Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers

The Post & Email ^ | March 10, 2010 | Sally Vendée

[kyright]

Going with the new trend of adding “-er” to the end of terms describing groups of people with similar beliefs ungrounded in commonly-accepted reality, we need to add Birthright Citizenship-ers and Dual Citizenship-ers to the mix, along with the Birth-ers.

The reason to group them together—they march to the same drumbeat—all apparently believe that birth in the US is all that is necessary for anyone to have US citizenship. The only point on which they seem to disagree is whether a long-form or a short-form birth certificate is sufficient proof. (Many of the so-called birthers will argue the finer point of “natural born” type of citizenship for the Presidency, but that will be addressed here later.) Ironically, those who loudly ridicule the “birthers” who shout “show me the birth certificate” find themselves also relying on the birth certificate. They can all march together to Washington DC with Philip Berg, hand in hand, waving their certificates.

The addition of the “-er” to these other groups is merited because the notion of Birthright Citizenship—automatically granted to all children born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens—is not grounded in the reality of the Constitution. And even though dual citizenship is now tolerated, the oath for US naturalized citizens specifically disallows allegiance to any other country.

[Lmo56]

When the US Supreme Court refers back to English Common Law in creating their decisions, we have English Common Law influence at National level.

Of course we do ...

The Founding Fathers did not abandon Common Law or English legislation entirely when the colonies revolted. They were lawyers trained in English Law. They just rejected some of the principles that they objected to ...

Case in point. If the Founding Fathers accepted British jurisprudence in its entirety, then they could have NEVER divorced themselves from the sovreign. For English subjects owed an entire perpetual allegiance to the sovreign, per the law.

Yet, they kept the provisions of English jurisprudence that they did like - such as providing for patent and copyright protection. In fact, many SCOTUS cases were decided on the basis of English Law.

[BP2]

First of all, the big difference between Obama and the Presidential examples you gave is that at NO TIME was Obama’s father ever a US Citizen.

And the same is true for the 15th President of the United States, James Buchanan whose father was born in Ireland and Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President of the United States whose father was also born in Ireland.

Second of all, with the examples you gave, you've giving just part of the story.
Let me clarify a couple of them for readers who may not know the truth and details surrounding Presidents James Buchanan (1857) and Chester Arthur (1881).

President Buchanan's father, James Buchanan Sr., immigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1783. This was a turbulent and transitional year for the US, as the Treaty of Paris (1783) ending the Revolutionary War was signed between the US and Great Britain. Colonists had the UNIQUE opportunity to choose to become United States citizens (or return to England to remain British subjects) and by virtue of the Treaty, and Great Britain recognized those former subjects as United States citizens. By 1784, the Massachusetts legislature began to substitute the phrase “Natural born subject” for “Natural born citizen.”

Before the Constitution was ratified, United States citizenship was conferred on citizens by the States. As the Constitution was being ratified, each State forfeited the power of naturalization to the Federal government. At that moment, a citizen of that State became a citizen of the United States under the ratified Constitution. No formal naturalization was needed.

The Constitution was ratified Pennsylvania on Dec. 11, 1787. By that time, the Buchanans were both citizens of Pennsylvania and therefore James Sr. was a citizen of the United States. As a result, when future-president James Buchanan Jr. was born in Pennsylvania on April 23, 1791, he was a “natural born citizen,” born on United States soil to two US citizen parents.

The rest of your examples have been thoroughly de-bunked in the Blogosphere, going so far as to expose President Chester Arthur's 1880 cover-up.

Going further, let me add a little more to the body of knowledge on Chester Arthur ...

Chester Arthur ran as the GOP Vice Presidential candidate with James Garfield in 1880. Garfield went on to be President, but served only eight months, dying on Sept. 19, 1881 because of complications from an assassination attempt 10 weeks prior.

Chester Arthur assumed the Presidency after taking the oath of office twice, like Obama. Just one month into his presidency, on Oct 19, 1881, he issued an executive order "to celebrate the Yorktown Centennial":

It is hereby ordered, That at the close of the ceremonies commemorative of the valor and success of our forefathers in their patriotic struggle for independence the British flag shall be saluted by the forces of the Army and Navy of the United States now at Yorktown. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy will give orders accordingly.

Arthur kept many personal secrets, too. One well-kept secret he had known since 1882 was that he was suffering from Bright's disease, a fatal kidney disease. This contributed to Arthur not winning his party's nomination in 1884, becoming the last incumbent President to submit his name for renomination and fail to obtain it.

About 18 months after Arthur's presidency ended in March 1885, he fell very ill on Oct. 1, 1886. On Nov. 16, by his order, nearly all of President Arthur's papers, personal and official, were burned. The next morning he suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage and never regained consciousness. He died the next day. It is believed that he destroyed incriminating personal paperwork to conceal his lies regarding his birth covered up during his campaign and presidency ... (some have speculated that Obama may have done the same in the days before Election Day 2008, when his grandmother Toots died in Hawaii).

Back in the Presidential Campaign of 1880, Arthur P. Hinman, an attorney hired by the Democratic party, investigated the rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a “Natural-born Citizen” of the US, and was thus ineligible for the vice-presidency.

However, Chester Arthur had assistance from the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper in 1880 — acting as the FactCheck.org of its day. An article “interviewing” Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations (BELOW) was published on August 13, 1880, barely two months before Election Day.

In that article, Chester Arthur defended his birthplace (as Obama and his cohorts do today). Similar to Obama, Chester Arthur’s father William was a British subject, fleeing British-ruled Ireland for Canada then to the US, naturalizing as a US Citizen in 1843. This would have made Chester Arthur, born in 1829, a British subject “at birth” even though he was born in Vermont.

Seemingly, Hinman’s investigation was following the disinformation, decoy and distraction of Arthur's place of birth, instead of focusing his investigation on Arthur's status as a British subject at birth.

[danamco]

The bottom line is that Section 301 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8USC/Section 1401) states that anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (meaning anyone other than a child of a foreign government’s representative with diplomatic immunity)is a person having US citizenship from the time of birth.

What is your point?

What has that to do with dual/triple citizenship??

Did you even learned anything from BP2 and Apuzzo, hmmm???

Seems they both are cleaning your clocks!!!

[Las Vegas Ron]

First of all, the big difference between Obama and the Presidential examples you gave is that at NO TIME was Obama’s father ever a US Citizen

Thanks BP2, as always, an interesting and informative post.

[patriot08]

JB Williams
Canada Free Press

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999

(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.

(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.

(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.

(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.

(Snip)
WHO WILL SAVE FREEDOM?
A brave few… This is how it was in the beginning, how it has always been and how it will be.

(Snip)
DR. ORLY TAITZ, Phil Berg and Gary Kreep, ALL OF WHOM HAVE MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP.

(Snip)
A PRECIOUS FEW, BUT THEY EXIST… and the walls are indeed closing in on Obama and his evil cabal. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FAIL TO GET BEHIND THESE BRAVE FEW WHO ARE SEEKING PEACEFUL REDRESS, ALL THE PEACEFUL OPTIONS WILL EVAPORATE AS IF THEY NEVER EXISTED. WE WILL RETURN TO A PRE-1776 AMERICA OVERNIGHT..

Do YOU fear Obama?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999

___________________________________

A precious few, indeed. Lets get behind those few brave patriots who are out there in the trenches every day working to prove Obama’s inelgibility:

Dr. Orly has put her life’s blood into this fight. SHE HAS MADE DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE A PERSONAL AMBITION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSTITUTION LEADERSHIP FROM COWARDLY REPUBLICANS AND THE SCOTUS.

Dr. Orly is the ONLY one out there in the trenches EVERY day hitting Obama on multiple fronts and trying to bring him down. It is reported that she is more than $8,000 in debt from using her own funds for expenses in her flights across the U.S for interviews, speeches, serving papers and meeting with officials.

She has even gone to Isreal and Russia to spread the message about Obama’s inelgibility!

She states the case expertly, including the bc and natural born citizen aspect, when not abused by the U.S. state-controlled media. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132880

Sure, Dr. Orly makes mistakes. We all do. But Dr. Orly is no dummy. How many of us could go to a foreign country, learn 5 languages, establish a successful dental practice, a successful real estate business AND pass the California state bar- one of the hardest in the U.S. to pass?
She may be a ‘mail order’ attorney and not a Harvard lawyer, but she IS an attorney with all the rights and privilages of a Harvard lawyer nevertheless!
The point is; she has the passion, the zeal, the courage of her convictions and the love of America and its freedoms (unlike many of our ‘great’ attorneys and ‘patriots’ who criticize her) that will not let her give up!
She is exhausted. She is nervous. She is frustrated. It is reported that she gets by on 4-5 hours of sleep per night, and her family is very worried about her health- as well as her safety.
She makes mistakes. But she will NOT give up. She will keep on until she gets it right.

Stop tearing her apart. The Obots on FR don’t need our help.
The obots are scared to death of this little lady and her determination. That’s why they come out in droves all over the net on forums, chat rooms and even the national news to attack and ridicule.

Even if Orly NEVER brings Obama to trial, she has almost single handly brought his ineligibility to world wide attention, caused him to spend MILLIONS on lawyers to keep his records hidden AND CAUSED THE MUZZIE TO SWEAT BULLETS!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcChG5pRTOE&feature=player_embedded

[Cicero]

They all three had their State Department records tampered with. But everything I have read suggests that the persons who did the tampering were all working for Obama and had prior connections to him.

What that suggests to me is that their primary purpose was to clean up Obama’s files, and to remove and destroy any evidence, such as Indonesian passport records, that would be inconvenient. The break-ins to McCain’s and Hillary’s records, therefore, were either efforts to cover up that purpose by pretending that all three were attacked equally, OR opportunistic attempts to find anything incriminating in their files and release it, or reserve it and use it for blackmail.

The fact that one of these agents was shot in DC just before he was called on to testify about the matter suggests—although it cannot be proven—that Obama took the same methods as Clinton did earlier to clean up after himself and remove inconvenient witnesses. A case of Chicagocide.

[bgill]

You can rest assured that had McCain won, the Left would be here misquoting and misrepresenting (as they are today) Vattel, Blackstone, etc. to get McCain removed as a "usurper"!

If only. Then we would gladly reach across the aisle to the RATdemons and kick McLame out and place Sarah at the helm. All would be right with the world.

[Faith]

Well done, BP2. I would never want to oppose you in a court of law. You do your homework well.

[BP2]

The bottom line is that Section 301 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8USC/Section 1401) ...

LOL.

The bottom line is that when After-Birthers have to revert to “the bottom line is ...” it's obvious they're running out of talking points.

Let me recap yours on this thread:

Post 42 - 14th Amendment
Post 58 - former Presidents with immigrant parents
Post 93 - Obama must be eligibility because he was sworn in
Post 218 - Obama ceased being a British subject in 1964
Post 235 - Wiki NBC and dual citizenship references
Post 248 - the old “jus sanguinis” rather vs “jus soli” argument
Post 251 - 14th Amendment (again)
Post 266 - 14th Amendment (once again)
Post 267 - former Presidents with immigrant parents (again)

Are you slow or just following a script?

[STARWISE]

Thorough and detailed, as always. Great
historical references. Thank you !

[jamese777]

LOL.

The bottom line is that when After-Birthers have to revert to “the bottom line is ...” it’s obvious they’re running out of talking points.

Let me recap yours on this thread:

Post 42 - 14th Amendment
Post 58 - former Presidents with immigrant parents
Post 93 - Obama must be eligibility because he was sworn in
Post 218 - Obama ceased being a British subject in 1964
Post 235 - Wiki NBC and dual citizenship references
Post 248 - the old “jus sanguinis” rather vs “jus soli” argument
Post 251 - 14th Amendment (again)
Post 266 - 14th Amendment (once again)
Post 267 - former Presidents with immigrant parents (again)

Are you slow or just following a script?

---

By jove, I think he’s finally got it! Yes, there is indeed a “script” and I’m following it, slowly but surely. The “script” is called “the laws of the land” from the 14th Amendment to the Immigration and Naturalization Act to one hundred years worth of US Supreme Court rulings to the State Department’s guidance documents on dual citizenship.
Congratulations BP2! I didn’t think that you were capable of reading for comprehension, but you have proven me wrong!

THE BOTTOM LINE for me is that Vice President Dick Cheney would NEVER have certified Barack Hussein Obama’s electoral votes if he was ineligible; the Republican Senators and Representatives would NEVER have allowed Obama’s eligibility to go unchallenged when it only took any TWO members of Congress (One Senator and One Representative) to challenge his eligibility and an investigation would have had to ensue; Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would NEVER have sworn in Barack Hussein Obama if he was ineligible to assume the presidency; and finally John McCain, Sarah Palin and the National Republican Party would have filed suit, entered as co-plaintiffs in existing lawsuits or at least filed Amicus Briefs in support of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility if he was truly an ineligible candidate.
When the state of Hawaii, through its Director of Health, its Registrar of Vital Records, its Republican Governor and its Republican Attorney General confirmed Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth in that state, all but the truest of true believers accepted their statements as facts.

[jamese777]

You’ve oversimplified. There were the same two kinds of citizenship before the 14th amendment too. The only difference is that fewer people were considered stateless or aliens after the 14th amendment was passed. It didn’t redefine natural born citizens ... and not all citizens at birth can be president.

---

Please name for me the type of citizen at birth who cannot be President and please provide a law or a US Supreme Court decision which backs up your assertion.

[Sherman Logan]

At the other extreme is citing US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898), for the proposition that a child born of Korean or Japanese parents (any nationality, I use these as examples because the practice is common for Koreans and Japanese), born on US soil while here on a "birth vacation" (this is done in order to give the child a chance at US education), then raised from birth to adulthood in Korea or Japan, is a "natural born US citizen" for the purpose of qualifying for the presidency. All that person needs to do to perfect the qualification is reside in the US for 14 years.

Your description of this case is a little misleading. Mr. Wong was born in this country to Chinese aliens, who at the time were ineligible to become citizens. He was raised in the USA and sued to determine his citizenship. The court decided he was a citizen, despite the objections of a dissenter who worried doing so would open the possibility of a "coolie" becoming president.

[jamese777]

Here are just a few examples of the scores of court decisions where the term “natural born citizen,” “born citizen” and “native born citizen” are used interchangeably. These examples come via Westlaw, the online legal research search engine:
“Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice,” 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

“DeTomaso v. McGinnis,” 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992) (equating “natural born citizen” with “native born citizen” for purposes of presidential eligibility):

DeTomaso is “eligible” to be President of the United States if he is “a natural born Citizen … [who has] attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Art. II § 1 cl. 5. A 35-year-old native does not have a property interest in the presidency.

“Diaz-Salazar v. INS,” 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

“Nwankpa v. Kissinger,” 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

“Liacakos v. Kennedy,” 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):

The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.

“Nyman v. Erickson,” 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):

Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.

“State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington,” 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920) (holding that there are two (and only two) paths to citizenship and that natural born citizenship depends upon location of birth):

According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States there are two methods by which a person may become a citizen: (a) By birth in the United States; and (b) by naturalization therein. A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. A naturalized citizen’s right to vote depends, not upon his place of birth, but on a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, declaring either him or his ancestor a naturalized citizen.

[mojitojoe]

Excellent post BP2.

[edge919]

Please name for me the type of citizen at birth who cannot be President and please provide a law or a US Supreme Court decision which backs up your assertion.

Wong Kim Ark acknowledged the definition of natural born citizen = born to citizen parents on native soil ... which would exclude Obama. These statutes are citizens at birth and would also fall outside the WKA definition:

301 (c)a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

[jamese777]

You are incorrect in your interpretations of the Wong Kim Ark decision.

Here’s the beginning of the syllabus for “US v Wong Kim Ark” from the US Supreme Court: “U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
No. 18
Argued March 5, 8, 1897
Decided March 28, 1898
169 U.S. 649
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

“All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

You conveniently omitted the most relevant part of Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401 “Nationals and US Citizens At Birth” of the US Code of Laws:
Ҥ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

None of the sub-sections that you have quoted apply since the state of Hawaii has confirmed that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu.
Every section of the law that you quoted pertains to persons born OUTSIDE of the United States.
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
http://www.hi5deposit.com/health/vital-records/obama.html

[Red Steel]

“All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

But when a person is also subjected to a foreign power where he gains their citizenship at birth noway that person can be a natural born citizen.

You conveniently omitted the most relevant part of Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401 “Nationals and US Citizens At Birth” of the US Code of Laws:

A citizen at birth may not be a natural born citizen. The statute you cite, natural born citizen is nowhere to be seen. No there there.

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

Gee, no natural born citizen statement here too. No no no...

[BP2]

THE BOTTOM LINE for me is that Vice President Dick Cheney would NEVER have certified Barack Hussein Obama’s electoral votes if he was ineligible

Well, let's evaluate your assumption about the certification of Barack Hussein Obama’s electoral votes.

Although I have immense respect for Dick Cheney, he is a politician. As a pivotal player in this Electoral Process, Cheney may have had motives to NOT intervene by openly questioning Obama's Eligibility.

Telling America that Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro has questionable Eligibility just 12 days before his Inauguration in 2009 — at the height of the MSM's slobbering lovefest for America's FIRST-EVER Black President — is something I don't even think Cheney had the cojones to do.

McCain clearly lost the vote. However, if you need more motive for Cheney's "action" in Certifying the Electoral Vote, you need look no further than the Bush Administration being more than happy to turn over the US Economy — over $10 Trillion in debt at the time — to Team Obama and the Democrats. A political game of "hot potato."

If you need even more motive, Obama and Cheney are cousins. Most people forget that factoid.

But again ... your operating assumption is that Cheney "certified Barack Hussein Obama’s electoral votes."

Have you looked at U.S. Code, Title 3, Chapter 1, § 15 lately? It deals with "Counting electoral votes in Congress."

The section is 809 words total. But perhaps some of the most important words are conceptually similar to Step 2 of the basic requirements for any contract: offer, consideration, acceptance.

Did Cheney allow for "consideration," or an opportunity for "objection," as required by US Code?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html

"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof ..."

If you go back and review the video of the 2009 electoral vote count (Youtube), at about the 27:00 minute mark, you'll see that Cheney CLEARLY did NOT called for any "objection" as required by US Code.

That said, Cheney was wearing a suspiciously jolly sh!t-eating grin. In light of the motives outlined above, the reason for Cheney's joviality (by Rovian design or otherwise) is anyone's guess ...

[Fred Nerks]

poisoned chalice

poi·soned chal·ice [ pòyz’nd chálliss ] (plural poi·soned chal·ic·es)

noun

Definition:

unenviable task or decision: a task or decision that will almost inevitably bring harm or unpopularity to the person who is forced to assume responsibility for it