You probably wouldn’t lose the standing argument if you had some evidence. That’s whats missing. I think the courts would bend stuff a little if there was some reason to do so.
The problem is, when they get into the birther stuff, there is just nothing to it. I know you don’t want to hear it, but that’s just the truth. Do you know how we look at the truthers? Or the people who don’t think we actually landed on the Moon?
Then they start off on the “evidence” they have and when you start going thru it, it just kind of evaporates. Yeah, flags do wave in a vacuum. Building do fall down when thier inner skeleton melts.
Well, the sad truth is, the “He wasn’t born in Hawaii” birthers don’t even have truther or no moon-landing level of evidence. Birthers can’t even get it out of the gate before it stumbles and falls.
The “Not an NBC” birthers have it a lot easier. Their arguments are all legal theory, so there is no way to really slap them down until the theory goes ooopsies! And even then, they can argue the Court was wrong. And most people don’t have a clue about cases versus treatises, precedents, etc. And most people who try to explain it are stuffy lawyer types who don’t know how to put things into American.
Look at what I’ve posted tonite. That Indiana case is real easy to read. Wong gets affirmed. The case isn’t binding on any other court but it gives a pretty good clue how the existing law is going to come down. YET, I am having to go uphill against this stupid Vattel and John Jay stuff that any court worth its salt will drop kick out of the courtroom in afew minutes.
Birthers just don’t want to believe what they don’t want to believe. Its human nature. Sometimes, some people will learn and change. Its makes it all worth while.
Here’s the case. You read it. Pages 13 to 18.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
parsy
Why did Fukino take down the administrative rules from their website during the campaign and for a year after the election was over?
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, Parsy.
Wanna know when I first started thinking there was more to this stuff? When Berg filed his lawsuit and Obama chose to fight it instead of simply paying the $20 and being done with it.
If Obama chose to do that so he could make laughingstocks out of people who still take the rule of law seriously then he deserves to be hung by the nearest lamp post. That would make him a HEINOUS criminal instead of just the common variety - because what he is out to destroy is the very FABRIC of the nation.
So which belief makes a person more of a delusional conspiracy theorist - that Obama is hiding something that shows him ineligible, or that he is using some stupid snotty ploy to destroy the fabric of America?
Circumstantial evidence is enough to compel an investigation, and it’s the investigation that shows up the direct evidence. That’s what is supposed to happen. It can’t happen in mafia-land though, and that’s where we’re at.
Right now the best that the State of Hawaii has for documentation for Obama is no better than what every illegal alien in the country has.
But that’s not evidence of anything?