Posted on 08/12/2009 9:20:30 AM PDT by Poparhoid
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=2917#more-2917
BTW,
Has anyone actually seen any kind of explanation of how Orly Taitz ended up on Tel Aviv, rather than London, which is where she claimed she was going to “authenticate” the kenya birth certificate she is touting? Am I mistaken as to her claim or did she not actually do what she said she was going to do. Obviously, she couldn’t have been in two places at one time and her interview on MSNBC originated in Israel, not England.
“Has anyone actually seen any kind of explanation of how Orly Taitz ended up on Tel Aviv, rather than London, which is where she claimed she was going to “authenticate” the kenya birth certificate she is touting?”
***************************
It seems that London was just a stopover on the way to Israel, then Moldova. Family reunion. Ironically, London is almost surely the location of the BOAC archives, which is where a serious birther would be looking:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2309830/posts?page=703#703
“This has all been part of the Court system for a very long time, it’s not something being cooked up in response to the challenges to Obama’s qualifications.”
Assuming you are correct. Then I would say it is time to fix this. That would be “change I could believe in.” What you describe is what I would call judicial cowardice.
So, you want an “activist” court that sees fit to interject itself into political matters? Because that is exactly what you would end up with. Sorry, but that part of justiciable question doctrine does not need to be changed, unless you are willing to cede power to the courts in a manner which is unprecedented.
The whole idea is that if there are no actual questions of “law” involved, then the courts shouldn’t be putting themselves in a position to act on something that is better left to the legislature and/or executive to solve. This has been the position of the Supreme Court for nearly as long as it has existed. The Court has routinely refused to hear such cases, whether brought on behalf of conservatives or liberals and for pretty good reason.
The main point I was trying to make in posting that in the first place was kind of an effort to deflect some of Orly Taitz’ comments about the judge’s decision. Or course, I kind of hard to take her seriously after seeing for myself that not only had the judge NOT had his order dismissing the case “sealed,” but in fact had posted his judgment online through the court’s website at his docket. Huge difference between “sealed” and “made public” and I don’t know how anyone with a modicum of intelligence couldn’t tell the difference, particularly a lawyer.
“So, you want an “activist” court that sees fit to interject itself into political matters? Because that is exactly what you would end up with. Sorry, but that part of justiciable question doctrine does not need to be changed, unless you are willing to cede power to the courts in a manner which is unprecedented.”
Having a court compel President Obama to release documents relevant to his “natural born” status is hardly “ceding” powers to a court. That is what these suits are all about. The nonsense about ANY citizen not having “standing” is assinine. Public figures, especially a POTUS, are subject to full public scrutiny. The legislative and now judicial branchs have failed to ensure his natural born status. A statement by a state official in Hawaii doesn’t cut it.
As others have said, over and over....Free the BC.
Are you a troll????
“So, you want an “activist” court that sees fit to interject itself into political matters? Because that is exactly what you would end up with. Sorry, but that part of justiciable question doctrine does not need to be changed, unless you are willing to cede power to the courts in a manner which is unprecedented.”
Having a court compel President Obama to release documents relevant to his “natural born” status is hardly “ceding” powers to a court. That is what these suits are all about. The nonsense about ANY citizen not having “standing” is assinine. Public figures, especially a POTUS, are subject to full public scrutiny. The legislative and now judicial branchs have failed to ensure his natural born status. A statement by a state official in Hawaii doesn’t cut it.
As others have said, over and over....Free the BC.
Are you a troll????
Cook has a possibly very good lawsuit... against Orly, for malpractice. Her actions cost him his job. If she did not advise him in advance of that possible consequence, then he really should be talking to a real lawyer about what kind of an action he can bring against her. (There are clear regulations that say that someone who has filed for conscientious objector status cannot get a security clearance — and Orly filed paperwork for Cook seeking an injunction to grant him that status — which meant it was a foregone conclusion that the security clearance would be lost.)
Well you're sorta right. But the primary failure is at the level of the Electoral College. The Electors have the power to, and could refuse someone they deem ineligible a place on the ballot, and refuse to certify their vote for an ineligible candidate. Then, the candidate can sue them (Definite standing there) and that would get it into court. They are, in fact, supposed to do that, but since this really hasn't ever come up before, and there are no processes outlined anywhere, they haven't seen fit to do that.
Then there is the issue of law. There is no dead certain definition of "Natural Born Citizen," for example. That is a state or federal issue. Someone, somewhere has to pass a law that a candidate would break by NOT presenting documentation of eligibility.
Then SCOTUS would have something they are constitutionally empowered to deal with, and could define "Natural Born Citizen," among other things. Me? I think BHO, Jr. would probably be found to be a citizen of the US. I also think that no way in this galaxy is he a "Natural Born Citizen" of the US.
Big deal. I have no one to sue. At the moment, there is no power on Earth to legally require the Great Preposter to show any document to anyone at any time, as his lawyers have expensively schooled Dr. Lawyer Taitz and quite a few others.
And yeah, the guy could be a troll. I ain't.
“Someone, somewhere has to pass a law that a candidate would break by NOT presenting documentation of eligibility.”
First...I know you are not a troll, and what you said makes sense. Now for a question. If a state, say my old home of Oklahoma, was to pass a law requiring that before anyone appears on a ballot there for POTUS, they have to prove “natural born” status. Would that be sufficient to trigger SCOTUS review. Or would that only happen if the legislation specifically describes a “natural born” citizen to be one born of parents that are both U.S. citizens at the child’s birth?
BTW - I believe the original U.S. Constitutional meaning of “Natural Born” is that the person is born to parents (both parents) that are U.S. Citizens. In that case, President Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and should not be POTUS.
Another Freeper did a computer search of the California court records and reports that, prior to these birth certificate cases, Orly has never represented anyone in any case in any court except herself and her husband. The times she represented herself, she was defending dental malpractice cases, most of which she lost.
It doesn’t look like she’s going to improve her batting average anytime soon.
The judge sealed his justification for dismissing the motions???
WTH? How often does that happen and how do you appeal something like that?
Thanks for the explanation! I should have read further before posting my last.
Since no one knows what "Natural Born Citizen" means yet, the state would have to demand all relevant documentation and the Electors of that state would then, as is their duty, make the determination.
If they then disqualified the candidate, and if the candidate disagreed with their findings, HE would bring suit, opening intrepretation of the state law's constitutionality as a SCOTUS issue. But we have to be careful what we wish for. The Sotomayor court might just find the notion of differing classes of citizenship, like you know, unconstitutional!
I believe the original U.S. Constitutional meaning of “Natural Born” is that the person is born to parents (both parents) that are U.S. Citizens. In that case, President Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and should not be POTUS.
Many of us this believe this. However, that doesn't make it law. The Constitution did not spell it out, and the courts have been vague over the years ... and amendments. It must be revisited ... but as we are finding out, that is no easy matter. I believe state legislatures must step up and make documentary evidence of eligibility a matter of state law.
“Many of us this believe this. However, that doesn’t make it law. The Constitution did not spell it out......”
I know I am preaching to the choir, but I think that original intent trumps all, unless specifically ammended. Those persons that try to spin “natural born” as unclear are being as obtuse as those that insisted the 2nd Ammendment was not an individual right. There is sufficient extant writings from the time of the Constitutions creation to fully understand what “natural born” means. President Obama may be “native born” but he is not “natural born” because his father was not a U.S. citizen; this is exactly why the founders put that line in the constitution. I’m NOT talking about you when I say this, but only a fool would argue otherwise, just like the fools that tryed to misread the 2nd Ammendment. It was based upon reasoned analysis of original intent that finally got the SCOTUS to rule “individual right” on the 2nd Ammendment.
PaultheMan: Since 2009-08-07
Unlike the 2d Amendment, there really isn't a whole lot of law on the point of "Natural Born", simply because it comes up rarely, if at all, and then only tangentially.
Sure, the intent of the founders is clear to a reasonable person, but if you remember your Dickens, "The Law is an ass!"
Illustrative mistake. Team Obama is desperate to conflate
The fact that no one can be certain of either has certainly weakened the Presidency and the country.
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.