Leo Donofrio Quo Warranto Legal Brief, Part 3
This afternoon, Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has released the third part of his three-part legal briefing stating his opinion of challenging the President’s authority via a prerogative writ known as quo warranto:
[CORRECTIONS struck out below and in purple. 03.11.09]
The following points contain the most important issues as to federal quo warranto actions brought under the District of Columbia Code.
1. SCOTUS IS THE WRONG VENUE TO INITIATE AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.
The District of Columbia Code, Title 16, Chapter 35 (Quo Warranto) Subchapter III states:
§ 16-3544. Pleading; jury trial.
In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead “not guilty” as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it.Otherwise they shall be determined by the court. (Emphasis added.)
The quo warranto statute allows a jury trial on “issues of fact”. Whether Obama was born in Hawaii is an issue of fact. Whoever institutes a proceeding pursuant to the statute may request a jury trial and one must be granted. The judge could not refuse.
But if the case is brought to SCOTUS before it’s brought to the District Court of the District of Columbia, and if SCOTUS were to accept the case, you’re never going to have a jury trial.
Any quo warranto proceeding should go before the DC District Court as follows:
a. a determination would have to be made, as a matter of fact, as to whether Obama was born in the US/Hawaii.
b. if the jury’s verdict is that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, then the legal question is easy: he’s not a natural born citizen. please take note that the issue wouldn’t be whether the online COLB is genuine, the issue is whether Obama was born in Hawaii and any COLB or other document would only be considered as a piece of evidence for the jury to consider.
c. if the jury’s verdict is that Obama was born in Hawaii, then the next issue is a more complex judicial question. the District Court would have to make a legal determination as to the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Congress has absolutely no power to “interpret” clauses of the Constitution. That would be a violation of the separation of powers. Only the judicial branch could make such a determination. Congress properly assigned the issue to the District Court.
While Congress has the power to remove the President under the Constitution, they don’t have the power to interpret the Constitution. The judicial branch must do that.
As to issues of fact, ie:
- how long a person is a citizen of the US
- how old a person is
- where a person is born
…these qualifications for office are matters of fact which Congress properly recognized were best left to a trier of fact and therefore a trial by jury is statutorily allowed.
The issue of who is a “natural born citizen” under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is an issue of legal interpretation outside the Constitutional authority of Congress.
Only the judicial branch can interpret the laws of this nation.
Congress didn’t delegate the authority to remove the President…theyexercised that authority. (My previous explanation was not correct. I said they delegated their authority but that was a poor choice of words. Please forgive me.) Congress exercised their authority by allowing for the removal of the President.
Under the statute, the DC District Court must follow the law enacted by Congress. Congress has deemed that if an action is instituted properly, the court then conducts a trial as to all relevant facts. After the facts are determined, the court is empowered under the Constitution, to interpret the law in light of the facts.
JURY TRIAL. Think about that.
SCOTUS is not a trier of fact and so quo warranto MUST be brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia EXACTLY as the statute requires.
GOD FORBID SCOTUS WOULD EVER JUMP IN AND TRY TO WRANGLE THIS CASE FROM A DISTRICT COURT JURY.
2. STANDING UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE TO INSTITUTE A FEDERAL QUO WARRANTO ACTION
a. STANDING OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
The DC code allows three different levels of standing to “institute” a quo warranto action. As to private plaintiffs, SCOTUS noted – inNewman at 538 - that Congress “has placed obstacles” in the way. But as to the “Attorney General” or the “United States attorney”, who act in the name of the United States, the statute makes it very simple for an action to be instituted. It says:
“The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion…”
SCOTUS in Newman at 546 has interpreted the statute to give wide discretion to these officials:
“By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.”
“IN ANY CASE THEY DEEM PROPER.”
- There is no qualification that there be a certain amount of evidence one way or the other.
- There is no qualification that the officials must consider public opinion or political party affiliation.
- There is no “standing” to prove. If your title is US Attorney General or United States attorney, you have standing.
- There is no need to consult with Congress because, as SCOTUS noted in their opinion, Congress has already acted on the issue by enacting the quo warranto statute.
All that is required is that the official deems a quo warranto statute proper. His discretion is unassailable judicially.
WHY SHOULD THESE OFFICIALS DEEM QUO WARRANTO PROPER?
The short answer is that the action is proper to settle title to the office of President for the good of the nation.
Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue. And like the waters over New Orleans levees, this floodgate has the ability to wreak havoc on our nation.
- Active military officers have openly stated that the so called Commander In Chief is an “imposter” and a “usurper”. These men have consented to be plaintiffs in eligibility law suits. Should this trend spread, it has the power to divide our forces and nation.
- Under the holding in ANDRADE v. LAUER, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the defacto officer’s doctrine does not prohibit “collateral attacks” of official actions based upon a public officer’s lack of eligibility. These are not quo warranto suits to remove the official, they are civil suits to challenge a specific action of that official.
In the Andrade case, the plaintiffs were Government employees who lost their jobs to “reduction in force” ordinances which cut whole departments from the Government budget. The plaintiffs sued alleging those who did the cutting were not Constitutionally qualified to make such decisions in that their appointments violated the appointments clause of the US Constitution.
The DC District Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing other than to bring a “direct attack” in quo warranto to remove the alleged usurper. But the DC Court of Appeals reversed and said the plaintiffs, who had suffered real injuries, could bring such an action on a case by case basis if they could prove their injury in fact (being fired) was caused by a Government official who was not eligible to serve.
They opened the door to a floodgate of litigation by an incredibly large field of possible plaintiffs who might challenge every single official action of the Obama administration on the basis that he isn’t eligible.
- Furthermore, there is a tenet of Government that requires there be a certainty to the official actions taken in the name of the United States. No certainty is possible when millions of US citizens, including active military, are concerned that Obama’s credentials were not verified in the same way all citizens must verify their identity for the most simple things in life like getting a drivers license or passport. It smacks of imperial coronation when a Government of, by and for the people are not entitled to know that the commander in chief must submit to the same levels of identity proof as the citizens.
Regardless of whether one believes Obama’s online COLB is real, no citizen can tell the Government to check a web site for their birth certificate rather than bring it in to the DMV or send it to the federal Government for a passport. You have to actually mail your BC in to them if you don’t bring it in person.
I recognize that the Constitution does not require a birth certificate as a qualification, but that’s not the issue anymore.
The issue is whether the Attorney General and/or a United States attorney deems it proper for Obama to provide the same proof of identity as ordinary citizens in order to avoid FORESEEABLE complications which are destined to rot public faith.
We need to put aside whatever prejudices we have as to the eligibility and plead for now for the issue to be resolved as opposed to pleading what we believe the outcome of any such action should be.
I have stated over and again on numerous radio programs that I do not believe any private plaintiff has standing to demand to see Obama’s records of birth or any other personal records. These plaintiffs are appealing to emotions and not rational legal considerations. Obama should not bend to the will of those who have no legal authority to command him. I said this over and over and over again. But I was grouped in with these other attorneys whose theories I take great issue with.
We are governed by laws. And there is no law which allows a private person to demand to see Obama’s birth certificate or college records. It may seem like a good idea, but last time I checked the Constitution, neither are required to be President.
However, the United States attorney, the Attorney General and the District Court for the District of Columbia do have authority to command Obama to prove his credentials. And they ought to exercise that authority for the good of the nation, especially our military.
I fail to see any difficulty in establishing non-partisan compliance with the SCOTUS holding in Newman that these officials may bring a quo warranto if they simply “deem it proper” to do so.
That decision is not subject to review.
There is a public policy behind this which makes alot of sense. Obama ought to encourage these officials to institute an action in quo warranto for the good of the nation and for the good of his own legacy.
IMPORTANT:
The best possible candidates I can think of who should request the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion are Retired Military officers who understand the absolute need for the President’s title to office not to be encumbered by doubt. Retired military can band together to request that these Government attorneys “deem it proper” to protect the active military from all of the swirling dangers their involvement in a political action as to POTUS eligibility would bring. Such a request shows no disrespect, but rather recognizes the actual risk now being taken by soldiers getting involved with various law suits. The retired military would not be making a case for or against Obama’s eligibility, but rather they would simply be asking that the issue be resolved one way or the other under the applicable statute. Again, keep in mind that the statute doesn’t require anything more than that the US attorney or the Attorney General “deem it proper.”
Please don’t confuse this with asking these retired military to be plaintiffs. That’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting that retired military officers are the best possible group who might be able to influence the US attorney or the Attorney General in making the decision to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion with no private plaintiffs.
Another interesting question is whether any of the 94 United States attorneys may institute the proceeding in quo warranto…[Ed. I have reconsidered the discussion on this issue and as of 03.011.2009 struck it from the brief. 16-3502 applies exclusively to the US Attorney General and to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. I believe that's the most accurate intention of the statute.]
b. Standing of “third persons” vs “interested persons”.
16-3502 states:
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.
16-3503 states:
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued.
The terms “third person” and “interested person” have been interpreted by SCOTUS in the Newman case as follows:
The Code provides that a “third person” — the equivalent of “any person” — may institute the proceedings only after he had secured the consent of the law officers and the court. It makes a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person,” and provides that, if the Attorney General refuses to give his consent to the latter, such “interested person” may secure the right to use the name of the government by satisfying the… Court of the District that his reasons for applying therefore are sufficient in law…
Considering the ancient policy of the law and the restrictions imposed by the language of the Code, it is evident that, in passing this statute, Congress used the words “third person” in the sense of “any person,” and the phrase “person interested” in the sense in which it so often occurs in the law…The interest which will justify such a proceeding by a private individual must be more than that of another taxpayer. It must be “an interest in the office itself, and must be peculiar to the applicant”…The language of the Code, supported by the history and policy of the law, sustains the proposition that one who has no interest except that which is common to every other member of the public is not entitled to use the name of the government inquo warranto proceedings.
For if the allegations in such a suit by a private citizen set out any cause of action at all, it shows on its face that it was a cause of action belonging to the whole body of the public, and which therefore should be prosecuted by the public representative.
The rule is the same regardless whether the office is elective or appointive. For in neither case is there any intent to permit the public office to be the subject matter of private litigation at the instance of one who has no interest therein which differs from that of every other member of the public. The claim that this construction makes the statute nugatory cannot be sustained, for the statute, as already pointed out, gives a person who has been unlawfully ousted before his term expired a right, on proof of interest, to the issuance of the writ, and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.
In Newman, there was a jury trial and the jury held that the public officer didn’t meet the requirements of office. The District Court ousted him based on the jury’s verdict. The DC Court of Appeals affirmed. But SCOTUS reversed by stating the jury verdict was nullified because the plaintiff wasn’t an “interested party” and so he didn’t have standing. Since the official Government attorneys refused consent to bring the action, the plaintiff couldn’t just be a “third person”, the plaintiff had to be an “interested person.”
SCOTUS held that interested persons would include persons ousted from the office they are challenging. But they left the door open with that last line, “…and there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.” (Emphasis added.)
THREE WAYS TO BRING QUO WARRANTO
1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion – which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.
2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as “third persons” and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.
3. If the Government will not give consent, then “interested persons” may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be – according to SCOTUS in Newman – restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.
I don’t know exactly what SCOTUS meant by that vague reference to “civil service laws”, but I would assume they are making reference to Government employees, and perhaps this could also apply to recipients of civil service benefits. I don’t believe the military are party to the civil service laws, so I don’t see them as being the plaintiffs with the best possible standing.
The holding in Newman is certainly ripe for a challenge, but care ought to be made to find the best possible plaintiffs who might qualify as “interested persons”.
The best private plaintiffs who might have standing to institute an action in quo warranto as “interested persons” would be those persons with an injury in fact caused by an official action of POTUS as it relates to the civil service laws.
Active military may appear to have the best standing based on a purely emotional reading of the term “interested persons”, but according to the controlling SCOTUS decision in Newman, the military aren’t the best subset of “third person” plaintiffs.
This is thes best shot, not the military. They do enough for us to at least deserve civilians with better standing exhaust every possible Constitutional means available before subjecting them to any number of possible court martials.
3. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF TITLE 16 CHAPTER 35 (Quo Warranto) OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE.
Chapter 35 is entitled “QUO WARRANTO”. Subchapter I is entitled “Actions Against Officers of the United States.” Subchapter II is entitled “Actions Against Officers or Corporations of the District of Columbia“. Please note that the original DC quo warranto statute was first enacted in 1901. While SCOTUS interpreted that statute as controlling national officers, Congress modified the statute in 1963 to its current form which erases any possible doubt that the statute applies to all Officers of the United States.
Furthermore, the District of Columbia Code is federal law. It’s enacted by Congress and the actual United States Constitution is included in the District of Columbia code. I have seen the most erroneous comments online wherein it has been argued that a “local DC code is not federal law”. Besides the ultimate federal law – the Constitution – being placed directly in the DC code, SCOTUS has stated – in the seminal quo warranto DC code case, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) - that the District Code applies to all…
“…actions in quo warranto instituted by authorized parties against national officers of the United States, they are general laws of the United States, and not merely local laws of the District of Columbia…”
I must reiterate that the code’s text does not provide any exceptions for any public office, not even POTUS.
In UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 248 F.2d 804 (1957), the US court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, provided an on point discussion of quo warranto in the district courts:
There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quo warranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C. Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions.
The first statute mentioned above dealt specifically with quo warranto actions which arose out of 14th amendment issues where citizens were refused the right to vote. Under this statute, all US district courts could hear quo warranto cases. But this statute was repealed in 1911 and so the only remaining statute which controls quo warranto is the District of Columbia Code. And all actions brought thereunder must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia.
All discussion of quo warranto actions brought in other “district courts” of the US has been rendered moot. Unfortunately, I have seen irrelevant analysis of that repealed statute applied to the DC Code by various confused commentators online. In a quote taken from a legal treatise called Treatise on Federal Practice by Roger Foster, written in 1921, he states:
“The better opinion is that the District Courts of the United Stateshave original jurisdiction to grant the writ of quo warranto only when specifically authorized by statute; and that no writ of quo warrantocan issue from them to try the title to the office of President of theUnited States.”
At first glance it appears this “better opinion” might be a problem. I don’t know where he derives this “better opinion” from, certainly not the federal courts or SCOTUS because no such case law exists. It’s probably a reflection of a common erroneous assumption that the Constitution only allows removal of a sitting President by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. We put that rumour to rest in part 2 of this brief – the Constitution does not say that anywhere in the Document’s text.
When you continue with the Foster quote, it states:
The District Courts of the United States have jurisdiction of all suits to recover possession of any office…authorized by law to be brought, wherein it appears that the sole question touching the title to such office arises out of the denial of the right to vote to any citizen…”(Emphasis added.)
This analysis is specifically directed to the repealed statute regarding quo warranto wherein “the sole issue” is deprivation of 14th amendment voting rights. It has nothing to do with the District of Columbia Code wherein quo warranto may be brought against any“public office of the United States” with regard to anyone found to be a usurper for any legal breach.
The statute Foster refers to has been repealed. It didn’t deal with Constitutional qualifications for office. Also notice that the comment says “District Courts”. This is obsolete. District Courts – other than the DC district court – have been stripped of authority to hear any quo warranto cases.
CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, ie POTUS, is exempt by the statute.
-Phil
Posted below on March 13: would US authorities in 1961 recognize a customary marriage contacted in Kenya in 1957 as lawful and valid ?
This link http://tinyurl.com/c34y7b references a 1969 US INS decision upheld by the DOJ BIA in 1982. Using the principle of lex loci celebrationis a Chinese customary marriage under the Chinese Civil Code 1931 and Chinese Code 1843 (as applied by British Hong Kong authorities) was deemed legitimate. This decision strongly suggests that Obama Sr too would have been deemed already married in British and Hawaiian law and so Jr would have been deemed illegitimate.
Donofrio dimisses Obama’s illegitimacy by emphatically stating that his parents’ later marriage would legitimate him, making Obama British at birth: this is a total misreading of the law, twice over.
1 The UK Nationality Act 1948 Section 21 (1) provided for illegitimate children presently excluded from British citizenship by descent to become legitimate and British citizens from the date of the subsequent marriage, not from date of birth. Donofrio’s case requires Obama’s British citizenship at birth, which is impossible under this statute.
2 The illegitimacy of Obama Jr could never be remedied in British law as his illegitimacy derived from bigamy, as stipulated in the 1926 UK Legitimacy Act. Application of the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 and UK Nationality Act 1948 Section 21 (2), meant that Obama never had the remotest hope of ever being a British citizen by descent at birth or any other time.
Only physical birth in a British jurisdiction removed these barriers. The Kenya Marrige Act 1902 which made Obama Sr bigamous and Obama Jr illegitimate was retained after Kenyan independence in 1964 and remains operative today.
Posted March 13 below: “There is only one possible escape…” from bigamy: that Ann Dunham contracted a customary marriage in Kenya. No such escape is possible.
2.2.6.2 Any marriage celebrated on or before 31 July 1971 was regarded as void if, despite having taken place in a country whose law permits polygamy, it was:
* polygamous in form; and
* at the time of the marriage, EITHER party was domiciled in the United Kingdom or in another country whose law did not permit polygamy.
In 1961 Ann Dunham was domiciled in the United States.
UK Nationality Official Manual: Legitimacy http://tinyurl.com/dnkaxo
“Could you please list “all the current evidence” that you have indicated Obama was born in Kenya?” Practical Kat
Practical Kat never answers questions when I pose them…but to be nice.
What is the difference between “all the current evidence points to…” and “all the current evidence is…” ?
Let me cite a couple of examples:
Nixon releases some White House tapes in 1973 and one has an 18 minute erasure. That erasure is just where Nixon wants an erasure to be. Nixon’s secretary says she may have inadvertently erased 5 minutes of tape. Later various advisors say Nixon might have done it because he was sometimes clumsy, tired, affected by prescription drugs, or over-refreshed. The Prosecutor’s Advisory Panel of experts said there were multiple, deliberate erasures. At this point do I say “all the current evidence points to…” or “all the current evidence is…” that Nixon erased or contrived to erase that tape ? Anybody here believe that those erasures were all accidents ? Not in 1973: Nixon eventually resigned.
Or take Clinton’s denial of many allegations of sexual misconduct: do I say “all the current evidence points to…” or “all the current evidence is…” that Clinton had a disgusting prior history apart from Lewinsky and Jones from which to extrapolate ? You know the rest.
In a court of law I may limit statements involving evidence to “is” rather than “points”…but this site is not a court of law. Practical Kat wishes to restrict all statements at this site which question Obama’s eligibility to statements of evidence only admissible in a court of law.
However Practical Kat will not subject Obama’s defense at this site to statements of evidence only admissible in a court of law. Pictures of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth are not admissible by that standard; the falsehood entered onto Obama original birth record (family address) removes from any paper version of that COLB prima facie status, and thus citations of Obama’s COLB are similarly are inadmissible by the legal standard. Yet Practical Kat has earnestly beseeched us to trust him that a paper COLB does exist, does contain what “its” pictures purport it to contain, and will be produced at a later date – so can we please stop questioning Obama’s eligibility ?
Where is the admissible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii ? There is none. Not the COLB. Nothing in the public domain. Are we going hear Practical Kat requiring admissible evidence of birth (ie not the COLB) be supplied by Obama and himself witholding any statements in Obama’s defense until then ? All the current evidence points to…the near certainty that Practical Kat will not.
Phil,
It’s transcends irony for Donofrio to accuse Obama of running away from the truth and then to run away from the truth himself – in this instance easily provable facts which destroy his case. Similarly Donofrio likes to quote British law when it supports him and stops others citing that law when it undermines him.
Donofrio deploys an almost fanatical insistence that any inquiry into Obama’s birthplace, birth documents, and his father’s bigamy is conspiratorial and tabloid. This blindness exposes him to a simple matter of legal fact – Obama Sr’s lawful Kenyan marriage and consequent bigamy with Ann Dunham (who was probably unwitting) – that proves the case Donofrio claims to oppose. How can that be rationalized ?
I have been fully aware of the implications of Obama Sr’s bigamy since Christmas: if Jr was born in Hawaii, as Donofrio more than emphatically proclaims, then he was born with only one citizenship: American. This defines “natural born.” I have posted on the inadmissibility of Obama’s COLB because I consider Kenyan birth the likeliest explanation and the only basis for a successful challenge. Nobody raised Obama Sr’s bigamy.
When I read that Obama’s “legitimacy” had been accepted by Donofrio in pursuit of a Quo Warranto hearing based on the same old flawed premises and obsessions I realized Donofrio was making a fool of himself, and not least of his starry-eyed claque. Donofrio’s latest comment is: “The US Attorney will present whatever evidence he feels is important. They would probably introduce expert wtinesses. The Judge will decide what will be allowed as evidence…” Looks like Obama wouln’t have much to worry about: less Quo Warranto, more Cuius Confirmatio. This is what Donofrio wants ?
As for Orly Taitz: her industry is phenomenal but she’s relying on Donofrio “errors” instead of doing her own research. We all can and do make mistakes: but on principle when the facts change we must change – anything else is…
Bob,
Please do be intellectually honest on this issue. I think that you know as well as I that anyone who even remotely questions the eligibility of the President is automagically assumed to be a “birther.”
Anyway, I don’t require anyone else “out there on the blogosphere” to validate my site. To date, the marketing, for what it is, has been done via word of mouth (or is that key click?). I started my site as a hobby and have already been approached by numerous people of varying degrees of influence in the world at large.
As I said, my site is what it is, and I’ll change it as I see fit.
Of course, all that being said, I do thank you for visiting, reading and commenting. Something must be pretty interesting ’round these here parts for you to spend time here! So, why would I want to change that?
-Phil
Nonsense Phil. I agreed you can’t whether Obama was eligible from those court rulings. You can also go to the library and find thousands of books from which you cannot tell whether Obama is eligible. So what? You have perfectly good source that will tell you. You remain ignorant by your own choice.
In Obama’s campaign, he promoted, “Change,” yet never opened himself up to one of the greatest of prepositions, “to,” as in, “Change,” to what?
When you’re done blogging about what Taitz had for breakfast, trying checking out change.gov.
Similarly, Bob, I have to ask you, “It would be much more constructive to whom to focus on efforts to ensure substantiation for 2012?” Furthermore, “It would improve respectability with whom if I were to instead focus on 2012?”
Anyone who you might want to not dismiss you out-of-hand as a “birfer.”
Therefore, why should I fix something that isn’t broke?
The more you focus on 2008, the less you focus on 2012.
Hey: that’s a win-win. As you were.
Congress is out of the loop.
What Congress gives, Congress can take away. Congress at any time can repeal DC’s quo warranto statute.
“But I find it rather revealing that the key case you cite in a challenge to an African-American President is one that rests on a determination that black people are not persons.” (PK)
I can’t believe Phil let this one slide through. Do you find it “revealing” that Obama likens himself to Lincoln? Check out this: http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/abraham-lincoln-racist/
“More problematic were Lincoln’s views on race. He held opinions not very different from those of the majority of his racist countrymen. Even if slavery was wrong, ‘there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.’ His solution was a form of ethnic cleansing: shipping blacks off to Liberia, or Haiti, or Central America — anywhere as long as it wasn’t the United States.
Scott v Sandford (commonly referred to as the Dred Scott case) was OVERRULED by the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and by the passage of the 14th amendment.
But I find it rather revealing that the key case you cite in a challenge to an African-American President is one that rests on a determination that black people are not persons.
What “evidence”? Could you please list “all the current evidence” that you have indicated Obama was born in Kenya?
If one has read in entirety Leo’s 3-part brief on his site, one will realize this quo warranto by his opinion, can only happen in DC, “in the 10 square miles” under the US District Atty;: aka Jeffery Taylor, OR Secy Holder. Both or either. But ONLY in the name of the United States.
Congress passed the law of quo warranto, so if a jury, in a civil suit in DC ONLY determines Mr. Obama to be ineligible, Congress is out of the loop. It is an automatic dismissal. No Congress involvement, no vote by them necessary. Done deal. Like the election didn’t even happen.
Who Are You Kidding,
Leo Donofrio has many times stated rather major disagreement with folks at Plains Radio and other entities who have gone “too negative” (my words), in his view, on the President.
However, I think that you are right that when it comes to public officials, nothing is off the table. And, further, why should anything be off the table?
-Phil
Bob,
You bring up a fantastic point.
In Obama’s campaign, he promoted, “Change,” yet never opened himself up to one of the greatest of prepositions, “to,” as in, “Change,” to what?
Similarly, Bob, I have to ask you, “It would be much more constructive to whom to focus on efforts to ensure substantiation for 2012?” Furthermore, “It would improve respectability with whom if I were to instead focus on 2012?”
I am one concerned citizen with one measly little web site on the Internet who has garnered a small — but growing, according to multiple statistics counters — audience of fans and adversaries. It works for me. Therefore, why should I fix something that isn’t broke?
-Phil
Leo Donofrio declined to add the substance of the following to his blog. Donofrio insists that certain issues must not be discussed, even if they threaten to undermine his central arguments and mean that on present evidence his case will fail. This is extremely disturbing. I leave it to others to ask why.
There are two ways Obama’s parents can be proved legally unmarried, with consequences that would dramatically affect deliberations in Quo Warrento hearings. On current evidence such hearings would never find against Obama:
a British citizenship under the UK Nationality Act 1948 transmitted automatically only to children of a legitimate marriage. Obama’s father was already married in Kenya before he came to America. The marriage was by native custom. In British Kenya in 1961 “customary marriage” for black Kenyans was absolutely legal. Customary marriage for white Kenyans was not permitted: their marriages required official licenses and generated certificates. These two forms of marriage could not be contracted simultaneously to different spouses: that was bigamy under the Kenya Marriage Act, Chapter 50, 1902 and the Kenya Penal Code of 1930, Section 171. Customary marriage was very public, invariably polygamous, and very legal — in British Kenya. The question is: what was the status of Kenyan customary marriage in America in 1961 ? Common law marriage had no official status in Hawaii in 1961 (or now). Problem: Would a perfectly legal British Kenyan customary marriage (between Obama Sr and his wife Kezia Grace), which had no official certificate, be ruled by a US court in 1961 as being “common law” ? If it would, Obama’s parents were legally married under US law (if they did legally contract a marriage); if Obama Sr’s customary marriage would NOT have been ruled “common law”, if Obama Sr’s very Kenyan, very respectable, and eminently lawful customary marriage (to a doctor’s daughter) would have been deemed legal under US law (had authorities here and Ann Dunham herself known about it !), Obama’s parents could never have been lawfully married by any authority within US jurisdiction. We do know that it was Ann Dunham-Obama herself who left Obama Sr in August 1961 and only returned to Hawaii in 1963, many months after Obama Sr left Hawaii for Harvard. Under these circumstances if Obama Jr was born in Kenya, just one year’s residency in America was all his mother needed to transmit US citizenship; though it should be said, he could never possess natural born citizenship. Conversely, if Obama’s parents are deemed by US authorities to have been legally married ONLY in America, then his mother did not have sufficient residency to transmit US citizenship if he was born in Kenya; and again Obama could never possess natural born citizenship.
b Obama’s father contracted a customary marriage in Kenya, perfectly legal there, several years before coming to study in Hawaii. Obama Sr then contracted (if he did) a second marriage with Ann Dunham in Hawaii in 1961. Polygamous customary marriage was legal for black Kenyans in British Kenya. Problem: It was not legal under the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 and Kenya Penal Code 1930 to mix the two types of marriage. American marriages were recognized foreign marriages and governed by statute, whereby “NO marriage in Kenya shall be valid…where either of the parties…is married by native law or custom to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is had”: ie for one customarily married any statutory spouse must be the customary spouse – thereby outlawing statutory polygamy. This means that Obama Sr’s Hawaiian marriage (if real) to Ann Dunham was bigamous and illegal in Kenya under British law. While birth in Kenya would necessarily have entitled Obama Jr to British citizenship immediately, an Obama Jr birth in America to bigamous parents could never bestow British citizenship upon him, because at no time would Britain have regarded Obama Jr as the child of a marriage that was legitimate under British Kenyan law. Marriage (incontrovertibly bigamous) in the US for Ann Dunham and Obama Sr without a Kenyan birth for Obama Jr, or merely an American birth for Obama Jr, are both deadly poison for Leo’s brief.
There is only one possible escape – an escape which relies on alleged facts that Donofrio has previously dismissed as without interest – and it revolves around what Ann Dunham was doing in the summer of 1961: and, more precisely, where she might have been doing it. For this escape to work it is indispensable that Ann Dunham was in Kenya in 1961: not married to Obama Sr in February 1961, not yet having given birth to Obama Jr (in this escape that can only happen later in Hawaii – otherwise it’s too easy !), but necessarily contracting a customary marriage. The 1902 statute allows that “…nothing in this Act…shall affect the validity of any marriage contracted under or in accordance with any native law or custom, or in any manner apply to marriages so contracted…”
Remember it could not be a marriage under statute: for Obama Sr that would have been bigamy punishable by 5 years imprisonment. Maybe that was why Obama Sr’s father was vehemently opposed to Sr’s marriage to Ann in Hawaii: could some decision have been made to return home and make a legal marriage under native law ? Given that in customary marriage Ann would be marrying man AND family AND tribe it was not something that could have been arranged on short notice and without complex preparations by all parties. I find it hard to believe that British officials would have smiled benevolently on such follies. Some might ask: Kenya is vast, how were British authorities to know what was going down far out in the bush ? Quite frankly, as a consequence of civil unrest in the 1950s, I believe British information systems were such that authorities would have known in exhaustive detail everything an impulsive white American girl aged 18 was doing upcountry, and most probably would have done all in their power to dissuade her.
But perhaps, only perhaps, some colonial officials told her: “Don’t mind us, it’s legal – if as you say you’re not legally married in America” ? It is 99.999999% certain that no white woman ever contracted a customary marriage in British Kenya in 1961, as this would have meant complete and forced absorption into tribal lifestyles, customs, and culture as was expected of a dutiful wife, not to mention incurring some notoriety. Even if it were legal, even if a wayward, unconventional, runaway, and hard-to-hide Ann Dunham did MARRY customarily, where could we ever find the evidence ? Where’s the Certificate a US judge could rustle and squint at ? Could there be such a Certificate, from such a marriage ? What foreign investigation conducted by which authorities (US and\or British and\or Kenyan) in remote regions and times, to establish probative evidence of a white woman contracting a customary polygamous marriage in British Kenya in 1961, would be accepted as valid in US law ? Could the child of a second polygamous (in this case, Kenyan) customary marriage ever be judged legitimate in US law ? For this escape to work it is Obama Jr’s status at birth in British law that is decisive: his status at birth in Hawaii as the son of Obama Sr’s second legal customary wife. Some may say, “Maybe that’s what behind those Hawaii divorce papers – which marriage was really being terminated: the Hawaiian, as earlier claimed, or maybe, as can be seen with hindsight, or the Kenyan” ? No comment.
It should be blindingly obvious by now that there’s very little chance of this escape being successful but maybe Donofrio will find alleged events in Kenya in 1961 more compelling than he has so far. Donofrio’s case has no hope of success unless Obama’s COLB is ruled inadmissible, bypassed, and the original 1961 record is examined. (There are irrefutable arguments to achieve this) Anyhow, there’s no getting away from annoying Certificates: we all want one, “our” one. Not least Obama’s “genius” attorneys (as Donofrio calls them) !? All those foolish admissions by Obama Jr online that he was a Kenyan citizen until age 21: are they just romantic daydreams in the context of this analysis ? Donofrio believes Obama has trapped himself into admitting ineligiblity and that “Birthers” are being cunningly distracted from this vulnerabilty by Obama’s “simply the best” puppetmaster lawyers: in this conspiratorial spirit a better theory would be that the admissions are a masterstroke to hide in plain sight the truth that Obama never received British citizenship from his father. I’m suprised they haven’t already snapped to it and found the Hawaiian marriage certificate, the certificate that makes Ann Dunham’s purported US marriage bigamous, the certificate that makes Obama Jr a natural born citizen of the US, if he was born here. Maybe they’re holding it in reserve, a secret weapon ?
As simple as I can make it:
Obama Born In Kenya: British citizen by birth; US citizen if Kenyan customary marriage is not recognized in US law and Hawaii marriage correspondingly legal; not a US citizen if Kenyan customary marriage is recognized in the US and Hawaii marriage correspondingly bigamous. Obama is never a natural born US citizen.
Obama Born In Us: US citizen by birth; never a British citizen because Obama Sr’s bigamous marriage cannot allow transmission of British citizenship under British law. Britain has no claim upon Obama Jr and therefore he is a natural born US citizen, unless “natural born” is strictly interpreted as requiring two US parents: even Leo has doubts that a court would so rule.
Therefore: Leo’s case will never be successful if Obama’s COLB is admitted by our courts as prima facie evidence: only if Obama’s COLB is ruled legally irrelevant and Obama’s long form Certificate upon discovery shows Kenyan birth can Leo’s case be sustained.
OK even more simply:
Only if Obama Jr was born in Kenya is Obama not a natural born US citizen; only if Obama Jr was born in Kenya and his parents contracted a legal US marriage is Obama not a US citizen. If Obama was US born he is a natural born citizen, very probably.
Conclusion: Donofrio’s central arguments against Obama’s eligiibilty, (that place of birth was immaterial, that British citizenship was transmitted through Obama Sr, that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents) have collapsed. Obama’s birthplace has now become the supreme and decisive issue. Unless Obama’s COLB is ruled irrelevant, and a court examines the original 1961 birth record, Obama will remain securely in office.
For Donofrio to reject that assessment as beneath contempt works only for Obama’s side of the dispute. Strange to say, Donofrio is on record as having conceded legitimacy to “President” Obama to further his brief.
but I smell a rat and my nose is usually pretty accurate
Cancel the elections, close Congress, abolish the courts … KJ’s nose is on this one.
I’m confident that your innate ability to observe the obvious regarding postings on this site will lead you to conclude that I’m covering both.
To improve your observation abilities: It would be much more constructive (and improve respectability) to focus on efforts to ensure substantiation for 2012.
Rich,
For me all the current evidence points to Obama being born in Kenya and thus not being eligible for US citizenship or the Presidency. However this you must know:
By virtue of INA 1952 S349(a) Obama was allowed to resume in America US citizenship before age 25 without penalty or procedure – ASSUMING ASSUMING Obama was a citizen already. Forget Berg’s 1930 Hague Convention: the US neither recognizes nor applies it.
Even if Obama swore on a stack of Bibles and Korans in Indonesia that he forever renounced US citizenship, merely re-entering the US without applying for a visa would establish for US authorities that he didn’t mean it So what if he honed his lying and deceiving skills with Indonesian bureaucrats: nuthin got to do with us, is what our INS would say.
Even if Obama travelled for years on an Indonesian passport, which I believe is likely (and hardly the spirit and qualification we expect from a natural born citizen), in law, as of now, it would be hard on that basis alone to have him ruled expatriated.
Bob,
I’m confident that your innate ability to observe the obvious regarding postings on this site will lead you to conclude that I’m covering both.
-Phil
Charles Curtis was born in 1860 on US territory and not in the United States. His mother was Indian and wikipedia does not say anything about his father’s citizenship status. His mother would have become a US citizen when she married his father. Wives followed the citizenship of their US citizen husbands by a law passed in 1855.
Charles Curtis’ father, Orren, was born in (the State of) Indiana. Orren married Charles’ mother, Ellen Pappan, in 1859. Charles was born in 1860 in the Kansas Territory.
OK, so we’ve beat the proverbial dead horse of standing into the ground. Your point?
Your desire for substantiation is reasonable, but under the laws that currently exist, it simply will not happen with respect to last year’s election. It would be much more constructive (and improve respectability) to focus on efforts to ensure substantiation for 2012.
Propaganda: if you hear something enough times it becomes the truth.
Oh, the irony.
We hear you. That does not mean that we have to agree with your opinion, like you don’t have to agree with ours. I ask you to be honest, if there had been any real questions about W’s citizenship status, would you have defended his right to serve? Just answer the question yes or no.
I believe that it is common sense to be sure that the Constitution is not violated and that the natural born citizen requirement for the President was put into the Constitution to protect the country from a Commander in Chief with divided allegiances. Why else would the framers have bothered to specify “natural born citizen” instead of “citizen”? Why else would the framers have bothered to include so many steps in the election of a President, each step allowing a review of the candidate’s eligibility, before the candidate is allowed to assume the Office?
I further believe that we have an individual acting as President who has the weakest claim to natural born citizenship status of any President in our history. It is known that he has been a dual citizen and that he (intentionally or unintentionally) influenced a foreign election in his claimed father’s country. It is not known whether he was born outside of the United States and if he claimed a foreign status after the age of majority.
It is my opinion that he was given a pass by his party, the press, Congress, and the Electors. Nearly everyone has assumed that this is business as usual. Mr. Obama rushed into the race hoping to catch people off guard, so that they would not figure out that there might be a problem. “Yes We Can”, and yes he could. I think that he has thoroughly studied his own situation and knows exactly what barriers that must be overcome to question his eligibility.
It is also my opinion that most Members of Congress are generally unfamiliar with the Constitution and are more concerned about enriching themselves and staying in office than they are about studying the business before Congress and the Constitution. They seem blind to (or don’t care about) the future implications of their lack of diligence. They have been ignoring their voters opinions and sticking with business as usual.
I think that most of the media and the Congress now have a vested interest in hiding their lack of investigation by covering for Mr. Obama, no matter what the implications of his actions are for the country. <> Have you heard anything about the Obamas behavior with regard to Mr. Brown’s recent visit to Washington in our press? The press reads scripted questions at a televised press conference, Wikipedia edits in his favor, his search for “moderate Taliban”, etc. This is becoming a case of the Emperor has no Clothes or Political Correctness Hyberbole. Can the nation really afford to continue a charade?
And it is my opinion that justice has not been served 1) by denying the voters the right to see more proof that he was born in the United States and 2) by refusing to comment on the legal definition of what is required to be a natural born citizen when Mr. O is clearly setting a precedent. All previous Presidents born after the Constitution was ratified (except for Chester Arthur) have been natural born citizens as defined by Vattel. The definition of natural born citizenship can only be tested by a Candidate with unclear natural born citizenship status attempting to be President because that citizenship status is relevant only for the Presidency. This is not only about Mr. Obama, it is about who will be allowed to serve after him based on the precedent(s) that he is setting.
The Catch 22 Blame Game: Electors and Congress say that voters are responsible for vetting the Candidates. But the Courts say voters are denied the right to request relevant information.
Yes the Voters are to blame and so is everyone else that had more power to investigate Mr. Obama’s citizenship: the Electors, and the Congress, the media, and the Democratic and Republican parties.
If he assumed the Office of President in spite of being aware that he is not Constitutionally eligible, can you honestly say that he cares about the republic and its Constitution? What about his credibility based on his actions since he took Office? He is not living up to his promises about transparency and keeping compromised people out of his administration. What about the vast sums of money that he has appropriated (to be spent on what?) in less that two months in Office. How will this irresponsible spending spree affect the dollar? Based on the differences between his promises and his actions, can you honestly say that he would not stretch the truth (or provide an exception) to get into Office? We are not talking about women or general corruption, but the citizenship status of the Commander in Chief!
Hard to believe isn’t it. I want to see proof beyond the COLB. Maybe my views are not totally based on logic and maybe the COLB is “legal” proof of citizenship, but I smell a rat and my nose is usually pretty accurate.
Phil, first of all I want to compliment you because you clearly do not censor or exclude posts that disagree with you.
Another web site you might add to the list above is this:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/
It’s fairly new and a good resource because most of the posts point to specific research or documents.
“His mother would have become a US citizen when she married his father.”
should be
His mother would have become a US citizen when she married his father if his father was a US citizen.
Wikipedia is written by anyone that wants to input data. It can hardly be recognized as a creditable and reliable encyclopedia.
Anonymous:
Thus, the clause: “….or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”
Practical Kat:
By the way, read SCOTT V. SANDFORD, 60 U. S. 393 (1856) in its entirety.
Practical Kat:
SCOTT V. SANDFORD, 60 U. S. 393 (1856)
Your statement: “Reality: 1) Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu. This fact is supported by substantial documentation and evidence, and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.”
Interesting statement you have made. Sounds as if you have the evidence or at least have seen the evidence?
Your statement: “That fact that an amateur researcher can frame a different logical and historical argument would be interesting for purpose of a mock trial competition or as an intellectual argument, but there is no chance whatsoever of that argument being followed or adopted by any US Court.”
Are you speaking and making judgments for the U.S. Courts????
We have never had to question whether a U.S. Presidential candidate was a “Natural Born Citizen” before this election. We knew that they were.
But I can tell you what a “Natural Born Citizen” is and the 14th Amendment cannot replace it. You must realize that the 14th Amendment was written about 80 years later than the original constitution and they did not repeal Article II, 1, 5 nor did they use the term “Natural Born Citizen” in the 14th Amendment.
The “Natural Born Citizen” clause was written for the specific purpose of assuring that the President would have full and complete allegiance. Just analyze the sentence of Article II, 1,5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The clause “Natural Born Citizen”: All but 8 of the founding fathers were born here in America thus the clause “Natural Born Citizen”. Their intent that they were American Born and all of their children thereafter would be American Born (Natural Law). He intended that “Natural Born Citizen” would perpetuate itself.
The clause “or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”: This was intended for the 8 founding fathers that were not born in America, but born on foreign soil, but their allegiance was to America because they fought for it’s liberties. Thus, National Law and they were grandfathered (Naturalized) in as Citizens because of their allegiance.
The 14th Amendment includes both native born (Natural Law) and Aliens (National Law) who become Citizens through Naturalization and Allegiance, but are NOT considered Natural Born Citizens.
It also includes those Aliens who become Citizens through Naturalization (Natural Law) and Allegiance. This Amendment included the African Americans and those Native American Indians for whom we had treaties and if they so pledged their allegiance to America. There are other circumstances that fall under the 14th Amendment that I will not address.
Just because you are native born in America does not necessarily mean that you are automatically a citizen. One can expatriate themselves through marriage or other circumstances. That’s how much liberty we have been afforded by the founding fathers.
brygenon,
You have completely misquoted what I said. Allow me to restate what I actually said:
You completely left off everything after the third comma, which cannot be left off if my statement is to remain intact.
Try again.
-Phil
Phil, are you sure you know what ‘non-sequitor’ means? ‘Cuz what I wrote was a big-time sequitur.
If you want to know why your premises are faulty, go to http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/.
Now that the Chief Justice of the United States has sworn Obama in as President (twice!), the U.S. Congress is the one body that can legally remove him. Members from the both sides of the aisle inform you that your myths have been debunked. Does that “in any way mean that there’s a faulty premise to these cases”? It should, but instead of reading what they so clearly say, you get all conspiracy-theoretic and try to decode the secret meaning.
The problem is not that your questions go unanswered. The problem is that you do not listen.
Charles Curtis was born in 1860 on US territory and not in the United States. His mother was Indian and wikipedia does not say anything about his father’s citizenship status. His mother would have become a US citizen when she married his father. Wives followed the citizenship of their US citizen husbands by a law passed in 1855.
Barry Goldwater, a candidate for President in the 60’s was also born in a US territory and there was some controversy about his status. He, like Mr. Curtis, never became President or even Vice President.
Would US territory be considered US soil? Seems reasonable because it was under total US control.
Andrew Jackson was born in 1767 before the Constitution was ratified. He did not have to be a natural born citizen.
Candidates? yes — Ralph Nader to start. (His parents were Lebanese immigrants and I haven’t found any evidence to show that they were naturalized at the time of his birth).
Were Andrew Jackson’s parents naturalized when he was born? They’d been here less than two years.
Bob,
How you choose to interpret my responses (or lack thereof) is obviously your prerogative (so much for stating the obvious.
Be careful, though, as there are so many presumptions about so many people flying around the blogosphere as to make honest-to-goodness dialog rather difficult at times.
-Phil
Bob,
OK, so we’ve beat the proverbial dead horse of standing into the ground. Your point?
-Phil
This should be contradistincted from such commenters as GeorgetownJD and 1Lishell who, while I’ve had my disagreements with them, have maintained a very even-keeled attitude about their arguments. I very much appreciate that stance.
If someone asks an honest and sincere question, I am happy to provide an answer (if I know it) that does not set off your overly sensistive and myopic attitude detector.
No, I, for one, do not rely on ad hominem attacks … jackass.
I think that was a land-speed record for self-contradiction.
…and I’ll take your silence in response to my query about my intellectual dishonesty as a retraction of your original statement, which, of course, was not an ad hominem attack.
I can guarantee you that I’m certainly not paying you (or to whomever you refer) for “legal” opinions on this site!
But others do. It is their job (that earns them money) to make predictive opinions about the law. It demonstrates training and experience in the law, which is why others are willing to pay for such advice; it demonstrates value as a commodity.
However, even you must be intellectually honest enough to realize that not a single case has been considered on its merits; all cases, to date, have been dismissed on technical issues such as standing (regardless of how legitimate such a dismissal is).
And you must be intellectually honest enough to realize that no suit is going survive a ruling on “technical issues” such as standing, justiciability, political question, laches, or mootness. You can pooh-pooh someone one’s “opinion” as merely being “subjective,” but they’re still correct.
Can you name previous candidates for President that were not born on US soil to two citizen (includes naturalized) parents?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curtis“>Charles Curtis, Hoover’s vice president. (Vice presidents are held to the same eligibility requirements as the president, per the 12th Amendment.)
brygenon,
Here’s the problem with your conclusion (again, somewhat of a cross between propter hoc and non-sequitor fallacies):
Just because a Court has refused to hear any eligibility cases, to date, cannot in any way mean that there’s a faulty premise to these cases, for the fact that all dismissals, to date, have been on the technical aspect of standing and not on the content thereof.
It is very tiring, but for different reasons. The question of eligibility is based on Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution — not some hearsay or other unprovable premise.
Absolutely — I could not agree more, hence why the Court is currently correct RE: standing on these cases (even though I believe there’s a strong case to be made that standing is not a constitutional — though simultaneously not necessarily illegitimate — concept).
Yet, remember — no Court has actually heard an eligibility case based on the claims brought forth; no case, to date, has gotten to that point. Therefore, to draw a conclusion that a case being thrown out due to lack of standing means that the question being posed is illegitimate, per se, is completely irrational, flawed, and misguided.
And, really, that’s the bottom line to all of this. The question has been asked but has not been answered. And saying that the electoral process, per se, has answered the question of eligibility is being disingenuous, as the electoral process is not currently tasked with determining eligibility!
-Phil
KAT—-I hope that Phil would learn more than you!!! Your comments here leave alot to be desired if you are an attorney….you need to read that book….LAW FOR DUMMIES!!!
I think the saying is…..” the right thing to do is not always the popular thing”!!!
Actually…I believe Leo said it would be best if AG Holder was not a “coward” and took this “quo warranto” seriously and did his job!!! OH YEAH….I forgot…..”we are nothing more than a nation of cowards”!!! Wasn’t that what Holder said???
Bob,
I apologize, then, if you could not pick up the dry humor in the referenced comment by me.
-Phil
Bob,
Agreed, but this is some peoples’ prerogatives.
I can guarantee you that I’m certainly not paying you (or to whomever you refer) for “legal” opinions on this site!
…for the present strategy, I can agree. However, even you must be intellectually honest enough to realize that not a single case has been considered on its merits; all cases, to date, have been dismissed on technical issues such as standing (regardless of how legitimate such a dismissal is).
-Phil
Bob,
While I am proud to have Mr. Donofrio comment on my site from time to time, that is an excellent question to pose to him on his site.
-Phil
Bob,
Two web sites I’ve found very interesting include the following:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org
http://www.whatsyourevidence.com
-Phil
Bob,
I think that if you do an exhaustive search on my site, you will find that you are the first person I’ve labeled as something beyond a rational word: a jackass. I am labeling your attitude (and a few other commenters similarly equated as such) as a jackass because your attitude has, to date, demonstrated as such.
This should be contradistincted from such commenters as GeorgetownJD and 1Lishell who, while I’ve had my disagreements with them, have maintained a very even-keeled attitude about their arguments. I very much appreciate that stance.
So. No, I, for one, do not rely on ad hominem attacks; I rely on the Constitution to speak for itself. However, I will call out bad attitudes if I spot them. And therein lies the difference.
-Phil
That’s no excuse for getting fooled when he bluffs about his up cards.