The Glade 4.0

The document he has provided certainly appears sufficient. It will be enough for a judge to determine that.

People lose birth certificates all the time. It's not a huge deal to get them reissued, anyway.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

What bad prescedent has been set by his legal representatives? They have argued along the lines of long standing prescedent, and haven't invented anything for this case.

The case has been tossed because those suing can't show that they have been harmed by the election of Barak Obama. In order to sue, you need to have legitimate cause. This isn't new legal territory or uncharted waters. It's how the law is done. The fact of the matter is that Orly Taitz and her legion of conspiracy nuts don't have any grounds to bring a lawsuit.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The precedent that has been set is that nobody has the authority to challenge that Constitutional requirement. So it's in the Constitution, but lets say, hypothetically speaking, there is doubt as to whether the President's or even a running candidate's citizenship is legitimate. There's no way to legally challenge it because every case has been thrown due to lack of standing. What if somebody has forged documents stating they're 35 years old when they're actually only 33? Will nobody have the standing to challenge that either?

The idea that they can't show they have been harmed is ridiculous. We're talking about enforcing a Constitutional requirement. It's not okay to break Constitutional rules and not allow it to be challenged because nobody was directly hurt (although we've been doing it for years).

_________________
The Dude abides.

That isn't what has been set. In order to bring a civil action, you need to have cause. If you can't show you have been directly harmed, you can't bring a suit.

IN other words, I can't sue the Ford motor company for a faulty product unless I have been harmed by their faulty product. I can't sue McDonalds because of their burning hot coffee unless I have been burned by their coffee.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I never said anything about civil courts. And Ford isn't the government. This is the Constitution. How does this constitutional requirement get verified and enforced when the President's status is in question?

_________________
The Dude abides.

The President's status *isn't* in question, except by a bunch of loons that have no cause to challenge his status in court. He's shown his birth certificate, it's veracity has been upheld, he's shown his birth announcement - there is no question that he's a legitimate citizen of the US.

Just because the old man in the corner yells that the government has poisoned his pudding doesn't mean we have to send in the FBI. Claims that the President is not a US citizen are insane. The courts do not have to waste their time dealing with every crazy person that thinks JFK was killed by aliens, that 9-11 was an inside job, or that the moon landing was faked.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Two posts ago, I said hypothetically. You're dodging.

_________________
The Dude abides.

In all the hypotheticals you describe, there would need to be evidence of fraud such that it gave probable cause for a warrant or an arrest. That would be a criminal matter, and not a civil matter. There is no evidence of any fraud or crime here, and so it's not a criminal matter. As a civil matter, you need to have cause to sue.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Monte, I think your grasp of the legal system may be a bit shaky. Also, you seem to be incorrectly categorizing all civil actions under the heading of suing for damages.

_________________

Let's presume you're correct.

Who does have grounds?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Monty, grounds and standing are not the same thing. Obama's alwyers ahve been claiming that individual citizens don't have standing to bring a suit regarding his eligability (presumably it has to be a state that does).

Standing means the person has an interest in the matter. grounds is something entirely different; that's a reason to bring the complaint. For example, if your neigbor beats his wife, you can't sue him because you lack standing. All you can do is make a criminal complaint.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Fair enough. My argument still stands. They do not have standing to bring this suit to court, because they have not shown that they have been directly harmed by his election.

DFK - If someone has sufficient evidence to show a fraud, they should bring that evidence to the proper authorities.

These civil suits are more frivolous than the ones that conservatives gnash their teeth over all the time. It's just as frivolous as suits over the moon landing, income tax protest, and other silly crap that gets tossed as a matter of course.

So, I suppose that no one has standing to challenge his election is civil court. Or rather, no one has managed to show that they have standing. It's the right way to begin the defense. I think people need to seperate the ultimate argument from the one the lawyers begin with. Law works that way - you win how you can win, and this is the first step.

The President was born in Hawaii. Unless someone has real evidence (no, that doesn't include cooked-up birth certificates bribed out of a Kenyan official by Orly Taitz), this *should* get tossed out on it's ear. They continue to try and shop this case to any judge that will hear it, but it's fate will ultimately be the same.

My guess is that the conservatives behind this movement want to get the President into Discovery, in the hopes of finding another Monica Lewinski to hang around his neck.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Monte, you haven't addressed any of the arguements presented here.

You just keep ranting about conservatives, and birthers, and throwing strawmen about.

Who has the authority to mount a Constitutional challenge? It has never been defined, and it needs to be. What is your problem with due process of law?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I have addressed every point made. The only person who has the authority to make such a challenge is someone that has been directly affected.

For example, if the federal government has restricted my right to free speech, I sue them in court. If the court finds that I have standing, then my case proceeds, all the way up the chain if it gets that far.

These lawsuits have ended quickly because the people *have no standing to sue*. Also, because the lawsuit is absolutely *insane* on it's face. I don't understand why you are operating under the false impression that this case is somehow groundbreaking or exploring new legal waters.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Everyone has been directly affected because they must obey the laws that the President signs.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You would be able to mount a Constitutional challenge? Who would be directly affected? Anyone? If your answer is no, then you are making a default statement about the Constitutional law surrounding this issue.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

The American people have the authority one would believe. By your standards, if there was evidence that Obama or some other president wasn't a legit citizen, it still couldn't be brought to court. Do you understand? Has it been explained clearly to you? Do you realize what you are saying?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Are you talking to me or Monty, and could you please clarify your question? I can't understand what you're trying to ask.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm responding to Monte. Sorry.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Im in the same boat, what are you trying to ask?

The American people are not harmed by a person that won the election unless that person actually directly harms them as an individual. I'm sorry, but they just don't have standing to sue the President over his eligibility.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Wow.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Except that this is not true. All of us must follow laws signed by the President. If a law he signs impacts me, and he did not have authority to sign it, then I've been unlawfully restricted or affected by that law. That's direct harm to me as an individual and everyone else affected by it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That doesn't mean you have standing to bring the President to civil court over his place of birth, DE, and I think you know why.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Yes it does mean I have standing to do that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, you don't have standing. And if you brought such a lawsuit to court, it would get tossed just like Orly's suits have been tossed, for the same exact reason.

By the way, the last time this suit was tossed (which earned Taitz a 10,000 dollar fine for her inflammatory behaivor in court), the judge spelled out the why very clearly. The big one, however, is this - he said that her suit would force a remarkable shift in the burden of proof, since the plaintiff (and really, it seems everyone here) seems to think that Obama has the burden to prove his natural born status. He goes on to comment that any sixth grade civics student will tell you that the burden of proof does not rest with the accused.



Read that again - *no credible evidence*.

If the police arrested me, and had no credible evidence, I would not stand trial. The charges would be dropped. There is *no credible evidence* that the President was born anywhere other than Hawaii.

Why do these people deserve a platform? If there were credible evidence, maybe they would *have* a case, and we wouldn't be having some meaningless conversation about the people's right to question things like the eligibility of a president.

Does that make more sense? It's not that they don't have the right to challenge his eligibility in court, it's that their challenge is *entirely without merit*.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show