“Birther-In-Chief Orly Taitz Loses Again”

“Among other things, Taitz has had trouble proving that she has standing to pursue these cases, mainly because she doesn’t.” [Lowering the Bar]

19 Comments

  • Why doesn’t Obama just come out and show his various records? What has he got to hide?

  • Two possibilities:

    1. He dosen’t have any papers or they really would be bad for his case, or

    2. He is getting great traction with a reverse Streisand with the MSM associating real conservatives with birthers.

  • Government lawyers have a nice little mutual-admiration society.

    What has he got to hide?

    Since he’s protected by the fact that the constitution is routinely ignored, what does he have to gain?

  • – “Why doesn’t Obama just come out and show his various records?”

    Because he already has. This has been reported many times, but Snopes.com has a pretty good summary of why this argument is such nonsense.

    It’s not impossible that all of this evidence has been forged, it’s just really, really unlikely.

    There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be upset with Obama, on the left as well as the right, so it is odd that some people continue to be fixated on this made-up one. But I guess if people didn’t do odd things, I wouldn’t have anything to write about.

  • Pardon me, and I’m not a lawyer, but Obama was an American citizen at birth, either way, no? He might as well have been born in the middle of Red Square with Khrushchev’s wife assisting, and he still would inherit his citizenship from his mother.

    I understand the argument that “natural-born citizen” means you have to be born *in* the United States, but first, Obama’s mother was in the US during the third trimester, and not only would nobody let her on an airplane, but she would have to have been nuts to leave the US for Indonesia, and second, it is very well documented that McCain was born in Panama – the Canal Zone was a concession, not an incorporated territory, and not “part,” as such, of the US. If this argument is correct, Obama is qualified and McCain isn’t.

    Perhaps these arguments have been brought up before; sorry if I’m repeating things you’ve already heard.

  • Stuart, the Question regarding McCain and the Canal Zone was brought up in the 2000 election, and one theory–IIRC–was that being born in the Canal Zone (under U.S. control at the time) would have been similar to being born, say, at Wheelus AFB, Libya or Gitmo in Cuba; those were considered U.S. territory at the time of birth (which, by the way, overseas possessions and U.S. military bases overseas were not covered under the Constitution when it was written as the U.S. didn’t have any)… or, no different than pre-1912 (statehood) Arizona.
    [Otherwise, the first several Presidents of the U.S. would not have been eligible either as there was no United States of America.]

  • Bumper, I’d still like to know how this ended up as a “conservative” issue–one which a large majority of conservatives reject–when as I understood it, the so-called “birther” movement was started (or largely pushed) by those in the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.

    Lastly, for those who keep saying “so-and-so doesn’t have standing” to bring a court case on this issue….who DOES or WOULD have such standing to bring this up, besides a legal U.S. citizen? Just wondering….?

  • Melvin, what I’m saying is that the only way the argument that someone needs to have been born in the US to be President (not just to be a citizen at birth) could possibly apply is if there’s a difference between incorporated and unincorporated territory, qualifications-wise, because unincorporated territory is not a “part” of the US as such; it’s just real estate that the federal government happens to own (since I’m not a lawyer, please correct me on this point if that is not the case). And in that case, it would apply to McCain and not Obama.

    The issue of a major candidate being born in an organized territory – which the Canal Zone was not – has happened (Goldwater), and the Constitution specifically states that people who were citizens at the time of ratification would be eligible, so neither of those conditions apply.

    That all being said, of course, the whole argument is predicated on the assumption that a person born outside of the US to American parents is ineligible to be President, which is not true unless I’ve *really* missed something. All I’m saying is that the birthers would have disqualified their own guy if they had succeeded. And – wouldn’t an opposing candidate have standing?

  • Melvin H. Your argument regarding the early Presidents is not valid because the Constitution makes a specific provision for them, permitting a person to be President either if he is a natural born citizen
    “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”.

  • I could understand why someone would make this argument before the election. However, what is the purpose of continuing it after the election? Do you really believe that the Supreme Court will declare that the election of Obama was null and void? If so, then you are really living in a fantasy land.

  • “I understand the argument that “natural-born citizen” means you have to be born *in* the United States”

    This is incorrect. Being born in the US automatically qualifies you as a “natural born citizen,” regardless of parental citizenship. But one need not be born “in” the US to be a natural born citizen. Today, and at the time Obama was born, a child born to two US citizens abroad was a natural born citizen, but not a child born abroad to one US citizen and an alien (as defined by statute, no clue what originalist say about this situ). At the time McCain was born the statute didn’t include children of two US citizens born abroad, but that doesn’t necessarily matter as original meaning of the term may have included that population of children as well.

  • “This is incorrect.”

    Of course it is; read the third paragraph of my second comment. I’m just saying I understand the argument and intend to address it, not that I agree with it.

    BTW, what statute are you reading? This says the parent(s) simply have to have lived in the US for a period of time which Obama’s mother and both of McCain’s parents certainly all did, in order to acquire citizenship at birth. If there is some requirement other than acquiring citizenship at birth in order to be a “natural born citizen,” please enlighten me.

  • If there is some requirement other than acquiring citizenship at birth in order to be a “natural born citizen,” please enlighten me.

    There may be. Whether “natural born citizen” means “entitled to US citizenship from birth” or is to be construed more narrowly as requiring birth on US soil is a long-standing unsettled issue. It arose, but did not ripen, when George Romney ran for President in 1968 since he was born in Mexico to US citizen parents.

  • “This says the parent(s) simply have to have lived in the US for a period of time which Obama’s mother and both of McCain’s parents certainly all did, in order to acquire citizenship at birth”

    No, they didn’t. Under the statute, Obama’s mother had to have lived in the US for at least five years after the age of 14. She gave birth to him before her 19th birthday. Also, this statute doesn’t apply to McCain, because McCain was born in 1936.

  • Snopes is throwing a red herring – birthers aren’t claiming that the COLB is a forgery; they are claiming it is a meaningless document when used to prove natural citizenship.

  • Snopes is also known to be left-leaning (not just on this issue, several). Just sayin’.

  • For all of you birthers to really believe this foolishness you would have to believe that the whole country was in on it. That includes the rebublican party , the FBI, the Secret Service, & the Immigration & Naturalization Service are all in the plot to have him elected. If that is what you believe what does that say about your republican leaders especially Sarah Palin? The whole birther movement you’re making yourselves look so very stupid & uneducated.

  • Anthony J, you are right; however, this is mild compared to the 9/11 inside job conspiracy folks where they accuse the government to be complicit in the murder of almost 3K people. I find it interesting that the MSM did not make a big deal about the craziness of those folks. In fact, at times they gave sympathetic treatment to their bizarre theories. Could it be because they were on the left of the political spectrum?

  • Well Richard I have no idea. But I will say the MSM as you put it should not give any credence to any of this far leaning stupidity rather it be on the far left or far right. There is so much haterd in this country. People may not agree with his positions but to constantly call him a communist or a socialist is uttery ridiculous and juvenile. The Rush Lambaughs, Sean Hannitys, & Glen Becks care only about many listeners they have. If they are so much for America and the people why have they never run for any office. Get from behind the microphone and put your money where your mouth is!!!!!