OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

You don't have to tell me, Tichy, I just wanted to squash this particular conspiracy theory once and for all, and I think that's been accomplished.

As far as not going to court if you don't have to--well, who wants to do that? Who here enjoys the thought of jury duty? I also understand there are court fees involved, not to mention lawyer fees.

And the statement "You're not even qualified to bring your argument to my attention." holds as much weight for me as "Your argument is fallacious and silly and wrong." What's the difference?

Honey, I'm not being facetious - but the difference between those two statements is enormous. The first should be deeply offensive to every american citizen, in my opinion.

In the first instance, a judge is telling an american citizen he doesn't have the right to find out if a candidate is an american citizen. I think every american citizen has that right - and should want that right - just as we uphold every tenet of the constitution. This one guy paid his own money to investigate something, and paid the fees to have his day in court - and the judge said.. sorry an american citizen does not have that right.

This is VERY different than saying - your argument is fallacious and wrong, and it is hereby proved that Obama met the qualifications for office.

As for yours and other comments:

The best way to squash this would have been to provide a birth certificate to the court. Failing to do so only added fuel to the fire. The same suit has been brought in three separate venues.

Obama himself never had to appear in court - just like a traffic ticket, any representative could have presented the information.
Court fees are insignificant compared to the question - if it really was important, the prevailing party can seek to have the opponent pay ALL court costs (and expenses) for a frivelous suit.

For civil matters of this kind, there would probably not be a jury; this would probably be decided by a presiding judge, as it would be in both parties interests.

As for Gandalf's comment about the CIA: Call me an optimist. First, this as a jurisdiction matter would fall more under the purview of the Dept of Treasure (Secret Service), or the FBI than it would under the CIA, who by law would be enjoined from investigating it (foreign or counter intelligence only). Restating that, any cia agent investigating that would be subject to legal sanction.

So yes, I am optimistic that I don't believe the CIA investigated it. I also don't believe that ANY body actually has jurisdiction, which is why this is falling between the cracks. The party (as in party to a lawsuit) that does have presumptive jurisdiction is the democrat party, which is why it was name in the lawsuit.