Bush judges throw out Obama birth certificate lawsuit...calls it frivolous

FlyLikeAnEagle

FlyLikeAnEagle

Well-Known Member
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals slapped down another birther lawsuit this week, referring to the plaintiff's argument as "somewhat difficult to distill." According to the decision:
Though it is somewhat difficult to distill Mr. Craig's arguments on appeal, he continues to assert that due to the lack of a legal definition for natural-born citizen, the existence of citizens who are naturally born, as understood by the Constitution's Framers, is no longer acknowledged. According to Mr. Craig, this has resulted in the "involuntary expatriation" of those whom he believes fall into this category of citizens. Mr. Craig argues that the definition is knowable, and he proffers a definition from a 1758 Swiss philosophical treatise.
​
The judges found:
Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig's claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such "right" (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.
​
The decision continues:
Thus, Mr. Craig's claim is sufficiently attenuated, insubstantial, and frivolous that the district court's dismissal of this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) was not in error.
​
The one bright light for Mr. Craig is that the court dismissed the suit "without prejudice," allowing Craig to file the case again.


It should be noted that two of the three judges on the panel were appointed to the federal bench by Republicans, Judge Jerome Holmes by George W. Bush, and Judge Paul Kelly by George H.W. Bush.
 
jrh72582

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
FlyLikeAnEagle said:
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals slapped down another birther lawsuit this week, referring to the plaintiff's argument as "somewhat difficult to distill." According to the decision:
Though it is somewhat difficult to distill Mr. Craig's arguments on appeal, he continues to assert that due to the lack of a legal definition for natural-born citizen, the existence of citizens who are naturally born, as understood by the Constitution's Framers, is no longer acknowledged. According to Mr. Craig, this has resulted in the "involuntary expatriation" of those whom he believes fall into this category of citizens. Mr. Craig argues that the definition is knowable, and he proffers a definition from a 1758 Swiss philosophical treatise.
​
The judges found:
Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig's claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such "right" (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.
​
The decision continues:
Thus, Mr. Craig's claim is sufficiently attenuated, insubstantial, and frivolous that the district court's dismissal of this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) was not in error.
​
The one bright light for Mr. Craig is that the court dismissed the suit "without prejudice," allowing Craig to file the case again.


It should be noted that two of the three judges on the panel were appointed to the federal bench by Republicans, Judge Jerome Holmes by George W. Bush, and Judge Paul Kelly by George H.W. Bush.
Click to expand...
It's too bad that, even in spite of EVERY court decision on this topic, the tin foilers keep coming back with this same old story. It's getting old and reeking of desperation. Obama is doing a LOT to be upset about - picking this one issue is desperate grappling.

And +rep for the information.
 
I

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
Who cares he is no worse then ANY of the other canidates
even if he should be running from lions in fucked up Kenya.
 
GreatwhiteNorth

GreatwhiteNorth

Global Moderator
Staff member
FlyLikeAnEagle said:
Is that how you feel about all black people or just the ones that become president?
Click to expand...
How did this go from a political topic to a race issue? I don't see anyone but you bringing this up. I did some homework & discovered that Kenya is a pretty diverse place, quite a few Italians live there, so I guess you don't have to be black to "run from lions in Kenya".
And speaking of black, our president is also half white - not that it gets recognized much, just doesn't sound as good saying our first Mulatto president.

"Mulatto denotes a person with one white parent and one black parent or a person who has both black ancestry and white ancestry like Barack Obama.[1] The term may be perceived as pejorative in some cultures and situations.[2] Its current usage varies greatly."
 
what... huh?

what... huh?

Active Member
If you read a little further down...

"Although still in use, in the last decade or so the term mulatto has fallen out of favor among some people and may be considered offensive by some in the United States. Today the preferred terms are generally bi-racial or multiracial."
 
GreatwhiteNorth

GreatwhiteNorth

Global Moderator
Staff member
Which "some people in the United States" would that be?

The term mulatto (mulato in Portuguese) does not carry a racist conotation and is used along other terms like moreno, light-moreno and dark-moreno (these focus more on the skin color, although they can refer to hair color alone, than on the ethnicity). Such terms are also used for other multiracial people in Brazil, and they are the popular terms for the pardo skin color used on the 2000 official census.

Oddly enough I have a smidge of Portuguese coursing through my veins so where does that leave us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top