That said, nothing about HIM as a person has anything to do with his arguments. They speak for themselves. So people must decide how valid they are.

Excuse me?

His mental illness has nothing to do with his arguments? Are you serious?

Mental illness has everything to do with his arguments. They are the product of the same damaged mind that has been demonstrated to reach bizarre and false conclusions of the most fantastic sort. Leo’s arguments whether they relate to his own divinity or Obama’s eligibility are all of the same cloth. They rest ultimately on the pathological inability to distinguish reality from delusion. Even the most sober sounding of Leo’s arguments contain leaps of wild and paranoid speculation which are then uncritically accepted as true… even if they were completely imaginary in the first place. His whole Chester Arthur episode is a perfect example.

What is fascinating is the willingness of those Birthers who are not insane to credulously accept the products of Leo’s insanity. Of course, this comes more from sloth than from any other particular shortcoming. As a result, we find that the entire controversy rests on a fascinating and arguably funny confluence of mental mediocrity… sort of a “critical mass of stupid:”

The only Birthers who actually invest serious mental effort in making an argument are insane. The rest simply repeat the insanity without thinking at all.

“Again, the Judiciary cannot create law, because that’s an unconstitutional act, and individuals who promulgate the concept that somehow the Indiana Judiciary did create law apparently perpetuate the idea that the Judiciary could operate in an unconstitutional fashion.”

No one here has implied that the judiciary can create law. However, based upon one of your previous comments, it appears that you seem to believe and imply that the Indiana Judiciary created law by their decision. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment?

The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress and ratified. Wong Kim Ark is a SCOTUS decision (precedent) that interpreted the 14th Amendment citizenship clause which stands as the interpretation of the 14th Amendment citizenship laws which is binding and has the force of law.(citizenship) Until Congress passes a bill and/or SCOTUS reverses their decision or Congress passes an amendment to the Constitution reversing the SCOTUS decision/precedent of Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS decision/precedent of Wong Kim Ark is binding and has the force of law regarding citizenship laws. A Supreme Court interpretation is the “correct” interpretation of a law. Thus, the decision is binding, but not because the SC has the power to pass laws, but because the law they are interpreting is binding. The Indiana court of appeals is bound to follow the SCOTUS precedent or existing law regarding citizenship which is exactly what the 3-judge panel did.

http://www.answers.com/topic/precedent

Now, this is my lay understanding of how these two branches of government compliment or balance one another. Congress makes the law and SCOTUS interprets the law. Perhaps a lawyer could weigh in on this?

Donofrio and others are entitled to their opinion that the SCOTUS precedent of Wong Kim Ark was “wrongly decided or is bad law.” However, it is just “their opinion” and has no bearing on U.S. Citizenship Laws whatsoever.

The only thing I’ve ever implied RE: the Ankeny v. Daniels case is that the Judges issued a non-binding opinion of their original order to dismiss.

Wait, no, I’m wrong. I’ve also implied quite explicitly that stating that one situation creates a natural born citizen doesn’t necessarily make that same situation eligible for the presidency. Again, the Judiciary cannot create law, because that’s an unconstitutional act, and individuals who promulgate the concept that somehow the Indiana Judiciary did create law apparently perpetuate the idea that the Judiciary could operate in an unconstitutional fashion.

And, of course, that doesn’t make sense, except to those who don’t understand the premise of the eligibility argument.

Sorry that you’ve never heard of caselaw, Phil.

Opinions of the judiciary have the force of law all the time.

Let’s say that the state legislature passes a law that says “No vehicles in the park.” a kid is arrested for riding a bike in the park. When it comes for trial the kid’s lawyer argues that a bicycle is not a vehicle. The judge has to interpret what constitutes a vehicle for this statute. They may look to the definition in the dictionary, look to other statutes, look to what the legislature intended to do when passing this law, or several other possibilities. What the court decides will be a binding interpretation of what it means to be riding a bike in the park. This has the force of law for the next kid to be riding a bike in the park.

This is called stare decisis and is a critical aspect of our common law system. Holdings and reasoning are binding on future courts. The Indiana court here considered itself bound by the interpretation of natural born citizen put forth in Wong Kim Ark.

Where you may have a point is in the fact that much of the discussion of the natural born citizen clause is dicta. Dicta is not reasoning, and is thus not considered binding. You are correct in that the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision is not binding on the whole country. They dismissed the case on grounds of standing and then went on to say how frivolous the case was anyway. Nothing but the dismissal for standing is binding. However, it will be considered persuasive authority in other cases.

But really, the chief value of this opinion is that it clearly states that anybody born in the US is a natural born citizen, without reference to the status of the parents. It explicitly states that the holding and reasoning of the Wong case leads to that conclusion.

The odds of the Supreme Court subsequently saying that the interpretation of the Indiana court here was incorrect, that syc’s interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause is correct, which would thereby create the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War, is approximately 0.0%.

I know a lot about medicine, and what you say about Donofrio seems to be the case. I am a man of odds, and from all of my experiences reading him and hearing him on blogtalk etc. there was always something that turned me off about his tenacity. I can see the self-absorbed hint that you point to. Definitely.

That said, nothing about HIM as a person has anything to do with his arguments. They speak for themselves. So people must decide how valid they are.

I agree, it seems all too predictable that he’ll be back. He will. I’m uncertain what the status of everything is, however.

Sharon 2,

“As much as you would like to believe that the Indiana appeals court makes the law of the land, it is not binding anywhere but in Indiana. It could be adopted elsewhere but it is not controlling law outside of Indiana. The US Supreme Court may someday even cite the case,… or not.”

I don’t believe an “obot” has stated here that “the Indiana appeals court makes the law of the land.” I believe it was Phil who implied this.

The only thing I’ve ever implied RE: the Ankeny v. Daniels case is that the Judges issued a non-binding opinion of their original order to dismiss.

Wait, no, I’m wrong. I’ve also implied quite explicitly that stating that one situation creates a natural born citizen doesn’t necessarily make that same situation eligible for the presidency. Again, the Judiciary cannot create law, because that’s an unconstitutional act, and individuals who promulgate the concept that somehow the Indiana Judiciary did create law apparently perpetuate the idea that the Judiciary could operate in an unconstitutional fashion.

And, of course, that doesn’t make sense, except to those who don’t understand the premise of the eligibility argument.

-Phil

I think you are being unfair to Leo. He cannot be held responsible for the swings in his bipolar disorder.

Sarah Palin is “a quitter.”

Leo Donofrio is simply ill.
_______________________________________________________________________
Sam, maybe you are right. Leo might be ill…And if that is the case and Leo is sick then you are right and he is not Sarah Palin and a quitter. But Sue is also right that he is aware of his disease but ignored it to take drugs that is not the smartest thing to do either.

“I have a family emergency and will not be back for awhile.”

I hope your family emergency was nothing serious and all is well.

“He cannot be held responsible for the swings in his bipolar disorder.”

I disagree. Based upon what Donofrio has stated himself, he is well aware of his problem; therefore, it appears that he has not sought help for his bipolar disorder, if indeed, that is what he has. His admitted illegal drug use only compounds his problem.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bipolar-disorder/DS00356/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs

If Leo had as much integrity as you state he wouldn’t have been afraid to defend his “exotic and conceptual” theory. You birthers made the mistake of believing in a guy that had no legal background or experience. He quit the fight. He may turn up again when he can piggyback on someone else’s work but it doesn’t surprise me that you would be supportive of a quitter.

I think you are being unfair to Leo. He cannot be held responsible for the swings in his bipolar disorder.

Sarah Palin is “a quitter.”

Leo Donofrio is simply ill.

That can only be if he is in a depressive cycle. When he is in his manic phase, he is incapable of tiring.

Read his account. You will find it explains a lot.

I also noted that none of you obots had the courage to challenge Leo Donofrio directly on his blog. Instead you sniped at him from a distance knowing full well that you couldn’t defeat him in a serious argument on the merits one on one.

Wrong again, Bob. Leo was absolutely directly challenged on his blog, by me and several others. But like Apuzzo he never had the intellectual integrity to let such posts pass moderation.

You obots make me sick rejoicing over Leo’s quitting his blog. Leo has more integrity in his actions than you people could ever hope to have.

Integrity? Did you not mean Insanity?

Leo Donofrio is not a patriot, or a traitor, or an Obot, or a Birther or anything else other than as the accidental result of his self documented mental illness. He recorded his own descent into indiscriminate drug use (he admits to, at least Pot, Psilocybin, Ecstasy and Acid), paranoia, delusion and bi-polarity in a long tome called “One Love Story” that can still be found on the Internet here:

http://odell.connect-2.co.uk/ols.html

Reading this first person account of pain and pathos in the course of cyclic madness reveals a lot about the classic Donofrio pattern. He swings wildly between periods of manic and passionate advocacy followed by deep depressions, withdrawals and feelings of self loathing and inadequacy. During the former he literally believes himself to be The Holy Spirit (he calls himself the “Paraclete”) sent by God to make straight the way of the Messiah. During the latter he actively considers suicide.

Do not fear. Leo will be back. He cannot help himself. He will eventually return in rare form with new and unusual legal interpretations that set his minions all atwitter.

But he will still be mentally ill.

“Not the campaign. How about Podesta and any of his minions, or Soros and any of his? How about FactCheck?”

Nope, not one penny.

“11/24/2009 Case Closed. Dismissed – No Prosecution No
11/24/2009 DIS-2CIV (Letter to district court enclosing dismissal order) issued. To:Gregory J. Leonard; c:Eric Fleisig-Greene; c:Mark B. Stern; c:Orly Taitz No
11/24/2009 Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R.42-2(c), this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to file brief and record excerpts within the time fixed by the rules.”