Why is it that Birtherism just lends itself sooo readily to scatological comparisons??? Perhaps it is legal filings like this one, representing the Liberty Legal Foundation, candidate John Dummett, and others. The attorney is some cat named “Van Irion“, and he has been involved in several such eligibility suits.
Anyway, the Birthers filed suit in Arizona, and as Van Irion complains at ObamaReleaseYourRecords:
Rather than address the substantive issue of Obama’s eligibility, Judge Susan Bolton of the Arizona Federal court dismissed our case by claiming that the DNC’s act of sending a notice to the Arizona Secretary of State did not amount to purposefully directing activity toward Arizona. This ruling is absurd, as I discussed in last week’s message.
Here is the link where you can read the whole story:
Anyway, after the judge pushed the Birthers out of the window of her courthouse, they landed on the sidewalk below, picked themselves up, flicked the poop off themselves, and decided to appeal this to the 9th Circuit Court. Thus, we now have before us their request for a preliminary injunction to keep Obama’s name off the ballot in Arizona.
Here is a copy of the pdf filing for your convenience:
Let me try to give you a recap of the filing. A preliminary injunction is a request to keep somebody from doing something BEFORE you actually have a trial and judgment on the matter. One of the requirements is that you show you have a good enough legal case that you will probably win at trial. So here, the Birthers have to show the law supports their claim Obama is not eligible for the Presidency because he does not have two citizen parents.
But wait! Haven’t the Birthers crashed and burned on this point like space rocks in a meteor shower??? Haven’t we seen them time and time again streak across the sky in a brief bright flash of light as they disintegrate in the upper atmosphere of a judge’s chamber??? Sooo, how in the world can Van Irion priss himself into the 9th Circuit and pretend he has any kind of a case???
Well, Van Irion pulls the old Minor v. Happersett trick out of the hat. First, he argues that Minor defined a natural born citizen as the child of two parents who are citizens. Then, to deal with the rest of the Minor case, where it clearly says there are some doubts from some authorities about the kids of non-citizens, and that there was no need to resolve those doubts at that time, Van Irion characterizes all that stuff as only concerning regular old everyday citizens as opposed to natural born citizens.
In other words, the same old Birther bullshit that we have been hearing for 4 years and the same old bullshit that has lost in court after court after court. And maybe I should be more polite and professional, and call it something besides bullshit. But you know, that is just what it is and frankly, I am tired of resorting to euphemisms on this stuff. It is not good enough or smart enough to be called anything other than BULLSHIT.
Anyway, to continue, Van Irion then tries to skip past Wong Kim Ark by claiming everything in that case concerning natural born citizenship is pure dicta because Wong tweren’t running for President. Once again, not even a clever attempt. The WKA Court determined what natural born citizenship was as a legal matter, to lay a foundation for its findings on the “jurisdiction” issue in the 14th Amendment. Which the WKA Court decided was simply being born in the United States, while not being a child of a foreign diplomat or invading soldier. Which fact about natural born citizenship was affirmed by the 14th Amendment. And which was necessary to the finding, and therefore NOT dicta.
Then, to sneak his way around the 2009 Ankeny decision, which has been now cited with approval by subsequent state and federal courts, Van Irion tries to go behind the Ankeny decision. He claims because the Birthers there lacked standing, the Ankeny Court had no business addressing constitutional issues. This is pretty stupid because Ankeny is an Indiana state decision and has no binding legal authority outside of Indiana, only persuasive authority.
Van Irion doesn’t even get a nice try on this one. You see, the courts which have cited Ankeny with approval, are not doing so because the decision in binding on them, but because the reasoning in the decision makes sense, and these other courts agree with the reasoning process. Van Irion fails to address the reasoning because that would raise all those troubling Wong Kim Ark findings. Plus, his argument would only apply to an action taking place in Indiana. Which this isn’t.
You can find all of Van Irion’s nonsense on pages 11-17 in the pdf above. If you wish to read the Ankeny decision, which is based on the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, it has its own page above in the blog header under The Case The “Two Citizen Parents” Birthers Just HATE!!!
To summarize all this, Van Irion has rolled another big wheelbarrow full of legal manure into a courthouse. I hope the judges come right out and say:
Ordure in the Court!!! Ordure in the Court!!!
and then sanctions the crap out of the whole bunch.
Note 1. Ordure. A fancy word for manure.
Note 2. The Image. This is the The Patient Job by Gerard Seghers (1591-1651). Job is sitting on a dungheap. This was a popular artistic theme and there are many paintings. It is based on:
Testament of Job 24-25 (excerpts from a lengthy speech)
At once, my wife drew near. Crying out with tears she said to me: “Job, Job! How long will you sit on the dung-heap outside the city, thinking ‘Only a little longer!” and awaiting hope for salvation?