Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 3, 2009 18:40:03 GMT -5
Are you referring to notorious anti-semite Andy Martin? There's a lot of shady people in this Birther business, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaLawya on Aug 3, 2009 19:13:34 GMT -5
I think the birther folks are calling Obama a "liar" which is clearly covered in Sticks et al v. Names. What? Not Sticks v. Stones? I think that Americans, who love their sports, get perturbed if they come to believe that the "rules of the game" are somehow being flauted. Or that the Refs are jobbing their team. So that's what's feeding some of the birther fervor/anger on an emotional level. Just a sense that the gatekeepers (media as "Refs") were so enamored of the image they wanted the US to elect and then project to the larger world -- youth! a minority AT LAST! possibly more "understanding" of Muslim world - that they forgot to check up and report on whether there was any "there, there" in his substance. To watch normally sober statesmen (Colin Powell) or cogent commentators talk about why they were giving late-stages endorsements to Obama because he had a "fine mind" and seemed to have a good "temperament" was a little lame. And a sad commentary that leaves one asking, "We as a country of 300 million people couldn't do BETTER than the likes of these FOUR?" (Disclaimer: I didn't vote for either of the major party options First time I felt I'd rather just 'throw my vote away' to one of the others on the ballot in hopes that enough such votes might signal the parties they could do better. And I know a lot who sat it out because they couldn't stand McCain.) Given Obama's paucity of accomplishment (no major legislation, no real record other than to advance himself up his own career elective ladder) the fact of his election is kind of like saying "I think I'll hire John Medical to be my surgeon because he got a fine MCAT score LAST WEEK." Where was the meaningful training and readiness before picking up a scalpel? Maybe in regional pockets there's a racist animus going on but among the people I've encountered who harbor doubts, and that includes some who voted for Obama after throwing in the towel on what the GOP had become through 8 years of Bush/Cheney, it's more an uneasy sense that we elected someone on "hope" and not on "known track record" and that the DC entrenchment (both parties) has become toxic ... TARP was proposed by Bush, after all. So claims advanced that he doesn't meet even the minimum basics for office prey on that feeling that the media served as his cheerleaders and not his probers. Plus there's the climate of fear from the economic crash, job losses, and the pace of change as many see D.C. seem to spin totally out of control with the unrestrained spending, passing bills without bothering to even read them, gobbling up entire industries to nationalize/socialize them. Unhappy camper numbers are growing if the polls are right. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaLawya on Aug 3, 2009 19:15:45 GMT -5
Are you referring to notorious anti-semite Andy Martin? There's a lot of shady people in this Birther business, eh? No, the suit in Hawaii was by a candidate and that's why it didn't run aground on standing (lack of an individualized and unique "harm"). Either a third party Pres or Vice Presidential sort. Martin is a nut job who bills himself as sometimes a reporter and sometimes a politician. He sued the GOP in Florida for blocking a bid for office down there. I think he's mostly run as a Democrat around Chicago ... AND, his pet theory seems to be that Obama's real father is Frank Marshall Davis (helloooooo?) who was apparently a Communist. He thinks the nude photos of Obama's mother were shutterbugged by ol' Frank. Strange stuff. His lawsuit was purely for the birth certificate claiming he had a right as a member of the press, needing a document of historical significant. And it got thrown out, citing Hawaii's privacy laws. |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 3, 2009 19:45:38 GMT -5
EXPLAIN what you mean and how you understand electors to be chosen these days. and (2) Congress with regard to reviewing the electors' choice. Here are my EXPLANATIONSAs I am sure you are aware, state legislatures can pick the method in which the electors representing their state are chosen. Currently all states mandate that the electors are chosen through the electoral process on the second Tuesday in November, which we call "election day." Two states, Nebraska and Maine, elect their electors proportionally. The rest use a winner takes all system. If you have a problem with that system, then your proper remedy is through the ballot box not through the courts. This is a dispute that is political in nature, and thus not proper for judicial review. Interesting fact, I don't care. This is the essence of a political conflict. If judicial review was proper based on issues with whether the rules of order were complied with the courts would be flooded with suits by members of Congress. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaLawya on Aug 4, 2009 7:05:59 GMT -5
EXPLAIN what you mean and how you understand electors to be chosen these days. That's good in theory. Interesting video this year; Cheney as presiding officer skips over the scripted part that requires calling out for objections. Here are my EXPLANATIONSAs I am sure you are aware, state legislatures can pick the method in which the electors representing their state are chosen. Currently all states mandate that the electors are chosen through the electoral process on the second Tuesday in November, which we call "election day." Two states, Nebraska and Maine, elect their electors proportionally. The rest use a winner takes all system. If you have a problem with that system, then your proper remedy is through the ballot box not through the courts. This is a dispute that is political in nature, and thus not proper for judicial review. Interesting fact, I don't care. This is the essence of a political conflict. If judicial review was proper based on issues with whether the rules of order were complied with the courts would be flooded with suits by members of Congress. Interesting fact about the electors and proportionality and how you "think" they are chosen. I don't care. It's not the core issue. In reality, the electors are brought forward by the parties and the process is so "overlooked" with party "hacks" being named and then carried forward in perpetuam that it was discovered this past election cycle that one elector on the 2008 California ballot had died a number of years ago, and another had moved such as to be in absentia. I don't know what kind of substitutions were made (after the General Election popular vote) such as to find the full Democratic electoral voting strength out of the Golden State being able to cast their ballots on the uniform date that the Electors meet in their respective state capitols. Eligibiiity of the candidates for whom they cast their electoral vote is the "issue" and, indeed, if you go sleuthing into the matter further you will find that in some states if electors do NOT cast their ballot for the party nominee / candidate for whom they were essentially "pledged" on the general election ballot for POTUS, they can face penalties. This means that any late-discovered information which would disqualify as ineligible the person for whom they were pledged places the electors in a dilemma. Do they challenge? Do they abstain? Do they face a penalty as a practical matter for having done either or both? The solution is therefore to look further "upstream" in the process to assure minimum qualifications are met. And to make the SOS offices more than mere "rubber stamping operations" when it comes to the highest office, just as they act in a more pro-active capacity for the "lesser candidates" whom they must clear. TWO ISSUES POSED BY THE SPATE OF SUITS: Definition/Interpretation. There is an eligibility requirement for POTUS written in the Constitution. Its precise definition via intepretation is the business of the courts (which seems to have been the "point" of some of the lawsuits). Problems of "standing" have found ordinary voters foreclosed from seeking redress in federal court because they cannot allege a unique/specific harm but rather, suffer only the generalized "harm" visited upon all voters in having (theoretically) one of their possible "choices" not qualified Constitutionally for the office he seeks. Enforcement. It is in the realm of assuring that the minimum eligibility threshold is met where the "political question" might arise insofar as the Constitution describes the Electors' role and the Congress' role in confirming E.C. votes with a carve-out for how objections can be raised. After Justin Riggs at Your Fellow Citizen started down the path of inquiring with the parties and the states' SOS offices and elsewhere, what emerged was a patchwork quilt (as might be expected) of state laws about qualification to be on a ballot, but ultimately, for POTUS, there was a finding that the final two major parties' nominees and indeed the minor parties' nominees all had been "qualified" via sworn affirmations from their convention chairs and/or party chairmen. saveourrights.wikia.com/wiki/Vetting_Candidateswww.yourfellowcitizen.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-07%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=50There was a "strong form" affirmation required in Hawaii (explicit invocation of Article II) while the other 49 states had variants of what might be called "weak form" affirmations (general wording to the effect that the 'above-named' had emerged as the legitimate candidate of the party). Even going back to the primary electoral processes preceding the party conventions, when the candidates must execute forms themselves and make their own witnessed/notarized attestations, there are variants of "strong" and "weak" on the forms used. Arizona for example has the "strong" form which specifically enumerates the multi-prong Article II criteria for POTUS while others have a "weaker" form stating in general terms that the candidate finds himself eligible under the Constitution. It has been the discovery that the political parties as "gatekeepers" of eligibility criteria aren't demanding tangible proofs from their candidates these days, and that the SOS offices around the country have placed themselves in wholesale reliance upon the political parties to do the screening, that has been something of a "surprise" for many. Thus, there have been legislative initiatives in the states to step into that breech and assure that the laws are tightened up, with demands for not mere self-serving swearings by POTUS candidates filing in the primaries but "harder evidence" as proofs of that to which they swear. If McCain had been forced to attach a certified copy of his own long-form birth certificate, he would not have been able to carry forward with the charade that he had been born in a military hospital and on the military base of the Canal Zone in a blatant attempt to present himself as somehow being "under sole jurisdiction" of the U.S. territorially. (Not that even the Zone "proper" met that test in 1936 anyway, as the research by Professor Chin showed even at a time that he was operating under the false information thrown off by McCain: www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/chin.htm ) From the time McCain declared and through late June 2008 when Fred Hollander unearthed the actual certificate disproving McCain's false claim, the candidate was spewing false information. It was only in spring 2008 that some curious citizen "soul" did some checking and discovered the base hospital wasn't built until 1941, some 5 years later than McCain's birth, and the "hunt" was on to obtain documents that would delve into the truth. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Aug 4, 2009 9:22:39 GMT -5
All of this nonsense begs the question why we should even have the natural born clause today.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 4, 2009 9:31:39 GMT -5
While the "natural born" clause may be an anachronism today, it is still a Constitutional requirement. I, for one, am all for its elimination provided the appropriate amendment can be written and ratified. I do believe a significant residency requirement should be in place.
That said, we should be very careful when we start talking about dismantling constitutionakl provisions because they seem out of date. Our Framers knew what they were doing.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 4, 2009 10:08:30 GMT -5
All of this nonsense begs the question why we should even have the natural born clause today. Before California collapsed, the smart money was that Ah-NOLD was going to lead a push to have it retired so he could run and win. I'd favor the elimination of the natural born clause, but to replace it with a requirement that one be a US citizen for at least ten years. Seems a fair compromise to ensure that someone has been vested in the country for a fair amount of time. |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 4, 2009 10:14:47 GMT -5
I'm not going to quote it, but your response was completely non-responsive to my political question, standing, and rule 11 critiques. The fact that political parties play a role in naming electors and making attestations of qualifications makes the legislature and electors execution of their job no less a political question. If you want to challenge the state secretary of state's determination, you have a generalized grievance that is not justiciable.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 4, 2009 10:48:41 GMT -5
I have completely lost track of what this thread was about. Can we all just agree that Barack Obama is an alien cockroach from outer space living inside a human shell and be done with it? Thanks. (I don't have too much of a problem with eliminating the natural born clause. Some of Rome's greatest late-period emperors were not actually Roman. Of course, we all know how that ended eventually.  Seriously though, I think it's worth consideration, but 10 years of citizenship seems to me like WAY too light of a standard.) |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 4, 2009 11:30:47 GMT -5
I have completely lost track of what this thread was about. I think that was HoyaLawya's intention. If you start wading into the legal weeds, you can obscure the fact that there's simply no evidence Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and plenty of evidence that he was. I've been following this issue since the Democratic primaries (the PUMAs in particular are fascinating in a "can't look away" kind of way), and it's entirely clear that most conspiracy theories about the president are more subtle ways of saying "OMG, scary black man". [Boz prophylactic: I wrote "conspiracy theories", not "criticisms"] All birthers aren't racists, but they've certainly picked up a racist set of arguments without really thinking things through. All this legalese and goalpost shifting (quick poll: who ever heard of a "vault copy" of a birth certificate before all this?) is just cover for otherizing Obama. This is why it doesn't matter to adherents if the theory is true; the appropriate signals are being sent. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 4, 2009 11:45:36 GMT -5
I have completely lost track of what this thread was about. I think that was HoyaLawya's intention. If you start wading into the legal weeds, you can obscure the fact that there's simply no evidence Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and plenty of evidence that he was. I've been following this issue since the Democratic primaries (the PUMAs in particular are fascinating in a "can't look away" kind of way), and it's entirely clear that most conspiracy theories about the president are more subtle ways of saying "OMG, scary black man". [Boz prophylactic: I wrote "conspiracy theories", not "criticisms"] All birthers aren't racists, but they've certainly picked up a racist set of arguments without really thinking things through. All this legalese and goalpost shifting (quick poll: who ever heard of a "vault copy" of a birth certificate before all this?) is just cover for otherizing Obama. This is why it doesn't matter to adherents if the theory is true; the appropriate signals are being sent. The problem I have with the birthers is that I really think that Obama's been doing a lousy job. And almost all of the birthers - who loathe Obama - all probably agree with me, especially as they keep on moving to increasingly convoluted arguments. But when birthers throw up their crud, people focus more on that (Dobbs is a perfect example, who's smart enough to realize that controversy sells) and not on job performance. I'm not sold on the racism of the "other"ization of Obama - politics is just very nasty (remember allegations that Hillary had Vince Foster killed? Everybody circulates horrid rumors, and Obama just didn't suffer this because of his race. |
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 4, 2009 11:59:17 GMT -5
While the "natural born" clause may be an anachronism today, it is still a Constitutional requirement. I, for one, am all for its elimination provided the appropriate amendment can be written and ratified. I do believe a significant residency requirement should be in place. That said, we should be very careful when we start talking about dismantling constitutionakl provisions because they seem out of date. Our Framers knew what they were doing. Not everything the Framers devised was infallible. See, I dunno, the three-fifths clause. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 4, 2009 12:07:14 GMT -5
A couple of episodes to consider in the context of the right's attempts to otherize Obama:
1. Prominent treatment on conservative websites of the unfortunate New Yorker cartoon of Obama.
2. Prominent display on conservative websites of Obama in African costume/head gear
3. Refusal to loudly condemn the birther movement
4. Palin's repeated remarks that "Obama is not like you and me" (most folks knew what that meant)
5. Palin's repeated references to Obama as a socialist/terrorist
6. Sworn in on the Holy Quran rumor
7. Obama schooled at Indonesian "madrassa" motif
8. Prominent display of Obama allegedly staring at white woman's butt and calling it a controversy.
As I have said, it is hard to call some of these incidents, save the birthers, racist, but the collection of these and other episodes raises doubts about motives/beliefs on the right.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 4, 2009 12:11:41 GMT -5
A couple of episodes to consider in the context of the right's attempts to otherize Obama: 1. Prominent treatment on conservative websites of the unfortunate New Yorker cartoon of Obama. 2. Prominent display on conservative websites of Obama in African costume/head gear 3. Refusal to loudly condemn the birther movement 4. Palin's repeated remarks that "Obama is not like you and me" (most folks knew what that meant) 5. Palin's repeated references to Obama as a socialist/terrorist 6. Sworn in on the Holy Quran rumor 7. Obama schooled at Indonesian "madrassa" motif 8. Prominent display of Obama allegedly staring at white woman's butt and calling it a controversy. As I have said, it is hard to call some of these incidents, save the birthers, racist, but the collection of these and other episodes raises doubts about motives/beliefs on the right. Half of these were also done by the Hillary camp. Really, does your one note ever get old? |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 4, 2009 12:19:35 GMT -5
Half of these were also done by the Hillary camp. Really, does your one note ever get old? I never said that Hillary's camp was immune from this unfortunate brand of politics. They paid a serious price for it in my estimation. That issue, however, has no bearing on conservative politics and the othering of President Obama - the subject of my post. I would think you could do better than an "other people do it too" defense. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 4, 2009 13:22:32 GMT -5
A couple of episodes to consider in the context of the right's attempts to otherize Obama: 1. Prominent treatment on conservative websites of the unfortunate New Yorker cartoon of Obama. This cartoon was depicted on all types of news sites. The difference is that the conservative Web sites showed it and argued against the fact that it was racist. We have had this conversation before, but in the context of the news of the day, it is very reasonable that this was not racist....unless you were looking for racism. Again, I can name multiple mainstream Web sites and network news organizations that used this photo. I know this is your favorite little hobby horse, but the facts are that most Republican elected officials who have spoken about this have denounced it. Others choose to ignore it, which is what you do with crazy people (and I'm beginning to think it's what I should have done). Again, it's racism if you're looking for it. OBAMA, not the Republicans, was the one who said "he's got a funny name." Palin is the ultimate populist. She was painting Obama as an elitist. But you go ahead and see that racism there. It's what you do. She never called him a terrorist, and you damn well know it. She did call him a socialist. It's not exactly an idea that's out of the mainstream these days. Show me one - ONE - legitimate media source that reported this. ONE. You can't do it. You know why? Because no one did, except possibly to point out that it was a ridiculous lie. It was some loser's anonymous e-mail, but you go ahead and believe that it was the RNC chairman. This rumor was almost certainly started by the Clinton campaign. It got one mention on Fox News and it was quickly debunked. One or two outliers may have, but none of the conservative media I follow ran with this rumor at all. Are you F***ing serious? Or are you completely off the rails? I think I am beginning to see someone who has just as many lunatic ideas as birthers here. A. It was not a white woman. B. People showed it because it was -- see if you can follow me on this -- FUNNY! There was nothing "controversial" about it at all....unless you are a lunatic. Do you even realize how ridiculous some of this stuff is? Ye gods, man. Get a grip, because you're losing hold of rationality. Imagining stuff in your head is not "bravely fighting against political correctness." It's just imagining stuff in your head. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 4, 2009 14:18:04 GMT -5
A couple of episodes to consider in the context of the right's attempts to otherize Obama: 1. Prominent treatment on conservative websites of the unfortunate New Yorker cartoon of Obama. This cartoon was depicted on all types of news sites. The difference is that the conservative Web sites showed it and argued against the fact that it was racist. We have had this conversation before, but in the context of the news of the day, it is very reasonable that this was not racist....unless you were looking for racism. Again, I can name multiple mainstream Web sites and network news organizations that used this photo. I know this is your favorite little hobby horse, but the facts are that most Republican elected officials who have spoken about this have denounced it. Others choose to ignore it, which is what you do with crazy people (and I'm beginning to think it's what I should have done). Again, it's racism if you're looking for it. OBAMA, not the Republicans, was the one who said "he's got a funny name." Palin is the ultimate populist. She was painting Obama as an elitist. But you go ahead and see that racism there. It's what you do. She never called him a terrorist, and you damn well know it. She did call him a socialist. It's not exactly an idea that's out of the mainstream these days. Show me one - ONE - legitimate media source that reported this. ONE. You can't do it. You know why? Because no one did, except possibly to point out that it was a ridiculous lie. It was some loser's anonymous e-mail, but you go ahead and believe that it was the RNC chairman. This rumor was almost certainly started by the Clinton campaign. It got one mention on Fox News and it was quickly debunked. One or two outliers may have, but none of the conservative media I follow ran with this rumor at all. Are you F***ing serious? Or are you completely off the rails? I think I am beginning to see someone who has just as many lunatic ideas as birthers here. A. It was not a white woman. B. People showed it because it was -- see if you can follow me on this -- FUNNY! There was nothing "controversial" about it at all....unless you are a lunatic. Do you even realize how ridiculous some of this stuff is? Ye gods, man. Get a grip, because you're losing hold of rationality. Imagining stuff in your head is not "bravely fighting against political correctness." It's just imagining stuff in your head. I won't engage on many of these points because my post was most clearly about "othering" rather than racism. Indeed, I most clearly wrote that it would be hard to call any of the things on my list, except the birthers, racist. Apart from that, I can offer only minor factual quibbles/clean-ups about the arguments that you made. I have already let my feelings known that "others did it too" is not a defense. 1. The Palin line that Obama was "not like you and me" was used to introduce the suggestion that Obama sees the country as imperfect enough to befriend terrorists. “This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America. We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. If we can be that beacon of light and hope for others who seek freedom and democracy and can live in a country that would allow intolerance in the equal rights that again our military men and women fight for and die for for all of us. Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country?” (http://tinyurl.com/lbkd93) The clear implication is that Obama is a friend of those who wish to destroy America and not an American who buys into freedom/democracy. The AP had this to say about similar comments, the comments were “unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.” If that is not othering, what is? 2. Fair enough, Sarah Palin did not say that Obama is a terrorist. He only "palled around" with them and launched his political career in their living rooms. She also said that Obama was "associated with" terrorist groups.* The point was made so forcefully that certain crowd participants decided to call Obama a terrorist at Sarah Palin's rallies. McCain did not exactly back away from the "Obama as terrorist" characterization at least initially but, rather, made excuses for it (http://tinyurl.com/maav22). It is a semantic point, but I should have been more clear. In any event, how is it not an effort to other Obama? 3. As to the Quran rumor, the point is not that the RNC put it out or anything of the sort but rather that these beliefs have taken root, to some extent, along with others on the political right. Admittedly, my point is made better by the "Obama is a muslim" rumormongering, which more than 15% of conservatives believed at one point. One poll from March 2008 puts the number at 13% of registered voters regardless of party affiliation, suggesting that 15% may be a little low on the conservative side. 5% is a fringe movement to me. 15% is more like a national number that Mitt Romney would want right now. 4. The butt issue is admittedly not strong and not worth further discussion. It comes down to how you look at a photograph and why it all of a sudden becomes talk of the town via Drudge Report. I don't take him to be a source for comedic genius, but that is the cynicism in me. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Aug 4, 2009 14:19:09 GMT -5
She never called him a terrorist, and you damn well know it. She did call him a socialist. It's not exactly an idea that's out of the mainstream these days. Just because it is "not exactly an idea that's out of the mainstream" does not mean it is a credible statement. As we've talked about it in this thread, polling suggests that the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya is now a mainstream idea. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Aug 4, 2009 15:11:44 GMT -5
The New Yorker cover was satire. It's point was to mock those who believe Obama is a secret Muslim. As with Bruno, the liberals fallback position after hearing this is and realizing their kneejerk reaction of horror was unwarranted was..."well, of course I get it, but do all those hicks in the midwest...I don't want them to think its true." Bull. They just can't think for themselves and don't want to be caught laughing at something not approved.
|
|
Seriously though, I think it's worth consideration, but 10 years of citizenship seems to me like WAY too light of a standard.) 
