Comments on: ZOMG! Supreme Court Doesn’t Toss Idiotic Suits On First Day That It Could Have! They Must Have Merit, Then.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:31:05 +0000

Bart, what makes you silly (no scare quotes needed, as it is (1) true and (2) not a quote) is not your supposed respect for the Constitution, but your inability and/or unwillingness to distinguish it from every frivolous lawsuit purporting to invoke it. As Steverino rightly noted, there is no constitutional bar to dual nationals serving as President. I've argued in the past that there should be such a ban, but unlike you, apparently, I recognize the difference between "should be" and "is." As to what "the question" supposedly is or isn't, I'm afraid that you are the one who needs to quit making stuff up, read up first, and open your pie hole second. What you call "the question" is indeed the question in one of the cases that inspired this post, namely Donofrio, which met its long-overdue demise on Monday. The remaining cases, Berg being the leading one, focus on whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii.

By: Steverino

Steverino — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:54:22 +0000

Bart, it might surprise you to know that we take the Constitution seriously, too. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says someone with dual citizenship at birth isn’t a natural born citizen. And there’s never been any law to that effect. So, the issue you speak of doesn’t really exist.

By: Bart

Bart — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:02:06 +0000

The question is not whether O was born in Hawaii as much as whether he retained dual citizenship at the time of his birth. Quit making stuff up, you’re only clouding the issue with. Read up a little before opening that pie hole so wide…

By: Bart

Bart — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:58:15 +0000

“Man laughs at that which he does not understand believing his laughing to show superiority when all it really shows is his latent idiocy.”

Regardless of how “silly” you think the text of the Constitution is (as it relates to the prerequisites of US Presidential candidates) there are many Americans that still take it seriouisly and would like out politicians to do so as well.

If that makes me “silly”, then so be it.

By: Steverino

Steverino — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:01:40 +0000

I came over here for a breath of sanity. It’s sad and scary to see some conservatives react over this issue.

And the really sad thing is it won’t die. Ever. They’ll still be convinced Obama wasn’t born in Honolulu. They’ll just argue that the delay has given Obama’s (Ninja) operatives time to substitute a phony birth certificate for the real one in Hawaii’s records.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:51:33 +0000

You’re right, I generally lump the political question and nonjusticiability doctrines together.

By: Phelps

Phelps — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:32:08 +0000

There's another option; they can grant cert and then rule against the plaintiffs holding that qualifying candidates is a function of the legislative as the electors are a legislative body and apply the separation of powers, but that would be a massive break from Bush v Gore. Of course, we are talking wild theories. Phelps´s last blog post..In My World: New National Security Team

By: Alice H

Alice H — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:20:15 +0000

Your blogiversary, and you haven’t even made a post yet? You poor schmuck.

BTW, my blog URL has changed.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:34:50 +0000

Me too, though it bears noting that even if they do grant cert, that doesn't mean the substance of the case is going anywhere. I see the following possibilities, in descending order of likeliness:

SC denies cert.
SC takes the case, then rules against the plaintiffs for lack of standing
SC takes the case, then rules against the plaintiffs because the issue is nonjusticiable.
SC takes the case, then rules against the plaintiffs because the birth certificate we've already seen is prima facie evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen, and the plaintiffs have offered zero evidence to rebut it.
SC takes the case, and rules 5-4 in favor of the plaintiffs on a pseudo-originalist theory that Hawaii was not a state in 1788 and therefore, anyone born there is not a "natural born citizen" within the meaning intended by the framers.
Obama personally appears before the court, rips off the mask we all had assumed was his face, and reveals himself to be one of the "lizard people" that idiot in Minnesota voted for.
Any other outcome.

By: Phelps

Phelps — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:40:33 +0000

I am interested in the thought of them being right simply to see if I really could be literally blown out of my shoes by the SCOTUS granting cert to this. It would probably ruin a nice pair of shoes, though. Phelps´s last blog post..In My World: New National Security Team