural born" matter...?
Nowhere, and it may never be a problem. But you never know....
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 10:20 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Nov 16, 12:07 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >>>> Today, the States don't have _any_ laws on citizenship, except perhaps
> >>>> some older States that haven't bothered taking the 150yo+ laws off their
> >>>> books. Most natural-born citizens today get their citizenship via the
> >>>> 14th Amendment, and all naturalized citizens get theirs via federal law.
> >>>> There is a major gray area between the two, but it only comes up in
> >>>> rare cases when a statute citizen (such as Obama or McCain) is running
> >>>> for President, so it's not surprising that the courts haven't nailed
> >>>> down exactly what the rules are yet.
>
> >>> How does Obama fall in the same "statute citizen" (whatever that is)
>
> >> A statute citizen is someone who gains citizenship by statute, as
> >> opposed to the majority of us who gain citizenship via the 14th
> >> Amendment. That is quite obvious from what you quoted above.
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> Wow, what a compelling argument! That's the same sort of childish
> tactic that right-wing radio hosts use when they doesn't have any
> rational response. I expect better from you.
If you think that "bullshit!" is an argument, your understanding of
logic is seriously defective.
> > You just made up that phrase.
>
> And your point is? I adequately defined it above--twice.
Not until it was pointed out that it was incomprehensible.
> > It does not exist. Not even one google hit.
>
> I get over a thousand hits, though I don't see any with the right
> context in the first few pages.
There are lots of hits for pages with the two words in the same
sentence or paragraph. Not for the phrase.
> >>> category as McCain? Maybe you're not aware that Hawaii had been a
> >>> state for almost two years when Obama was born there?
>
> >> Obama was _allegedly_ born in Hawaii, but a Kenyan birth certificate has
> >> also surfaced.
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> See above.
>
> There are plenty of copies of a Kenyan birth certificate floating around
> on the Internet, which look just as legitimate as the copies of his
> Hawaiian one. It was also mentioned in the Barnett v. Obama ruling,
> where the judge denied the motion for a writ quo warranto to request an
> official copy from Kenyan authorities.
The supposed "Kenyan birth certificate" is an obvious forgery -- IIRC
one of its characteristics is that it bears the name of a political
entity that didn't yet exist in the summer of 1961.
> > You want to try to _continue_ to deny your political allegiance to the
> > most extreme rightwing wackos?
>
> Do you even realize that I'm arguing _for_ Obama's eligibility? Your
> unfounded (as usual) accusation makes no sense (as usual).
No, you are taking the Lou Dobbs position: "I personally don't believe
it, but the evidence for it is so compelling that it casts doubt on
his entire life."
> Oh, and for the record, I voted _for_ Obama. In fact, he's the first
> Presidential candidate I have _ever_ voted for (though I've voted
> _against_ several in the past, both Rep and Dem).
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> See above.
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> See above.
Interesting that you delete the ridiculous statements those reactions
applied to.
> >> More importantly, per the ruling in Barnett v. Obama, Congress declared
> >> him to be eligible by accepting Electoral Votes for him, which cannot be
> >> reviewed by any court. Even if he weren't a US citizen at all (which
> >> has never been alleged, AFAIK) or failed to meet the age or residency
> >> criteria, he would still be the legitimate President. The only way to
> >> remove him is via the impeachment process, the same as any other seated
> >> President.
>
> > That case has no validity.
>
> That depends on your meaning of "validity"; the case was properly
> disposed of and the ruling is certainly valid, unless the plaintiffs
> have managed to get an appeal heard and another ruling overturning the
> first one in the last two and a half weeks without anyone hearing about it.
By what stretch of legal imagination does the very bottom of the chain
get to rule on Constitutional questions?
Not to mention, the question of Electoral College acceptance should
never even have been considered, since the whole action was based on
lies.
Peter T. Daniels
> Heck, plenty of _dead_ people still
> vote in the Northeast,
Evidence?
And, in the unlikely event that there's any truth to that canard, why
would it be confined to "the Northeast"?
Peter T. Daniels
It has a very great deal to do with him being black.
If you don't believe me, listen to the callers to the Alan Colmes
radio show -- he's mostly carried on the Fox radio network, but in NYC
(not that you'd know anything about NYC radio!) he's on the station
that used to call itsellf the Flagship of AirAmerica Radio (but now
carries almost none of its programming). 10 pm to 1 am weeknights.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Nov 17, 10:19 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 10:20 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 16, 12:07 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Today, the States don't have _any_ laws on citizenship, except perhaps
>>>>>> some older States that haven't bothered taking the 150yo+ laws off their
>>>>>> books. Most natural-born citizens today get their citizenship via the
>>>>>> 14th Amendment, and all naturalized citizens get theirs via federal law.
>>>>>> There is a major gray area between the two, but it only comes up in
>>>>>> rare cases when a statute citizen (such as Obama or McCain) is running
>>>>>> for President, so it's not surprising that the courts haven't nailed
>>>>>> down exactly what the rules are yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does Obama fall in the same "statute citizen" (whatever that is)
>>>>
>>>> A statute citizen is someone who gains citizenship by statute, as
>>>> opposed to the majority of us who gain citizenship via the 14th
>>>> Amendment. That is quite obvious from what you quoted above.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Wow, what a compelling argument! That's the same sort of childish
>> tactic that right-wing radio hosts use when they doesn't have any
>> rational response. I expect better from you.
>
> If you think that "bullshit!" is an argument, your understanding of
> logic is seriously defective.
Your sarcasm detector appears to be malfunctioning.
>>> You just made up that phrase.
>>
>> And your point is? I adequately defined it above--twice.
>
> Not until it was pointed out that it was incomprehensible.
The context of the original usage is comprehensible and provides a
rather obvious implicit definition. I defined it a second time
explicitly because you apparently can't read.
>>> It does not exist. Not even one google hit.
>>
>> I get over a thousand hits, though I don't see any with the right
>> context in the first few pages.
>
> There are lots of hits for pages with the two words in the same
> sentence or paragraph. Not for the phrase.
Did you actually examine every hit or just look at the first few pages
as I did?
>> There are plenty of copies of a Kenyan birth certificate floating around
>> on the Internet, which look just as legitimate as the copies of his
>> Hawaiian one. It was also mentioned in the Barnett v. Obama ruling,
>> where the judge denied the motion for a writ quo warranto to request an
>> official copy from Kenyan authorities.
>
> The supposed "Kenyan birth certificate" is an obvious forgery -- IIRC
> one of its characteristics is that it bears the name of a political
> entity that didn't yet exist in the summer of 1961.
If so, then why wasn't that mentioned in the court ruling? Or in the
defense's motion to dismiss?
>>> You want to try to _continue_ to deny your political allegiance to the
>>> most extreme rightwing wackos?
>>
>> Do you even realize that I'm arguing _for_ Obama's eligibility? Your
>> unfounded (as usual) accusation makes no sense (as usual).
>
> No, you are taking the Lou Dobbs position: "I personally don't believe
> it, but the evidence for it is so compelling that it casts doubt on
> his entire life."
I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. Dobbs is an idiot.
>>> Bullshit.
>> See above.
>>
>>> Bullshit.
>> See above.
>
> Interesting that you delete the ridiculous statements those reactions
> applied to.
If you wish to provide rational responses, feel free to download the
original article and try again. The responses of "bullshit" above do
not merit further consideration, so I removed the unnecessary context.
>>>> More importantly, per the ruling in Barnett v. Obama, Congress declared
>>>> him to be eligible by accepting Electoral Votes for him, which cannot be
>>>> reviewed by any court. Even if he weren't a US citizen at all (which
>>>> has never been alleged, AFAIK) or failed to meet the age or residency
>>>> criteria, he would still be the legitimate President. The only way to
>>>> remove him is via the impeachment process, the same as any other seated
>>>> President.
>>>
>>> That case has no validity.
>>
>> That depends on your meaning of "validity"; the case was properly
>> disposed of and the ruling is certainly valid, unless the plaintiffs
>> have managed to get an appeal heard and another ruling overturning the
>> first one in the last two and a half weeks without anyone hearing about it.
>
> By what stretch of legal imagination does the very bottom of the chain
> get to rule on Constitutional questions?
_Any_ court can rule on Constitutional questions.
If one of the parties appeals, which has not (yet?) been done in this
case, a higher court can either affirm or reverse. Lower courts will
almost always follow precedent to avoid being reversed (which makes them
look stupid and could hurt their careers), but in this matter there
isn't any, AFAICT.
SCOTUS generally* only takes cases when different lower courts have
established _incompatible_ precedents. They are certainly not the sole
authority on Constitutional questions, just the final one since there is
no higher court to appeal to.
(* There are a few situations where they have original jurisdiction, and
there's the occasional case where _all_ of the lower courts got
something wrong, but both are rare.)
> Not to mention, the question of Electoral College acceptance should
> never even have been considered, since the whole action was based on
> lies.
"Based on lies" is not a valid legal argument, and addressing the
Constitutional question of whether the court had the power to redress
certain plaintiffs' claimed injury was necessary to determine if they
had standing. Standing is usually the first question that _any_ civil
court addresses, since it's the easiest way to dismiss the vast majority
of cases.
Peter T. Daniels
It's up to the lawyers to decide which arguments to make, and up to
the judge to decide which arguments to take into consideratlion in the
decision.
> >>> You want to try to _continue_ to deny your political allegiance to the
> >>> most extreme rightwing wackos?
>
> >> Do you even realize that I'm arguing _for_ Obama's eligibility? Your
> >> unfounded (as usual) accusation makes no sense (as usual).
>
> > No, you are taking the Lou Dobbs position: "I personally don't believe
> > it, but the evidence for it is so compelling that it casts doubt on
> > his entire life."
>
> I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. Dobbs is an idiot.
I'm sure Dobbs denies he's an idiot, too. Maybe you don't know what
"implies" means, because you sure did.
> >>> Bullshit.
> >> See above.
>
> >>> Bullshit.
> >> See above.
>
> > Interesting that you delete the ridiculous statements those reactions
> > applied to.
>
> If you wish to provide rational responses, feel free to download the
> original article and try again. The responses of "bullshit" above do
> not merit further consideration, so I removed the unnecessary context.
Oh, suddenly you're no longer engaging in "sarcasm," just in eliding
your own nonsense?
> >>>> More importantly, per the ruling in Barnett v. Obama, Congress declared
> >>>> him to be eligible by accepting Electoral Votes for him, which cannot be
> >>>> reviewed by any court. Even if he weren't a US citizen at all (which
> >>>> has never been alleged, AFAIK) or failed to meet the age or residency
> >>>> criteria, he would still be the legitimate President. The only way to
> >>>> remove him is via the impeachment process, the same as any other seated
> >>>> President.
>
> >>> That case has no validity.
>
> >> That depends on your meaning of "validity"; the case was properly
> >> disposed of and the ruling is certainly valid, unless the plaintiffs
> >> have managed to get an appeal heard and another ruling overturning the
> >> first one in the last two and a half weeks without anyone hearing about it.
>
> > By what stretch of legal imagination does the very bottom of the chain
> > get to rule on Constitutional questions?
>
> _Any_ court can rule on Constitutional questions.
If it does, it's wasting its time.
Evidently you didn't follow the Sotomayor hearings, which turned on
the extremely boring fact that her panel followed precedent in the New
Haven firefighters case, and only when SCOTUS took their appeal did it
turn out that -- what, the panel had been wrong all along? No, they
had been right, because no one but SCOTUS gets to say definitively
what the Constitution means.
> If one of the parties appeals, which has not (yet?) been done in this
> case, a higher court can either affirm or reverse. Lower courts will
> almost always follow precedent to avoid being reversed (which makes them
> look stupid and could hurt their careers), but in this matter there
> isn't any, AFAICT.
And it was not their business to try to make some.
It makes for good TV when David E. Kelley's municipal court judges do
it (since all the way back in *Picket Fences*, nearly twenty years
ago, down through *Boston Legal*), and when on occasion Jack McCoy
tries it on *Law & Order*, but it doesn't make for good law (or good
reality -- and McCoy almost always gets shot down).
> SCOTUS generally* only takes cases when different lower courts have
> established _incompatible_ precedents. They are certainly not the sole
> authority on Constitutional questions, just the final one since there is
> no higher court to appeal to.
Where _do_ you get your "information"?
> (* There are a few situations where they have original jurisdiction, and
> there's the occasional case where _all_ of the lower courts got
> something wrong, but both are rare.)
>
> > Not to mention, the question of Electoral College acceptance should
> > never even have been considered, since the whole action was based on
> > lies.
>
> "Based on lies" is not a valid legal argument, and addressing the
There's that little matter of the witness's oath, and that little
felony called perjury ...
Stephen Sprunk
> On Nov 17, 9:58 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Heck, plenty of _dead_ people still vote in the Northeast,
>
> Evidence?
It's well-documented in the media, particularly in Chicago.
> And, in the unlikely event that there's any truth to that canard, why
> would it be confined to "the Northeast"?
I didn't say it was. One rarely hears of such things in other parts of
the country, though, which implies that it's a minor problem at most.
The much larger problem in the South is that many legitimate voters are
illegally prevented from voting, i.e. the opposite problem, usually
because their name is "similar" to that of a convicted felon.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 9:58 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> Heck, plenty of _dead_ people still vote in the Northeast,
>
> > Evidence?
>
> It's well-documented in the media, particularly in Chicago.
During my 25 years in Chicago, it was always joked about as something
that "used to happen," long ago, when "the bosses" ruled.
During my 25 years in Chicago, no one ever brought forward an instance
of dead people voting.
> > And, in the unlikely event that there's any truth to that canard, why
> > would it be confined to "the Northeast"?
>
> I didn't say it was.
What do you think "Plenty of dead people still vote in the Northeast"
means?
> One rarely hears of such things in other parts of
> the country, though, which implies that it's a minor problem at most.
One never hears of such things anywhere.
> The much larger problem in the South is that many legitimate voters are
> illegally prevented from voting, i.e. the opposite problem, usually
> because their name is "similar" to that of a convicted felon.
That's why Gore won Florida by a few hundred instead of by a landslide.
Bolwerk
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 9:58 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> Heck, plenty of _dead_ people still vote in the Northeast,
>> Evidence?
>
> It's well-documented in the media, particularly in Chicago.
Chicago isn't exactly the northeast. Few people even call Ohio part of
the northeast.
I don't think this is a major problem in the northeast anymore, although
it surely happens in some corrupt municipalities. If there's any major
political problem, it's gerrymandering.
>> And, in the unlikely event that there's any truth to that canard, why
>> would it be confined to "the Northeast"?
>
> I didn't say it was. One rarely hears of such things in other parts of
> the country, though, which implies that it's a minor problem at most.
> The much larger problem in the South is that many legitimate voters are
> illegally prevented from voting, i.e. the opposite problem, usually
> because their name is "similar" to that of a convicted felon.
Or happens to sound black? :|
Peter T. Daniels
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Nov 17, 9:58 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >>> Heck, plenty of _dead_ people still vote in the Northeast,
> >> Evidence?
>
> > It's well-documented in the media, particularly in Chicago.
>
> Chicago isn't exactly the northeast. Few people even call Ohio part of
> the northeast.
It is NOT documented (well or otherwise) in Chicago. It's associated
in folklore with Al Capone -- whose era was nearly a century ago.
In New York, the folklore is that immigrants were handed a voter
registration card when they stepped off the boad -- by Boss Tweed. A
century and a half ago. 30s films depicted the buying of votes.
In all the slanders against Acorn, it was never suggested that they
registered dead people to vote.
> I don't think this is a major problem in the northeast anymore, although
> it surely happens in some corrupt municipalities. If there's any major
> political problem, it's gerrymandering.
"Surely"?
Chris ®
>obvious that Paula Jones was making a
>false claim. If he had harassed her, he
>would have been following in the
>footsteps of many other politicians of
>varying stripes as well as prominent
>business people.
The merits of the Jones suit are irrelevant. What they demonstrate is
that a sitting President can be sued in civil court.
However, only Congress can remove a sitting president from power, so the
eligibility question can only be brought up by them, and with the
Democrats firmly in control, that won't happen.
-
"Sometimes, there just aren't enough rocks" - Forrest Gump