I Have Not Been Fooled - (Note to Erickson, Breitbart, O'Reilly and Beck)

The Steady Drip ^ | February 16, 2010 | Michael J. Gaynor

[opentalk]

My circle of friends and professional colleagues includes many noteworthy persons; lawyers, scientists, doctors, business owners, etc. Many of them are my Mensa buddies. None of them are crazy and none of them are stupid. Some of them are smart enough to avoid politics altogether.

Those who do keep up with political issues agree that there is something really fishy about Obama’s history. So when we see the irrational “head in the sand” avoidance of the obvious lack of full disclosure we wonder what motivates people to NOT want to know the truth. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note to Erickson, Breitbart, O'Reilly and Beck: At a minimum, Obama has not been fully candid with the American people about his birth certificate. Giving him a pass for that is wrong. The bad news is that you blinked. The good news is that Abraham Lincoln was right:

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

--Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member. Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research.

also from link,comments.

"Obama released his Hawaiian birth certificate and had it verified by an independent organization and the results were posted online for everyone to see." Repeating this false propaganda over and over does not make it true. No matter what you might think there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.

Which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?

[jamese777]

The Natural born citizen requirement is in BOTH Article 2 Section 1, Clause 4 AND in Clause 5 of the US Constitution depending on whether one is using the original document or the amended document.
You see BP2, the correct answer is that in the Constitution as it applies to Barack Hussein Obama II, it is in Clause FOUR. The original Article 2 Section 1, Clause 3 addressing the operation of the Electors and the Electoral College was superceded and removed by the ratification of the 12th Amendment and therefore in the modern document what had been Clause 4 is now Clause 3 and what had been Clause 5 is now Clause 4.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has a footnote in their decision in Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana which addressed the plaintiffs’ incorrect reference to Clause 5.
Here’s a reference for the above from usconstitution.net
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html

As for “hanging my hat,” on Ankeny, that’s a bit of an overstatement. I have merely referenced it as the highest court thus far to rule specifically on Obama’s (and Senator McCain’s) eligibility as Natural Born. If another, higher court should rule on this issue, I’ll be happy to reference their decision as well, but thus far, there is no higher court than the Indiana Court of Appeals to render a decision on this issue, to the best of my knowledge.

[jamese777]

Here is the footnote in the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana which corrects the mistaken impression that the natural born citizen requirement is still in Clause 5 of the Constitution. The footnote can be found on page 10 of the Courts’ verdict.

9 The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

[Red Steel]

Judge Brown INCORRECTLY cites the US Constitution in his own Opinion!!!

It's NOT Clause 4 that contains the "Natural Born Citizen" provision — it's Clause 5!

That was a glaring mistake. It is indicative for the whole opinion drawing the incorrect conclusions most likely by design.

[Red Steel]

As for “hanging my hat,” on Ankeny, that’s a bit of an overstatement.

I don't thinks so. You regularly cite this tripe opinion and dictum from deportation case(s) irrelevant to the case.

I’ll be happy to reference their decision as well, but thus far, there is no higher court than the Indiana Court of Appeals to render a decision on this issue, to the best of my knowledge.

It may be for Indiana but no where else in the United States.

[jamese777]

That was a glaring mistake. It is indicative for the whole opinion drawing the incorrect conclusions most likely by design.

---

The “glaring mistake” was made by the plaintiffs who weren’t aware that the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804 had removed the original Clause 3 from the Constitution. When the 12th Amendment was ratified, Clause 4 became Clause 3 and Clause 5 became Clause 4.

[Red Steel]

I’m not taken your word for since I’ve correct you way too many times in the past.

[jamese777]

I’m not taken your word for since I’ve correct you way too many times in the past.

---

That’s fine, there’s no need for you to take my word for anything, simply use the link in post 102 and read for yourself.

I always enjoy your “correctons” they never fail to bring a smile to my face!

If both the original trial judge and the Court of Appeals had erred in citing a clause of the Constitution in their decisions that would have been grounds for an immediate appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. There has been no appeal to date and the Court of Appeals’ verdict was handed down last November.

[jamese777]

I don’t thinks so. You regularly cite this tripe opinion and dictum from deportation case(s) irrelevant to the case.

It may be for Indiana but no where else in the United States.

---

Indiana is one more state than has ruled Obama to be ineligible as not being natural born and there have been Obama eligibility lawsuits in about 30 different states.
In Indiana, both the Attorney General Greg Zoeller and the governor are Republicans. They defended Obama’s (and McCain’s) eligibilty
in this lawsuit. The Indiana Governor, Mitch Daniels was George W. Bush’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

[Red Steel]

From the Indiana court opinion that you love to cite, which says:

"...see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”)"

These Indiana judges concluded by using an INS deportation case to quote in their dismissal which was accepted as fact by the sitting circuit Judge Cudahy who was appointed by Jimmy Carter. It was irrelevant to his deportation case. The NBC statement probably originally came from some ill-informed paralegal who worked for the lawyer of the illegal alien. This cite is beyond weak it borders on silliness. Reasoning like this by this court is indicative of their whole opinion that will not stand up to any impartial scrutiny.

[BP2]

The Natural born citizen requirement is in BOTH Article 2 Section 1, Clause 4 AND in Clause 5 of the US Constitution depending on whether one is using the original document or the amended document.

In THE United States Constitution, the one ratified in 1789, Article 5 IS Article 5 — it has not been re-numbered. If your and Judge Brown's theory were true, then ALL of the Amendments number post the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) would be re-numbered as it was repealed by the 21st Amendment. LOL.

The ONLY time TODAY'S Article 5 was Article 4 was in a draft version between Sept 8-12, 1787, before final edits were made by the Committee of Style and Arrangement at the Constitutional Convention.

Judge Brown should know better, as he screws it up in his own footnote:

9) The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4.

Original US Constitution, page 2 (hi-res image)
Original US Constitution, page 2 (hi-res image)

In the amended United States Constitution, the “original” Article 5 IS “still” Article 5, regardless of any amendments AFFECTING the ORIGINAL clause as a result of the XIV or XVI Amendments.

I'm not aware of any reputable scholar, expert or politician who has RE-NUMBERED the clauses of the Constitution. It's not done that way, for cripes sake.

Congress doesn't RE-NUMBER the Constitutional clauses of Article II: http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html

Nor does even WIKI, which is a Liberal Revisionist hang-out stomping ground: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office

Stop apologizing for Judge Brown and his Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana Opinion.

He obviously is as clueless on the use of the Constitution as he is with his use of US v. Wong Kim Ark to define "natural born citizen" for the purposes of Presidential Eligibility.

[Red Steel]

In THE United States Constitution, the one ratified in 1789, Article 5 IS Article 5 — it has not been re-numbered.

I looked at my excellent copy of the US Constitution and I saw no Amendment that re-numbered it.

So Jammmmmeeeeee777 again, where did you find out that the US Constitution was re-numbered after ratification? Give us a hyperlink to where it clearly states to why the US Constitution was re-numbered. *Snicker*

[9YearLurker]

Agreed.

[jamese777]

First off, BOTH the original trial judge, ELAINE Brown (its a SHE not a HE) AND the Indiana Court of Appeals referenced Clause 4, not Clause 5 in their decisions AND Indiana Law references Clause 4 NOT Clause 5 as being a constitutional requirement for elections in Indiana. So if you want to blame someone, blame the entire state legislature of Indiana, not the judges and justices who stayed consistent with state law.

Amendments aren’t renumbered but clauses within the Constitution are renumbered when sections of the Constitution are rendered moot by Amendments.

Under the laws of the state of Indiana which were referenced in the Indiana Court of Appeals’ footnote #9 in the Ankeny decision, it clearly states the following, and I quote: “IC 3-8-1-6
President or Vice President
Sec. 6. (a) A candidate for the office of President or Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.”

So both the original trial judge and the Indiana Court of Appeals were being consistent with their own state law.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title3/ar8/ch1.html

My thanks to a person who sent me a private message pointing out the statuatory language in Indiana.

I conclude my input on this irrelevant piece of minutia in jurisprudence with the words of the 3 judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States[]natural-born citizens.”

[BP2]

I looked at my excellent copy of the US Constitution and I saw no Amendment that re-numbered it.

RS, if you have a document showing all of the current Amendments, you may want to take a big black marker to it and re-number all of the Amendments including and after the 18th Amendment (Prohibition), repealed by the 21st Amendment.

Oopsy ...

According to james777 and Judge Brown's “logic,” the 21st Amendment is now actually the 20th Amendment.

LOL.

[jamese777]

I looked at my excellent copy of the US Constitution and I saw no Amendment that re-numbered it.

So Jammmmmeeeeee777 again, where did you find out that the US Constitution was re-numbered after ratification? Give us a hyperlink to where it clearly states to why the US Constitution was re-numbered. *Snicker*

---

I think I’ll go with the precise wording of the law of the state of Indiana and the legal expertise of not one judge but four justices (the unanimous concurrence of the 3 judge Appeals Court panel), over the point of view of an anonymous screen name in cyberspace.
Under Indiana Law: “A candidate for the office of President or Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.”
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title3/ar8/ch1.html
Sorry to disappoint you.

[Red Steel]

"9 The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6."

The "but" in the court's opionion, 'note 9,' is a BIG so what? The US CONSTITUTION as it was written and its meaning and intent is the issue. Their silly note 9 is irrelevant. This Indiana court played word games and muddied it up because they knew their opinion is not worth the stool squat from a sow.

[BP2]

My thanks to a person who sent me a private message pointing out the statuatory language in Indiana.

The "statuatory language in Indiana" trumps the Federal Government's Constitution to allow re-numbering of Constitution clauses??! Bwa-ha-ha!

jamese777 — we had NO idea you were such a rabid and rebellious 10th Amendment supporter.

You're not one of those crazy Left-wing militia members, are you? LOL

[Red Steel]

Sorry to disappoint you but that note 9 is just stupid and irrelevant.

[jersey117]

I’m surprised Breitbart isn’t pursuing this.

[jamese777]

Sorry to disappoint you but that note 9 is just stupid and irrelevant.

---

You’re entitled to your opinion. However the law of the state of Indiana isn’t “stupid and irrelevant” and it says the exact same thing.