In order to be qualified to pass judgment about what is idiotic and what is not idiotic, it is incumbent upon one to not be an idiot oneself.
Well natural born would mean one is a US citizen without having to take out papers to become one. And since Obama’s mother was a citizen, Obama is too. Look at all the kids from Vietnam, Korea and WWII that had a US serviceman father and simply walked in. They didn’t take any papers out. From the second they are born they are citizens of the USA.
Also you have to consider the general public doesn’t elect the USA. It’s the electors that in reality vote. Since most (but not all) states don’t require the electors to vote the way of the plurality in a popular vote, they could vote for Oprah and SHE’D win regardless of not being on the ballot in any state
Thanks for being nonpartisan on this issue, Markxxx. I just want to make sure that’s appreciated.
Now, I’m aware that some/many/most states don’t require their electors to vote the way of the plurality, but just out of curiosity, do you have a cite for how many and which ones? I think it would be enlightening to see just how many states Oprah would have to win…
That’s just the thing: “natural born” does not necessarily mean that. No one knows what “natural born” means in the context of Article II, and no one will know until we have a Supreme Court decision on it.
No one who understands US citizenship law will dispute whether Obama is a citizen: he clearly is. Whether he meets the constitutional requirement is another story.
And just to be clear, I personally think that, should it come before the court, they would find that Obama clearly fits the standard, and the naysayers would finally have to quiet down.
Then it sounds to me like they should hear the case, just to get it over with. But how long would that take? I know no one can answer that, but is there a mechanism in the Supreme Court to expedite proceedings so that the inauguration can go on as planned?
Thanks for the info about 9-0 cases.
As a person who has spent his life among lawyers, I’d say, “Until one of them says, ‘Fuck this!’” and they decide that anyone who qualifies as a citizen, by ANY of the several definitions, some of which will run out as soon as some of our most superannuated citizens die, define them.
Anybody who pursues this is described as “unemployed” and is granted the respect accorded to any of our other unemployed citizens, ie: none. By that extended definition NOBODY who has run recently (less some fourth or twenty-fifth party candidates whose runs accounted as many votes as mine, ie: none) would be disqualified.
C’mon! The SCOTUS, though sometimes partisan, is not populated by IDIOTS!
Agreed. If this were the happen it would result in Washington being burned to the ground. Thankfully, since Obama’s mother was an American citizen, that will never happen. Some people are just too stupid to live, honestly.
They tend to avoid hearing any case where it isn’t really necessary for them to do so, and in this case it isn’t. The argument against Obama’s eligibility is so weak that I’m almost certain they’ll see this challenge as too trivial to bother with.
That’s probably what will happen, but there is the possibility that they could say “We’ll take it just so we can shut these loonballs up.” Of course, once they take it, then there’s always a danger that a majority of them would be loonballs too, and there goes Obama.
I can visualize millions of people streaming into Washington, and not for the inauguration. The national guard and local police would run out of ammunition. The carnage would be incredible. This country hasn’t known riots on such a scale. It’s frightening to think about. Of course, it would make the bloodthirsty right wingers very happy to see the bloodshed.
How do you set a stone building, such as, say, the United States Supreme Court building, on fire? Seems like it would be hard to do. How much do sledgehammers cost anyway?
Molotov cocktails through the windows would be a good start, presumably.
It is also incumbent upon posters to Great Debates to not hurl insults at other posters, even if not very cleverly disguised as rhetorical points.
[ /Modding ]
So who exactly does have standing to challenge Obama’s status as a natural born citizen? Only John McCain, or the RNC, or who?
That would be the government, wouldn’t it?
John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the RNC for sure. And voters definitely not.
Everything else is a case of first impression, I think. So probably also the third party candidates and their parties. And that’s about it. There’s probably some other far-fetched possibilities, like people who can show that their employment directly depends on their candidate winning or something.
Presumedly Hillary Clinton and John Edwards could make a case that if Barack Obama hadn’t been able to run for President, they would have had a strong chance of being nominated instead.
Then you start to get into problems of two other requirements of standing: causation and redressability (the ability for the court to redress the injury), which are both very murky areas of standing doctrine.
On redressability, if McCain sued for an injunction during the race, it is fairly clear that his prospective injury–losing the election–would be redressable and caused by the illegal action, because we know almost for certain that if Obama can’t win, McCain would. That’s not necessarily true for either Edwards or Clinton during the primary, and it certainly isn’t true after the primary is over (since at that point the court would have no power to make one of them the candidate, and who would become the candidate would be entirely speculative from the court’s perspective). Which, on second thought, makes me think that third parties might not have standing either. If their injury is losing the election, they would have to prove it wouldn’t have happened without Obama in the race.
Also, there’s some point at which the causation becomes too indirect. If Obama’s motorcade scratches my car, that probably doesn’t give me standing to challenge his presidential eligibility. Just where to draw that causation line is a difficult question. The problem is that standing doctrine is ill-suited for enforcing structural requirements of the Constitution. That’s why we get all these weird questions under it.
Why would McCain, Palin, and the RNC have any more standing than an average Joe at this point? They would not win the election or get Obama’s electors. They would just be in the same position as anyone else at this point.
I think even if somebody was found who had standing (I don’t anyone does at this point), the Court wouls rule this is a non-judiciable issue (like whether a state government is republican) and say it is ultimately Congress’s call.
Good point. After the election, I’m not sure they would have standing.
Not sure why political question would apply. The standard is pretty justiciable.
What a relief for whitey.
Since McCain was named in the complaint too, if they ruled that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, then McCain wouldn’t be a natural born citizen either. I guess.