And, if you find us here on FR “unsophisticated’ on the Constitution and constitutional law, how must the run of “experts” and pundits on the MSM seem to you? Like blithering idiots? Illiterates?
I get your point about Minor. To me, the fact that it was a mainly woman’s suffrage case and not a citizenship case makes me wonder why it was used in the GA case. Truthfully, I can’t see where SCOTUS has ever dealt with the NBC issue head-on.
At any rate, I don’t see any litigation aimed at removing Hussein moving forward. But the idea of knocking him off enough state ballots to hurt him in terms of electoral votes still has a possibility of catching on.
I get your point about Minor. To me, the fact that it was a mainly woman’s suffrage case and not a citizenship case makes me wonder why it was used in the GA case. Truthfully, I can’t see where SCOTUS has ever dealt with the NBC issue head-on.
At any rate, I don’t see any litigation aimed at removing Hussein moving forward. But the idea of knocking him off enough state ballots to hurt him in terms of electoral votes still has a possibility of catching on.
Well I have read through every post subsequent to my 1161 and yours is the only one that is really specific enough to respond to. Good job.
I shouldn't have started with a blast at the general sophistication on this kind of issue and apologize for doing so. But look, I have addressed this issue a number of times. Instead of living in the world of hoped for legal results, if we are going to address this problem through the legal system, it is much more productive to deal with a realistic appraisal of the situation.
The real bottom line is that if this case ever gets to the U S Supreme Court on facts that prove he was born inside the United States, he will be held eligible under Article II. I don't like the result any better than anyone else does and I have a fairly sophisticated way to deal with the situation but I don't have the resources to implement it yet.
No, the people on the other side are no better--they don't have a realistic understanding of the legal situation either. But they also don't know Zero as well as we do--they are really living in a dreamworld.
You are correct about Minor--it has no application in the Georgia case. The reason it gets cited is because people who are not real lawyers love the dicta which couples the term "natural born" with two citizen parents. Makes everyone feel better but doesn't help the argument to the judge who does know that it is dicta and is unhappy to be required to deal with lawyers who don't know what they are doing.
You are also correct, the Supreme Court of the United States has never dealt with the Natural Born Citizen issue. But you should also know that the issue has been on the table in the academic setting extensively in the period beginning in 1962. And in the earlier period, there was extensive discussion about how the rule would be applied and why--law review editors looked at these arguments and many of us are still around and remember the substance of the discussions.
So when we say that there is a pretty clear center of gravity in the Constitutional Bar about the outcome of these arguments, that view is not driven only by Liberal bias. I view myself as being pretty hard core and my views really haven't changed during the period.
In fact, you could lay the correct foundation with the right client to address the proposition that he is not eligible. If you could prove that he was not born in the US, or if you could put him in a situation where he had the burden of proof and he was not able to prove that he was born in the US, you would achieve very satisfactory results. You could not only kick him out but you could also overturn a number of his more egregious acts.
I don't think that is going to happen because unfortunately there is some legal record that indicates that there is a birth record for him in the United States (not in the state of Hawaii). Maybe it is fraudulent as the Hawaii record is fraudulent--I tend to doubt it.
However, there is still room in the legal process to put him in a position where he will need to tell people he is a fraud and explain why he is still defending the fraud--that we might be able to do with the system. We just need to be effective in our use of legal resources and our record so far does not look very good.
Remember, here, we are not excluding him from the ballot for electoral college votes yet--the case at hand is only about convention delegates. But to the extent we exclude a number of key states from sending Zero delegates to the convention, we have made some progress in opening up the record.