The Somali has a birth certificate.

Those of you who are attempting to demonstrate Obama’s ineligibility either have no (or insufficient) knowledge of Constititional Law and should be pitied for whatever motivates your masquerade, or are skilfully concealing their qualification.

Those of you who are attempting to sustain Obama’s eligibility should leave this discussion to turn ever more in upon itself, cf an ingrowing toe-nail, because whatever common-sense or qualification you may have is being grossly abused by your concession of status to your opponents.

Those who would pull Obama down in whatever court have no grounds on which to found a sustainable case. That is the meaning of the Supreme Court of the United States’ rulings so far in this gross waste of the Judges’ time and of taxpayer’s dollars: there is no case to answer. I hope that the rulings of no case to answer are soon accompanied by rulings that the full costs be borne by the plaintiffs. Rulings of vexatious litigation would be difficult to sustain, since the various plaintiffs are unlikely to be proven as acting in concert. Contempt rulings would be sustainable, and really need to be handed down soon, “pour decourager les autres”, paraphrase permitted.

Now go seek some help…

That’s funny because I’m the most unbiased poster here. (You’d know that if you had bothered to read my posts) I don’t have an opinion one way or the other on these cases. I’ve said time and again that if Obama is eligible, then let him serve honorably. But if he’s ineligible, then we need to get rid of him immediately.

So if being reasonable = being a conspiracist, then I am guilty.

“In any case, I won’t respond to ad hominem.”

You just did…..hehehehehe.

In any case, I won’t respond to ad hominem.

One irony here is that Obama won his first election – to the Illinois Senate – by disqualifying his opponents from the ballot. In his case, it was a simple matter of examining the signatures on their nominating petitions. But he took this action ahead of the election — had he waited and then lost the election, he would not have been able to retroactively eliminate the winner by raising the same issue.

I think you recognize that, given the hurdles that face anyone running for President, its highly unlikely that anyone would get their party’s nomination if there were genuine reasons to question the qualifications. It is precisely because of that concern that McCain’s supporters obtained a Congressional resolution before he ran, essentially certifying that his Panama birth to US Citizen parents qualified him as “natural born”.

If I was the lawyer representing an opposing candidate, I certainly would do my best to get the issue settled before the party’s convention — even if it came down to initiating a lawsuit against the party, to restrain them from nominating an unqualified candidate.

I don’t think it would happen unless there was some case where there was a complex and very real question. As you recognize, the problem in this case is that they rest on kook theories. You would probably have to have a bona fide dispute over place of birth; or (more likely) of the citizenship status of the parents of someone born outside the US to get to the point where there would be a legitimate basis or need for a court determination.

“The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the Wrotnowski case…”

Interesting point, considering the you’re the only person (either pro-Obama or anti-Obama) who says this. This, of course, further proves that you are no attorney. BUT, you are indeed entitled to your (factually incorrect) opinions.

“…and the stay will be denied.”

Well, you have a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly on this one. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

“Wrotnowski is an appeal from a state court decision that rejected the lawsuit on grounds of lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction…”

This is too funny. In your haste to sound intelligent and authoritative, you forgot to research the facts. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the SOS has no authority to qualify candidates, which is why Chief Justice Rogers dismissed the case. ‘Standing’ was not an issue (while your lack of due diligence is…..hehehehe). Time for a reality check. (pun intended)

“…in its opinion the Conn. appellate court specifically refused to consider federal Constitutional issues, essentially because they lacked jurisdiction under Conn. law to weigh on anything other than state statutory provisions.”

You are hilarious. I feel sorry for you because I get the impression that you really think this is some sort of profound revelation when all you’ve done is state the obvious. I’m waiting for you to say that “all triangles have 3 sides” so I can watch you smile, sit back in your chair, and reflect on your keen intellect.

“Even if there was a proper jurisdictional basis, the stay would have to be denied because the Supreme Court does not have the ability to delay or interfere with the meeting of the electoral college…”

I don’t know where you get these (kooky) opinions. Like I said before, I’ve never heard this kind of commentary from anybody else, including the most pro-Obama people alive. Then again, maybe you’re just a genius who is miles ahead of the rest of us? I keep forgetting that you’re a celebrated constitutional scholar who can spot truths that no one else in the world (including those on your own side) can see. (Yeah, right…)

“And even if somehow the Court had the authority, since the lawsuit runs only against the Connecticut secretary of state, there is no jurisdiction over the secretaries of state in the other 49 states — so no way to enjoin or influence the electoral college meetings there.”

You’re like that guy William Hung. The above statement reminds me of when he was singing “She Bangs”. Not meant for comedy, but it’s totally hilarious. Totally.

“All this to pursue a very questionable and tenuous argument about “natural born citizen” that is entirely at odds with what every Constitutional scholar in the US believes…”

Umm…I think you mean you.

“…and is not supported by a single citation to binding legal authority in the form of a prior court decision.”

Nothing supports either side, Einstein. The Court has never defined the term. (Oops…sorry. I forgot that you already knew that since you hold such esteem in legal circles.)

“The primary argument of the petitioner is that the Supreme Court should OVERRULE legal precedent dating back to the 19th century.”

Now I’m laughing uncontrollably…hehehehe. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the matter, yet they established a precedent in the 19th century?? This is too good, Mr. Hung (and I’m talking William, not the other meaning).

C’mon, friend, just admit it. Admit that you are Mr. Reality, Mr. Speculation et al. Your writing styles are exactly the same, you make the exact same (humorous) arguments, and……….oh, wait a second. I forgot, it’s because you both know something that the rest of the world doesn’t, right? Of course it is. (You are too funny, my man)

You’re the first person I’ve run across who has gone wrong the other way on this question. The courts can and should rule an ineligible candidate off the ballot. The problem with the Obama Truth Lawsuits is that they are all kook, including, I’m sorry to say, Gail Lightfoot’s lawsuit against California S.O.S. Bowen.

If, hypothetically, the GOP were stupid enough to take up the dare of certain Freepers and nominate Arnold Schwarzenegger for POTUS, and assuming 50 state S.O.S’s let it by with a wink and a nod, (big assumptions) a lawsuit against his candidacy might look something like this:

1. Harm: Arnold Schwarzenegger is ineligible to be POTUS because he is a naturalized, not natural-born citizen, WHICH WE WILL DEMONSTRATE FROM HIS IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION PAPERS.

2. Injunctive relief: We ask the court to either remove Schwarzenegger from the ballot, or for Schwarzenegger to enter into a stipulation that his is a “placeholder” nomination, and that his electors will vote for some other candidate if they should win.

If you look at Berg’s lawsuit (quite a piece of work,and not in a good way) you notice that it is basically flinging poo and hoping some will stick. He offers not one shred of evidence to support his assertions. Notice in my hypothetical Schwarzenegger suit I mentioned providing evidence. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, Berg. He offers no record of visa applications, immigration or customs records from Kenya or the U.S., passenger manifests from airlines or ship lines, no sworn affidavits, no nothing to support his story, just rumor and speculation, despite having had many months to gather appropriate documentation. In my opinion, Berg is a mixture of publicity-hound, kook, charlatan, and scammer.

Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s lawsuits are even kookier. They assert that there is a distinction between “citizen by reason of birth” and “natural-born citizen” despite there being nothing to back their assertion in the Constitution, statute law, case law, or even court decision dicta, law review articles, U.S. Constitutional Law texts, or constitutional law courses. In other words, they’re pulling it out of their asses.

Even if there was a proper jurisdictional basis, the stay would have to be denied because the Supreme Court does not have the ability to delay or interfere with the meeting of the electoral college, which is Constitutionally mandated. The Constitution requires that electors from all states meet on the same day, on a date that Congress is required to set.

And even if somehow the Court had the authority, since the lawsuit runs only against the Connecticut secretary of state, there is no jurisdiction over the secretaries of state in the other 49 states — so no way to enjoin or influence the electoral college meetings there.

All this to pursue a very questionable and tenuous argument about “natural born citizen” that is entirely at odds with what every Constitutional scholar in the US believes, and is not supported by a single citation to binding legal authority in the form of a prior court decision. The primary argument of the petitioner is that the Supreme Court should OVERRULE legal precedent dating back to the 19th century.