Posted on 08/01/2024 10:00:00 AM PDT by Penelope Dreadful
I want you to imagine this scenario. It is 2008, and this guy, Little Bobby, is 20-years-old. Little Bobby goes on the internet, and he discovers a sovereign citizen website, where he gets told that he does not need a driver’s license, car tags or auto insurance. The website has all kinds of legal stuff on it, like blurbs from SCOTUS cases, tidbits from the Uniform Commercial Code, and excerpts from Black’s Law Dictionary and The Rules of Federal Civil Procedure.
Little Bobby falls for it hook, line and sinker. So, when Little Bobby gets pulled over by the police for having no vehicles tags, he pulls his three-ring binder of legal backup, and he argues with the cops about whether he is traveling or driving, and telling them that he does not need a driver’s license if he is only traveling. After 30 minutes of foolishness, the cops bust out his window, arrest him, and have his car towed.
At Court, Little Bobby goes through the whole spiel again, and a kindly Judge tells Little Bobby where he is wrong, and how the SCOTUS cases do not mean that states can not require driver’s licenses, tags or insurance. The Judge informs Little Bobby that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in state courts, and he informs Little Bobby that the state does indeed have jurisdiction over the matter. Little Bobby is given a fine. And, he has to go and get his car out of the tow yard, for several hundred dollars. He also has to get the window fixed.
Flash forward 16 years. Little Bobby is now 36-years-old and for last 16 years, he has been to court numerous times for fake tags, no driver’s license and no insurance. His car has been towed more times than he can remember, and he has had so many car windows replaced, that SafeLite AutoGlasss sends him a Christmas present each year. And remember, since he has no car insurance, he has to pay the full cost himself., He has filed appeals in state court, he has sued police officers and judges, and he has even filed several Federal lawsuits. None of these lawsuits have succeeded, and each has been thrown out of court on summary judgment.
But Little Bobby soldiers on! Little Bobby signs up at Free Republic, and periodically he makes posts about how no one needs a driver’s license, tags or auto insurance.
With that being said, what do you think constitutes the underlying issue? Is it a legal question, that needs to be discussed and analyzed? Or, is the issue that Little Bobby has mental health problems, and a personality disorder?
Personally, I am going to go with it being a mental health issue. Numerous courts have pointed out to Little Bobby that he is wrong on every point. They have patiently explained things to Little Bobby. The problem is that Little Bobby just will not, or can not, let go of his patently absurd legal theories. Is it Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? Is it Malignant Narcissism? Is it Sociopathy or Psychopathy? Is Little Bobby just plain stupid? Is Little Bobby a Cluster B Drama Queen, who just loves all the attention?
I think that these are the more pertinent questions to raise, as opposed to doing a deep dive into whatever court case(s) or excerpt from Black’s Law Dictionary or whatever, that Little Bobby had dredged up to support his position. Face facts - numerous courts have already informed Little Bobby that he is wrong. If he is not going to listen to them, or pay attention to all his failures, then it is highly unlikely that he is going to respond to anything anyone on Free Republic says. There is NEVER going to be a moment when Little Bobby says, “Oh, I get it now! I have been wrong! I do indeed need to get a Driver’s License!”
Further, if anyone does go down the Legal Rabbit Hole with him, it only serves to strengthen his delusion that he has a valid legal point - one worthy of argument. This probably make his mental illness worse. I think the best response is to say something like, “Little Bobby, you are wrong. You have not won a case in 16 years. Come back when you have won a case. For other interested parties, who might want to see where Little Bobby is incorrect, please see City of Tulsa vs. Little Bobby (and give a link).”
I think that response provides information for anyone who might be unsure of the legalities, while making Little Bobby have to confront his actual 16-year losing streak.
Now, some people might think that this hypothetical little tale is a slap at the NBC Birthers. You would be correct! NBC Birthers have a 16-year losing streak in court, and still they come on this website to peddle their ridiculous theories. Like Little Bobby, there is never going to be a moment when they say, “Oh, I get it now! I have been wrong! Wong Kim Ark DID define natural-born-citizenship!”
I think the best response is to say something like, “NBC Birthers, you are wrong. You have not won a case in 16 years. Come back when you have won a case. For other interested parties, who might want to see where the NBC Birthers are incorrect, please see:
https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/the-case-the-two-citizen-parent-birthers-just-hate/
roe v wade legalized abortion
The main problem with NBC morons is that they want to take the focus off Kamala and the dozens of very real reasons why she should not be elected and instead they try and turn the argument into a meaningless mass of nothing burgers.
That - and the fact that NBC kooks are racist.
It’s a congressional issue as I see it. The courts are not qualified. Congress is our sole legislative body.
I agree! I do not think that the Democrats could have picked a worse candidate, except maybe for Admiral Rachel Levine.
OK, which one of you is Little Bobby?
The only hope is clarifying this at the Constitutional level via an Amendment, but given the current polarized nature of the US populous that has less chance of happening than Q-Anon succeeding in flushing the child traffickers out of the Deep State.
Which is NOT and has nothing to do with the idiocy of the Sovereign citizen lunatic movement. Nancy Pelosi is to blame for “vetting” a Non-Natural Born Citizen- as defined clearly in the Federalist Papers. Written by the Founders who covered the qualifications in Article of the US Constitution ratified in 1788! from that time all the way to obywon- there has NEVER been anyone but a true US born to US parents (both of them) President. the kenyan-indonesian-being a purposeful exception, and illegal as hell.
The King of Thailand was born in Cambridge Massachusetts. He can run for Prez too? Really?
Personally I think there’s an excellent original it’s case that a child of diplomats is not a natural born _citizen_.
But there’s exactly a 0.00% chance that anything will ever be done about it, even if the courts agreed the argument. And anyway they don’t agree.
So this is a rabbit hole for people who want to lose an election on “principle.”
Nope, the Courts are exactly the right people to decide legal issues such as the definition of natural-born citizen. AND, Congress did pass the 14th Amendment, which established the right of natural-born citizenship for all persons born here, with a couple of exceptions.
Originalist. My auto correct never heard that word before!
The courts would not even agree to require a birth certificate for a presidential candidate. They have ruled that this is not an issue for the courts to decide.
“OK, which one of you is Little Bobby?”
LOL! I think they all are! Like the Lesbian Space Witches say in the Acolyte - “We are One! We are two! We are many!”
I think “subject to the jurisdiction” needs to be better defined, but that is a court case for another day. And whatever, it would not be defined retroactively.
Was the King of Thailand a citizen here at birth?
Arnold Schwarzenegger was born in Austria, he ran for and was elected Governor of California.
I’ve no doubt that if he ran for the White House, he would have no court interference of his eligibility.
None.
Just like Obama. 226 challenges. Not one was successful.
https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%2520CASE%2520LIST.pdf
Your opinion of lawyers is higher than mine. Let Congress determine the scope of legislation it passes. John Marshall be damned.
Well, the problem is that the term was NOT defined in the Constitution, and that is the issue in the Wong Kim Ark case. Which decided that parentage, unless of a couple of exemptions, did not matter.
You may agree with that, or you may disagree with that, but unless Wong Kim Ark is overturned, it is the law.
Churchill’s mother was American. Kennedy made him an honorary US citizen.
I suggest that if age and desire wasn’t a problem, Winston could have changed roles as Great Britain’s Prime Minister to US president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.