Arizona legislators are again wading into national politics. With the controversial immigration bill moving toward the Supreme Court, House has passed a bill that would require all presidential candidates to prove they were born in the U.S. by producing their birth certificates. It is a bill that this clearly crafted to exclude the current documents produced to show the birth of President Barack Obama. I am currently scheduled to discuss this legislation with Lawrence O’Donnell tonight
The legislation that would require presidential candidates to produce a birth certificate before they can be on the ballot in Arizona to show that he or she is a natural-born citizen of the U.S. and eligible to be president.
The bill requires that Arizona’s Secretary of State actually inspect the birth certificate. In a bizarre twist, it will also accept a baptism certificate.
Of course, any barrier to Arizona for Obama would not be a huge loss since, in 2008, Obama lost the state by nine percentage points. While that was a race against a native son (McCain), Arizona has only gone Democrat once (inn 1996) since 1948. However, 13 other states are not following suit with their own proposals.
Here is the full language of the bill.
The language is crafted to specifically require a long-form birth certificate or an array of other documents, including the bizarre addition of a baptismal record (which is hardly more authoritative than the current Hawaiian record).
The question is whether this will violate the U.S. Constitution. On one level (as with the immigration law), Arizona can claim to be merely carrying out federal conditions (in this case the conditions of Article II, Section I of the Constitution).
However, it would run against the language of the Full Faith and Credit Clause under Article IV, Section 1. Hawaii already recognizes this birth and Arizona would be refusing to accept that recognition. A birth certification would appear to fall under the language of “”public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
Of course, Arizona can claim that, when there is a rivaling express provision under Article II, a state is not required to give Full Faith and Credit. Moreover, the state could argue that Full Faith and Credit requires proof in the form of these documents. On this latter argument, they are likely to cite the statement of Justice Joseph Story in Mills v. Duryee that makes references to authenticated copies:
It is argued, that this act provides only for the admission of such records as evidence, but does not declare the effect of such evidence, when admitted. This argument cannot be supported. The act declares, that the record, duly authenticated, shall have such faith and credit as it has in the state court from whence it is taken. If in such court it has the faith and credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz., record evidence, it must have the same faith and credit in every other court.
Notably, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not generally viewed as requiring the recognition of same-sex marriage under a public policy exception as discussed in Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident.
However, the issue of Arizona imposing higher showings to establish eligibility for office raises significant constitutional questions. I will be discussing this issue tonight on MSNBC.
Here is the key language:
A. The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president. Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
B. The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:
1. A certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance. If the candidate does not possess a long form birth certificate as required by this paragraph, the candidate may attach two or more of the following documents that shall take the place of the long form birth certificate if the candidate swears to their authenticity and validity and the documents contain enough information for the secretary of state to determine if the candidate meets the requirements prescribed in article II, section 1, constitution of the United States:
(a) Early baptismal or circumcision certificate.
(b) Hospital birth record.
(c) Postpartum medical record for the mother or child signed by the doctor or midwife or the person who delivered or examined the child after birth.
(d) Early census record.
2. A sworn statement or form that identifies the presidential candidate’s places of residence in the United States for fourteen years.
C. In addition to the requirements of subsection B, the presidential candidate may also submit a notarized affidavit from two or more persons who witnessed the presidential candidate’s birth.
D. If the secretary of state receives any documents in place of a long form birth certificate pursuant to subsection B, paragraph 1 and cannot determine if the presidential candidate meets the requirements prescribed in Article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States, the secretary of state may establish a committee to assist in the determination or hold hearings and submit any documents for forensic examination.
E. If both the presidential candidate and the national political party committee for that candidate fail to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state. If the candidate and national political party committee for that committee submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, but the secretary of state believes that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state.
F. A member of the house of representatives, a member of the senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section.
Source: Arizona Republic
Jonathan Turley
Bob posted:
You are wasting our time, Bob. A lot of your legal ignorance and incoherence is on display here. BTW, Bush did have standing in the Supreme Court, per the Supreme Court, not some law prof. I am not wasting any more time. Answer all your rhetorical questions yourself. Bye for now, everyone.
It’s hard to believe that such a trivial issue as Obama’s birth certificate has won over other important issues such as our national security or economy. Donald Trump is in a very advantageous position among the potential Republican candidates and I think it’s high time he started talking about the daunting problems that the country faces today.
“Obama is distinguished from Ark in that his father was not permanently domiciled here, and that Obama (even if born in Hawaii) was subject to a foreign power by Treaty.”
What treaty? There was no treaty. Obama was not “subject” to any foreign power at birth.
Bingham never said in 1872 that ONLY children of citizens were citizens, did he, now? He just said that a chap whose parents were citizens was a citizen. True. But he did not say any more.
Children of members may swim in the pool. The child of a mother who is a member may swim in the pool, even if father is not a member. A child of a citizen born in the US whose mother is a citizen is a citizen at birth. A child of two non citizens is a citizen at birth.
In 1866, Bingham spoke on the floor about the Civil
Rights Act, not the 14th Amendment, which had different language. Statements in 1862 are obsolete, because the 14th Amendment changed the law.
This is webjunk I have seen at Donofrio’s site and elsewhere. It is rubbish.
14th Amendment, birth in the US, subject to jurisdiction. That is the law.
Where did Ark say that children born ONLY to domiciled parents were citizens? Nowhere. The Court recited the fact that Ark’s parents were domiciled BECAUSE THE WERE DOMICILED.
Vince,
You’re not listening. Forget the AZ bill and just pay attention to the birther issue as it first revealed itself; i.e. without the AZ bill.
What is the basic structure of the alleged case?
WHO IS THE DEFENDANT in this birther jibber jabber?
One suit said it was Obama and the DNC; do you agree?
Did Obama do or say ANYTHING LEGALLY RELEVANT in this matter??
Who said he’s a NBC?
And who is a plaintiff with standing to sue?
Bush had no standing to sue in Bush v. Gore (See “Bush v. Gore Was Not Justiciable” by Erwin Cherminsky)
Who elects the president? The people or the states?
You see how important, and complicated, the state of Hawaii becomes here?
The question is “Who is going to have standing to bring the state of Hawaii into court, with its administrative agency responsible for certifying births, to challenge Obama’s NBC??”
VT: “I have already said that the Article III case and controversy provision does not apply to state courts.”
That doesn’t mean that state courts don’t dismiss cases for want of standing and the like.
VT: “States have courts of general jurisdiction that can hear each and every dispute of any type, unless state or federal law precludes it.”
General jurisdiction does not trump, much less say anything about the jurisdictional rules regarding state courts hearing cases.
Bob, under the proposed bill, any citizen or legislator in AZ can be a party and could sue the Secretary of State if he certifies Obama.
The cause of action is that he violated the provisions of the new bill. That is a totally justiciable issue.
The case could be styled Carl Seel (bill sponsor) v. AZ Secretary of State. It would be filed in the state court of general jurisdiction for the state capitol.
It would charge that the Secretary broke the law’s clear requirements by putting Obama on the ballot, probably because he accepted a COLB that did not comply with the new law. Prayer for relief would be for a court order striking Obama from the ballot. It is pure legal case. The court just has to rule whether or not the COLB complies with the terms of the bill, and, if it does not, whether the bill is constitutional or not.
There is no justiciabilty problem. Nothing has been committed to another branch.
In federal court, parties must have Article III standing, but not in a state court. See the Indiana Ankeny case. The state court’s reached the merits and ruled that Obama was a natural born citizen. It is the only case on the merits so far, out of more than 70 filed by birthers.
Slarti you said
Untrue – as a (legally) unmarried woman
could you define how she was a legally unwed woman at the time of Obama’s birth.
Bob, lay off Slarti.
Are you kidding me. He doesn’t need you to catch him when he falls.
LMAO
“I would attempt to enact state legislation which required verification of ‘natural born citizenship’ (by the SoS or other competent authority) without attempting to define the term…”
How can anyone be expected to ensure that a person qualifies without first defining the term?
I will give one million dollars to the first fizzlebot who can answer that question. I will not, however, define “fizzlebot”.
Captain Nemo what say you ?
Bob, lay off Slarti. You say that he would “solve the standing problem by enacting legislation to do so is basically to ignore the problem entirely,” but you omit the fact that said that he would enact STATE legislation, not federal. I have already said that the Article III case and controversy provision does not apply to state courts. States have courts of general jurisdiction that can hear each and every dispute of any type, unless state or federal law precludes it.
Federal courts are just the opposite. They only have jurisdiction if a law or constitutional provision allows it.
Now I have pointed out that AZ has just sent a law to the governor that makes every citizen and legislator of AZ a potential party. That is state law, and they have that power. So Slarti was right.
The Supreme Court can review the decisions of state courts on constitutional grounds. So if the highest AZ court rules Obama off the ballot under this law, the Supreme Court can review and reverse if it finds a constitutional violation. I see three possible constitutional reviews: full faith and credit, bill of attainder, and no religious test for office.
Mr. Treacy, it’s me the poster again 🙂
The case of Lee Sing Far was used to demonstrate how the Ninth Circuit interpreted the SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark. If domicile was not integral to the court’s interpretation of Ark, why did they include it?
In Duncan v Louisiana (1968) Justice Hugo Black stated;
“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.”
In 1862 Rep. Bingham stated;
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Again in 1866;
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
This was repeated in 1872 when discussing Dr. Houard;
“That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States…”
Senator Howard 1866;
“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Notice that Howard lists several classes of persons who are not citizens under the 14th Amendment:
– foreigners
– aliens
– families of ambassadors or ministers
The statement was clarified a few days earlier when Howard stated:
“That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2893 (1866))
Those who owed allegiance to “anybody else” are not natural born citizens of the United States.
Obama is distinguished from Ark in that his father was not permanently domiciled here, and that Obama (even if born in Hawaii) was subject to a foreign power by Treaty. Your bizarre interpretation with regard to Obama ignores the domicile of his father by employing a convenient interpretation that is not supported by the Court’s holding in Ark.
You were given the opportunity to provide citation in support of your position. You did not do so.
Keep checkin the mailbox, checks in the mail 🙂
VT: “What’s the big problem?”
Standing for one.
VT: “The Arizona bill says “F. A member of the house of representatives, a member of the senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section.”
The bill violates the full faith and credit clause on its face.
VT: “So the parties can be any legislator or citizen of Arizona, against anyone, like the Secretary of State, who does not allegedly comply with the law. So that establishes the proper parties as a matter of law.”
Let’s assume the Arizona bill suffers the fate we all anticipate it will suffer. Let’s go back to the beginning. Who are the parties and how do they satisfy the justiciability requirements?
VT: “It would be a state court action, in a court of general jurisdiction, so Article III case or controversy problems of standing or justiciability in federal courts, which are courts of limited jurisdiction, would not be obstacles. There is no need to hurl stuff about fanatics and idiocy.”
Wait; do you really think that justiciability issues are limited to federal courts??
Let’s take standing for example. While questions of standing are not common in New York, they usually appear in cases involving administrative action. See Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. v. Walkley 38 N.Y.2d 6 (1975)
So what’s the plan? Who’s your primary defendant? In what state and in what court are you going to sue him/it?
Who or what is getting full faith and credit and how the hell are you going to challenge it?
Captain Nemo had two questions:
In the midst of all this birther nonsense, there are two good questions that get lost: Who is responsible for qualifying the President and Vice President?
If a President or Vice President is found to be unqualified for any reason after being elected, what happens under the law?
On the first question, concerning who is responsible for qualifying the President and Vice President, I think the best source so far is the memo by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. It is CRS MEMORANDUM, April 3, 2009, Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate.
It was a memorandum prepared to enable distribution to more than one congressional office. It is all over the net, but here is one link:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/congressional-research-service-report-on-obamas-eligibility/
It concludes that the final decision is committed to the Joint Session that counts the Electoral votes.
QUOTE Finally, concerning official oversight of “eligibility,” it may be noted that the issue of qualifications of elected federal officials might be considered to have been delegated, at least in part, to one of the political branches of government, that is, the United States Congress. With respect to the qualifications for Congress, for example, each house of Congress is expressly granted within the Constitution the specific authority to “be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members. [16] This authority has been described by the Supreme Court as “an unconditional and final judgment” over the seating of its own Members,” which is not reviewable by the courts because it is “a non-justiciable political question. [18] As to presidential candidates, the United States Congress, in joint session, is specifically directed in the Constitution to count the electoral votes and to formally announce the winner of the presidential election. [19] It has generally been assumed over the more than 220 years of presidential elections that the specific authority to “count” the electoral votes must, by practical necessity, also involve the implied authority to determine which electoral votes to count. Congress has thus developed over time a detailed process whereby electoral votes may be “challenged” in the joint session, and the procedures for resolving such challenges.[20] It may be noted that even prior to Congress codifying in law the procedures for challenging electoral votes, Congress had rejected three electoral votes which were given by electors in the State of Georgia for a candidate who had died, and thus obviously was no longer eligible to serve as President [21] It appears from the record that no Member of the House or of the Senate of the m” Congress, in joint session for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral vote, raised or forwarded any objection to the electoral votes of (then) President-elect Obama on the grounds of qualifications, or otherwise. [22] [footnotes omitted]. UNQUOTE
The Joint Session found that Obama was qualified, since there were no objections. That is final under the Constitution. If Obama is reelected, then any objections may be renewed when the votes are counted in 2013.
The second question is “If a President or Vice President is found to be unqualified for any reason after being elected, what happens under the law?”
The ONLY provisions for removal seem to be the Impeachment Clause and the involuntary removal procedure of the 25th Amendment. Either procedure could be invoked if a President were found to be unqualified.
The impeachment procedure is limited to high crimes and misdemeanors, so it might apply if a President had fraudulently concealed a disqualification, and Obama has done no such thing. The 25th may apply if a President innocently took office unaware of a disqualification, and, again, Obama has no such disqualification. So the 25th Amendment process may be an alternative to impeachment for something that inadvertantly disqualifies a sitting President without her knowledge or complicity.
So, in short, I think your gut feelings are on the money. Hope this is helpful in forwarding the discussion. I have noticed your posts at other sites.
Kevin: “I would attempt to enact state legislation which required verification of ‘natural born citizenship’ (by the SoS or other competent authority) without attempting to define the term in order to give a (preferably primary) candidate standing to question the COLB as being proof of such status.”
If this were a law school exam you’d be wrong right out of the gate. To say you’d solve the standing problem by enacting legislation to do so is basically to ignore the problem entirely; since you can pass legislation to effectively give ANYONE standing to sue; including a ham sandwich.
Then, per your alternative, assuming arguendo that candidates have standing to sue, (n.b. Bush had no standing to sue in Bush v. Gore) WHO would they sue?
No one discusses this; why?
Kevin: “What would you advise a birther client to do? (Assuming that you’re not allowed to tell him not to waste his time and money…)”
First, let me ask you who the primary target of any lawsuit would have to be. For ANYONE to question Obama’s citizenship, who or must be a necessary party to the lawsuit–ASSUMING you could put together a justiciable case?
A poster on Apr. 16 at 1:32 PM stated
Why thank you Mr Treacy. At least you didn’t say a Bigot/Teabagger/Racist stated.
I’ll get back to you.
In the mean time keep checking your mailbox 🙂
“…do any of you fanatics care about who the proper parties to this ‘birther lawsuit’ must be? See, the first step in analyzing a legal issue is identifying who the parties are; i.e. who’s on either side of the “vs.” Why? Because that defines the jurisdictional issues; e.g. personal and subject matter jurisdiction and those little matters regarding justiciable. And in some cases it also clarifies the legal issues that must be addressed. All this jabber about who and who is not a citizen and absolutely no discussion about who the proper parties would be and how on earth you’d ever get them into court. Sheer idiocy.”
What’s the big problem?
The Arizona bill says “F. A member of the house of representatives, a member of the senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section.”
So the parties can be any legislator or citizen of Arizona, against anyone, like the Secretary of State, who does not allegedly comply with the law. So that establishes the proper parties as a matter of law.
It would be a state court action, in a court of general jurisdiction, so Article III case or controversy problems of standing or justiciability in federal courts, which are courts of limited jurisdiction, would not be obstacles. There is no need to hurl stuff about fanatics and idiocy.
A poster on Apr. 16 at 1:32 PM stated “Mr Treacy, You seem to be under the impression that merely being born in the United States makes one a citizen.”
That, of course, is a false statement, like many, many others from this source, because I have been posting, here and elsewhere, consistently since 2008, that a person is a citizen if he or she meets two requirements, to wit, (1) being born in the United States, while (2) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
I base this on the express language of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….” The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
So it is just a lie, or a statement made in reckless disregard of truth or falsity, without any diligent research whatsoever, to say that I believe that “merely being born in the United States makes one a citizen.” I do not in fact believe that. Birth in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, makes one a citizen. A false, careless statement like this sure gets a discussion off to a rocky start.
After quoting a judicial decision, the poster then states “There is no question that the Ninth Circuit found the parents domicile to be integral to the determination of citizenship of someone born on U.S. soil.”
Sadly, the poster only supplied one paragraph, without any context. So I read the entire decision. Lee Sing Far v. United States, 94 F. 834, (9th Cir. 1899). A District Court held that a Chinese woman had not been born in the United States, rejecting eyewitness testimony of four witness because of unreliability. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
In its decision, it noted that IF the woman had been born in the United States, she would have been a citizen. “If appellant was born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of her birth, were subjects of the emperor of China, but had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and were here carrying on business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, she would become at the time of her birth a citizen of the United States, and be entitled to ail the rights, privileges, and immunities, as such, including her right to land and remain in the United States. U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 705, 18 Sup. et. 456, and authorities there cited.”
But since the court affirmed the ruling that she had NOT been born in the U.S., it never reached the issue of her citizenship by birth, and never ruled on it. The entire paragraph is what law professors describe as “obiter dicta,” or “dicta,” that is, statements by a court not necessary to its holding. Now, if the 9th Circuit had reversed the lower court, and held that the woman had in fact been born in the U.S., THEN, and only then, would it have ruled on the merits of her claim citizenship. But it never got that far, and never ruled on the merits of that question, nor on the necessity of domiciled parents. The paragraph is simply a summary of the court’s understanding of the Ark case.
The court’s decision does not use the word “integral,” nor does it say that domicile is any more integral to a determination of citizenship than any of the other factors listed. I do not see where it, or the Ark Court, ever said that ONLY a person whose parents are domiciled in the U.S. becomes a citizen at birth. Certainly children of domiciled parents DO become citizens at birth, but under the express language of the 14th Amendment, all children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S. become citizens by birth, not only the children of domiciled parents.
The poster asks “Before debating whether or not Obama is a natural-born citizen (IAW Article II, Section 1), don’t you think you should first establish that he is a citizen?”
I have established that he Obama is a citizen by citing the relevant provision of the Constitution, which provides that all citizen who are born in the United States and are subject to the its jurisdiction are citizens, and by applying that law to the facts. It is known from an official certified state public record, and from validating statements of the official custodians of that record, that Obama was born in Hawaii, a State of the United States in 1962. There is no known evidence that his parents were diplomats or hostile military occupiers, so he was subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore he was born a citizen.
The poster has many other questions, but they really seem to be rhetorical questions posed for the sake of argument, not calling for an answer. The poster is free to answer those questions himself to further the argument.
The poster concludes by asking that I “Please support your position by providing citation from actual court cases that were decided on the merits.”
Excuse me, why should I? The case the poster supplied was not decided on the merits.
Of course, this request would also require a lot of research and work.
As a lawyer, I don’t work (even pro bono) for clients who I don’t know, so if the poster would be so kind as to send me a letter with his real name and address, I would consider undertaking the project.
I am in the book.
Go, Celtics!
Bob,
Assuming that I were a birther, I would have attempted to clear the standing hurdle in two ways: I would attempt to enact state legislation which required verification of ‘natural born citizenship’ (by the SoS or other competent authority) without attempting to define the term in order to give a (preferably primary) candidate standing to question the COLB as being proof of such status. This would, in my view, force the court to, at the very lest, rule on the COLB as proof of natural born status (and may get them to define it – the stated goal of the birthers [which wouldn’t change the fact that in either case they wouldn’t get the ‘happy ending’ that they’re looking for…]). Also, I would have tried to get a ‘birther’ trojan candidate (probably not someone like Donanld Trump…) on the ballot (either party in the primaries or any party in the general) in as many states as possible and then sue over ballot access for President Obama (hopefully with the aid of the laws passed in some states). I would also avoid the ‘two-citizen parent’ theory like the plague (400 years of precedent is hard to fight) and (ideally) obtain a Kenyan BC for the president which matched the style of contemporaneous official documents and came with affidavits of authenticity from multiple governmental officials (I’d ‘look for’ such evidence in Nairobi rather than Mombassa, by the way). In other words, I’d need a better forger than Lucas Smith (forgery is an art and Mr. Smith’s artistic skills, as evinced by his painting of the good Dr. Taitz, are not exactly l33t…) for starters….
I think that a properly brought case could gain standing (and the above was my best guess as to how to do so) and possibly end in a ruling (no way in hell that the ruling goes the birthers’ way, though…) or at least something that could be appealed until it was denied cert by the SCOTUS. The problem is, in my opinion, that all of the birther lawyers are either smart enough to know how badly this would crash and burn in court or too incompetent to formulate any sort of strategy to achieve standing *cough*Orly*cough*. I’m convinced that, in either case, what they really want is to keep their PayPal buttons working…
What would you advise a birther client to do? (Assuming that you’re not allowed to tell him not to waste his time and money…)
Sales Agreement.
http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=4570279&SessionID=4RWZHeJgWDzcO77