quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: katharina, Tin foil hats make poor lightning rods unless they are grounded.
Ridicule may feel good, but there is no substance in it, especially for those who have been careless about the details and hope to laugh their way through the continued controversy. Team Obama's response to these lawsuits is that they are just "garbage." That is not very substantive. It does not deal with the serious questions that do still remain about whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or in Kenya (as his own relatives claim).
What would do the Obama lawyers good would be for them to state which hospital in Honolulu Obama was allegedly born in, and who was the attending physician (so that corroboration will be possible).
Keep your eye on Obama's relatives in Kenya--if any of them suddenly disappear or die under mysterious circumstances, then we will all know that things have taken a real turn for the dark side.
Ron, You can't honestly expect us to take you seriously when you regurgitate this kind of wight wing wacko crap when even the slightest effort reveals it for the bald faced lie that it is.
The state of Hawaii has verified the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate. End of story.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be more amused by the whole Obama-is-not-a-US-citizen thing if my father-in-law hadn't espoused the same nonsense when we visited him over Thanksgiving. Oh, the shame!
He's also still convinced that Obama is a Muslim and informed me that in his book he said he would side with Muslims against Christians.
I had just finished reading the book in question days earlier and found nothing of the sort, but of course logic doesn't really come into these arguments, does it?
The same thing is true here. Actual legal documents and birth announcements in the newspaper, not to mention the fact that dozens of credible sources have looked into and debunked the insane rumors, don't mean anything because they are inconvenient to those who would like to continue living in la la land.
I like la la land sometimes. But I prefer to imagine I am a superhero or something fun. Barack Obama's planet of origin concerns me not. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The governor has moved on from being "a sleazy politician,'' Stewart suggests, to something out of a 19th Century German children's fable.
"Sadly,'' Stewart concludes, "graft is nothing new to Illinois.'' - noting that three of the last seven governors have landed in jail.
Comparing the percentage of that record with the numbers of people who are estimated to get away with murder each year, he concludes: "You are more likely to end up in jail if you become governor of Illinois than if you are a murderer.''
Additional note - the site linked has optional video of Stewart that contains obscene language and will defitely be offensive to some people. I've shared the PG-rated stuff. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely deliberate. It should be said in an Elmer Fudd voice. My husband and I have been saying it that way for years, its at least in part to separate the wackos from the legitimate and rational conservative thought.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Here's another left-wing source criticizing the lawsuits regarding Obama's citizenship and alleged lack thereof -- David Horowitz at the National Review:
quote:Obama Derangement Syndrome Shut up about the birth certificate.
By David Horowitz
In this article Horowitz says,
quote:This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats’ seditious claim that Bush “stole” the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president.
I think this comparison is very weak. There is legitimate controversy over the 2000 Florida election results. Post election examination of the ballots determined that using the recount rules recommended by Bush for examination of rejected ballots, Gore would have won the election. Using the rules recommended by Gore, Bush would have won the election. There is legitimate controversy on this issue and a rational person objectively reviewing the facts could come to the conclusion that Bush was not the legitimate winner of the election.
The same can not be said for the question of whether or not Obama counts as a natural born American citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii. The evidence is clear and indisputable and has been certified by the proper authorities. A rational person looking objectively at the facts could not possibly come to any other conclusion. This is an out ant out fabrication with no foundation in truth what so ever.
[ December 11, 2008, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, the state of Hawaii has not provided the definitive proof that is required. It has been pointed out for months that the "Certificate of Live Birth" is not the same as a valid Birth Certificate. It does not say which hospital in Honolulu Barack Obama was allegedly born in, nor does it give the name of the attending physician. These things are needed so the facts can be verified independently. This, combined with the fact that Obama's relatives in Kenya have been recorded as claiming he was born in their village (Obama's Kenyan grandmother says she was present in the room when Obama was born), do leave a reasonable question open. Obama, being the product of corrupt Chicago/Illinois politics, probably does not think little details like meeting the constitutional requirement for a "natural born" citizen reallys matters, as long as he can skate around it and get away with it.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, even if he was born in Kenya, the fact that his mother was a US citizen means that he is a natural born citizen. It would also mean so if he was born on the moon. Period, end of story. The kerfuffle stating otherwise shold be as embarassing to Republicans as it is ridiculous.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, the person commonly referred to as his grandmother in Kenya is actually his step-grandmother, the mother of one of his father's other wives. The idea that she would have been present at his birth is unlikely at best. Not that that's relevant.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It has been pointed out for months that the "Certificate of Live Birth" is not the same as a valid Birth Certificate.
Are you kidding? What the heck does your birth certificate say on top?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ron, even if he was born in Kenya, the fact that his mother was a US citizen means that he is a natural born citizen.
No. The law at the time he was born defined that status more narrowly; your parent had to have been in the United States for a certain duration by a certain age in order for your citizenship to be valid, and his mother didn't fit that criteria. Ergo, he does need to have been born on U.S. soil in order to legally be a natural-born citizen.
Note, however, that since the state of Hawaii says he was born there, it's not a problem.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the summary of the interview with the Kenyan grandmother, it sounds like there was some confusion with the translation. Conversations with translators can be extremely difficult as can conversations with old people. Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, the state of Hawaii has not provided the definitive proof that is required.
"Required" for what?
Where does the Constitution say someone needs a "Birth Certificate" as opposed to a "Certificate of Live Birth" to prove their citizenship? It doesn't. Therefore one would expect that citizenship verification would proceed under the rules and procedures normally used to verify citizenship.
As has been explained multiple times now - and as you have utterly failed to acknowledge - the certificate posted by the Obama campaign and examined by FactCheck is acceptable for proof of citizenship under the standards currently used by the U.S. government.
Are you advocating changing those standards solely for this purpose? If so, why? You haven't presented reasons why those standards - used to enforce laws and grant passports EVERY SINGLE DAY except maybe Sundays and holidays - are suddenly inadequate.
I get the sense that the real meaning of "required" in your post is "to satisfy the people making those accusations." And that, frankly, seems quite impossible, for reasons that seem to me to be pathological.
quote:I think this comparison is very weak. There is legitimate controversy over the 2000 Florida election results. Post election examination of the ballots determined that using the recount rules recommended by Bush for examination of rejected ballots, Gore would have won the election. Using the rules recommended by Gore, Bush would have won the election. There is legitimate controversy on this issue and a rational person objectively reviewing the facts could come to the conclusion that Bush was not the legitimate winner of the election.
I think the comparison is very apt, because the only way Gore could have won the election is if the guidelines for counting ballots (specifically, for reviewing overvotes) adopted before the election were replaced with something else. In both cases, people are using post hoc revisions of rules to challenge the outcome of the election.
Certainly the birth certificate thing is far more ridiculous. But I think it's on the same continuum.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rabbit, the state of Hawaii has not provided the definitive proof that is required. It has been pointed out for months that the "Certificate of Live Birth" is not the same as a valid Birth Certificate.
A Certificate of Live Birth is the official and legal name or what is commonly called a "Birth Certificate". The document which has been provided, examined is the document which constitutes legal proof that Obama was born in the US. The state of Hawaii has verified the authenticity of the document and it has been observed by independent experts who verify that it is valid and legal.
quote: It does not say which hospital in Honolulu Barack Obama was allegedly born in, nor does it give the name of the attending physician. These things are needed so the facts can be verified independently.
No they aren't. The short for Birth Certificate which has been provided contains all the information needed to legally establish that one is a natural born citizen of the US. It is Legal PROOF that Obama was born in Honolulu Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
End of story.
quote:This, combined with the fact that Obama's relatives in Kenya have been recorded as claiming he was born in their village (Obama's Kenyan grandmother says she was present in the room when Obama was born), do leave a reasonable question open.
I've seen no proof that such statements were made. Obama's Kenyan grandmother does not speak English so the recordings which claim to be her and claim she that she claim's Obama was born in Kenya are utterly unconvincing. What's more, the testimony of an elderly woman about her memories of what happened 47 years ago are not reliable evidence sufficient to contradict verified legal documents. She could easily be remembering the birth of one of Barack Obama Sr's many other sons or be making things up to bolster her own stature. I have yet see any evidence that Obama's mother ever visited Kenya let alone gave birth there.
The court's dismissed the lawsuits on this issue as frivolous. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Its time for you wight wing wackos to admit you are wrong. Of course, since the people backing this are in fact wackos, I don't see that happening even if we were to invent time travel and let them actually travel to the past to personal witness his birth in Hawaii. Evidence and facts are basically irrelevant to wackos.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just thin fundamentally Ron doesn't appreciate or possibly even understand that once Obama has satisfied the requirement for proof of citizenship (and he has), the burden of proof otherwise is squarely on the shoulders of those who would beg to differ.
What Obama will not and should not do is answer accusations, one and all, as if each were legitimate. He should also most certainly not waste his time and energy doing the work of his detractors for them.
I have an idea. The people who think there is a possibility that Obama was not born on U.S. soil should seek proof that he was, before seeking proof that he was not. The comparison between the two classes of proof will be too obvious for them to reasonably ignore.
On one side you have a birth certificate, the testimony of the family, neighbors, newspaper reports, and myriad other pieces of evidence- and this, mind you, at a time when no one had an inkling of a notion that any evidence would ever be needed.
On the other side you have the claim being made that the Obama family in Kenya is making the claim that he was born there, which, to my knowledge, has not even been corroborated by a credible source. The claim, that *there is a claim,* with plenty of room even in that for translators to be wrong, jokes being made, cultural differences getting in the way, outright falsehood on the part of the family, and outright falsehood on the part of those who make the claim that the claim has been made.
But Ron prefers to take seriously the claims of some people in Kenya who have just had a relative become the most powerful man in America, if not the world, over birth certificates, photos, newspapers, numerous personal accounts, and the testimony of everyone who might actually know something.
Here's a thought. Suppose the organization "Bushes against George W. Bush," or whatever they were called, floated the claim that G.W. was born in Mexico? They are relatives, after all, perhaps the Burden should be on GW to prove that he wasn't born there.
But I'm sure you're being objective Ron. I'm sure you would have been equally credulous of the even more obvious claims that would have been made about John McCain, should he have been elected President. After all, He was not a natural born citizen of the United States. He became a citizen retroactively before his first birthday, but his eligibility to become President is still questionable.
But here's the thing Ron. It DOESN'T MATTER. No court in the land would have come near that case if John McCain had been elected. There would have been no reason. And do you know why? Because the claims made against his eligibility would have been from sniveling whiners like you, and probably worse than you, who wouldn't have cared about the spirit of the law, but would only have wanted to turn events in their favor, based on a technicality. Thankfully, our society does not often reward such motives, and the Supreme Court is a prime example- they get to hear cases they choose to hear, and there will never be anything that you can do about that.
So take your ball and go home, and please do drop in when you have something worth sharing.
quote:Ron, even if he was born in Kenya, the fact that his mother was a US citizen means that he is a natural born citizen.
No. The law at the time he was born defined that status more narrowly; your parent had to have been in the United States for a certain duration by a certain age in order for your citizenship to be valid, and his mother didn't fit that criteria. Ergo, he does need to have been born on U.S. soil in order to legally be a natural-born citizen.
Note, however, that since the state of Hawaii says he was born there, it's not a problem.
I've heard this argument before, but I fail to understand it. At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was an adult and had lived in the U.S. her entire life. Granted, that Obama was born in Hawaii so this is just a matter of interest on my part, but could someone clarify this for me?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand it, the law was that the mother had to have lived in the US for 5 years after the age of 16. This seems to be to keep people who live abroad from "passing on" a US citizenship that they don't "use". Mrs. Obama was only 18 when President-Elect Obama was born so she could not have lived in the US for 5 years after the age of 16 even though she lived her whole life in the US up to that point.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
It is believed by those on the fringe *cough Ron* who believe his mom hadn't lived in the US for some wierd period of time so that when she came back and gave birth she wasnt there long enough to qualify for President or something wierd like that.
IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for clearing that up. I actually found the text of the law in question and the 16 years one was outdated when Obama was born. At the time of Obama's birth, they had to have been a U.S. citizen for 5 years after the age of 14, which would mean she would have had to be 19 years old. New laws are in place nows. The history of citizenship is kind of messed up.
Still, he was born in Hawaii. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Back at the Sun-Times, years ago, I had a friend who ran the city desk weekend nights, and his wildest dream, he told me, was that two 747s would collide directly over the John Hancock Center and he’d be the editor on duty directing the coverage.
Tuesday was like that, only better -- no fatalities. It was the first time in ages when if you were a reporter at a newspaper in Chicago you wouldn't have wanted to hold any other job in the world. We've had other governors go down -- though come to think of it, they were out of office when they fell. And not like this. Blagojevich's arrest -- at home, in cuffs, 6 AM -- broke like the DC-10 crash, or the Speck murders, or the Our Lady of the Angels fire. It was sudden and astonishing, and nothing mattered in your newsroom but the story.
This was no mere arrest -- it was an intervention.
In the interest of full disclosure, I admit to being biased in terms of appreciating Miner's take on things. We've had a cordial relationship for years - he's written about NDY three times in his column. I was even able to direct a lead on a story his way that had nothing to do with NDY or disability stuff once.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
As our economy worsens the last thing this country needs is another sector facing massive layoffs.
Well, after the departure of President Bush from the Whitehouse, there was a great fear that thousands of hard working pundits, bloggers, cartoonists and political comedians (writers for late night television for example) would soon run out of the natural resources used for the products they produce..
in this case--political stupidity.
Thank you Governor Blagoyovich, for stepping in to provide these people with a valid mine to keep them going for months to come.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in NYS now, after living in Illinois for 12 years.
Judging from just a few conversations with colleagues, there are some people in this state who are grateful to Blagojevich for pushing the name of Eliot Spitzer off of its prominent spot in the "Governors' Hall of Shame."
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The We the People Foundation has sent this open letter demanding that Barack Obama submit the following hilarious list documents.
quote:• A certified copy of your original, signed “vault” birth certificate. • Certified copies of your reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham.
Please note the "and" in this requirement. Who has Birth Certificates under 5 different names. If in fact Pres. Obama did have Birth Certificates with 5 different names on them, I'd be seriously worried. It seems they are demanding that Obama produce evidence that he committed a fraud.
quote:• A certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship.
I don't have one of these. Do you? Are these even issued to natural born citizens? I'm pretty sure that these are only issued to naturalized citizens and the existence of one would be proof that Obama is ineligible to serve as President.
quote:• A certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity.
I never made one of these either. Did any of you? I did once sign an oath of loyalty to the state of California but I don't have a copy of that and have no idea how I'd get a certified one.
quote:• Certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School.
I'm not sure what this has to do with citizenship in the US. All these colleges accept foreign students. I don't know about you, but I didn't save any of my admission forms and none of them were certified. The Universities which I attended and at which I have taught will issue certified transcripts and certified copies of my diplomas but none of them will provide certified copies of admission forms.
quote:• Certified copies of any legal documents changing your name.
Once again, something that would only exist if the allegation which these kooks are making and which Obama denies are true.
They are demanding that Obama produce the evidence they need to prove their allegations. If he produces the documents they demand, it proves he is guilty. If he doesn't, they will assume he's guilty.
quote:As of today, there is no evidence in the public record (nor have you provided any) that defeats the claim that you are barred by law from assuming the Office of President because you fail the Constitution’s eligibility requirements.
I guess they mean "no evidence" aside from the legal birth certificate which he has provided and which has been certified as valid by the State of Hawaii and which is considered the standard evidence to prove one is a legal born citizen. I guess it also doesn't include the evaluation of the courts which threw out the case.
quote:All state Electors are now on Notice that unless you provide documentary evidence before December 15, that conclusively establishes your eligibility, . . .
I think that they already clearly stated that they won't accept any evidence except evidence that conclusively establishes that he is ineligible.
quote: . . .they cannot cast a vote for you without committing treason to the Constitution.
Evidently the We the People Foundation's commitment to strict interpretation of the constitution does not extend to Article III, section 3.
quote: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
[ December 12, 2008, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are demanding that Obama produce the evidence they need to prove their allegations. If he produces the documents they demand, it proves he is guilty. If he doesn't, they will assume he's guilty.
BURN HIM! He's a witch!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Racism is the idea that despite all the evidence, one is inferior based on one's birth.
Truly dangerous racists believe that one's race is biblical in origin. Darker skin is a sign of descent from Cain. Sin is passed from father to son, so those of dark skin are automatically sinners, while those of light skin are free from sin.
The only thing a light skinned person could do that was sinful would be to betray other light skinned folks to the evil dark skinned children of Cain.
Hence, sin is a product of your birth, not what you do.
Their attack on President Elect Obama is all about his birth, not on what he has or will do.
The big sin is betraying your race.
The big treason is voting for this person.
No, not racism at all, just the same lame logic.
And what do these folks believe will happen when African Obama or Chicago Dirty Politics Obama is President?
From Chicago, he will bring all his Chicago Cronies into the Government ousting better more qualified people to settle for paid loyalty.
Except that so far he has ignored most of the Chicago gang and brought in good qualified members who have different opinions not blind loyalty.
The loyal friends seems to have come from the Texas political machine.
From Africa, he will sell the US out to Kenya.
I don't see that happening, or any sign that it will, but you never can tell with those crafty Kenyans can you.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: People who seek to rise to high office in chronically corrupt states typically go one way or another. They turn corrupt themselves, or they become goody-two-shoes. When you come from a place like that, there can be no middle ground. And very often the ones who manage to stay clean become public officials of notable integrity. So searing is their early exposure to the temptations of influence-peddling that they often turn into even more zealous champions of ethical government than officials from other, less corrupt places. Louisiana, for example—historically a state that's at least as corrupt as Illinois—has long alternated between putting reprobates and good-government crusaders into high office. The current governor, Republican Bobby Jindal, campaigned on a pledge to clean up Louisiana's politics and banish incompetence, and he won handily. (Jindal's two immediate predecessors, Kathleen Blanco and Mike Foster, managed to avoid most allegations of cronyism, but a third, former four-term Gov. Edwin Edwards, remains in federal prison after being convicted of bribery and extortion.)
Now we have cause to question how another product of a chronically corrupt state, Barack Obama, might perform in office. In the aftermath of the arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on a range of charges, including trying to sell Obama's Senate seat, and questions about whether other prominent Chicago politicians such as Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. were involved, some in the national media have begun re-examining the president-elect's ethics. Tony Rezko, for one, is back in our sights. The fact that the political fixer was a big-time crony of Blagojevich's and raised funds for Obama—despite the total lack of evidence that he ever received patronage for it—is disturbing enough. While Obama supported ethics reforms as a state senator, he still "has an ambiguous reputation among those trying to clean up Illinois politics," John Fund wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday. Fund went on to quote Jay Stewart, executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, as saying: "We have a sick political culture, and that's the environment Barack Obama came from ... Obama has been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state including, at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."
I may not be right about this, but I suspect that these inquisitive minds have Obama entirely wrong. It was no accident that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald went out of his way to say Obama was not implicated in any way. One of the more telling excerpts from Blagojevich's wiretapped conversations indicates the governor was "bleeping" upset that the Obama team was "not willing to give him anything but appreciation" in exchange for appointing the president-elect's preferred candidate, Valerie Jarrett. There's a pattern here. From all the available evidence we can gather from his time in Illinois politics, Barack Obama is a major goody-two-shoes. And that may tell us a lot about what kind of president he's going to be.
The early experience of Harry Truman, one of our greatest presidents, provides some telling clues as to how Obama might perform in office. Though he was, like Obama, a devoted family man, Truman was no angel. "Give 'em Hell Harry" loved bourbon and poker, and when he first arrived in Washington, he was snubbed and derided as the "senator from Pendergast"—as in Tom Pendergast, the boisterous, unapologetically corrupt political boss of Missouri who had made Truman's career. "I was under a cloud," Truman later admitted. George W. Norris of Nebraska, considered the great voice of reform in the Senate at the time, thought Truman was "poison" and refused even to speak to him, as David McCullough wrote in his best-selling 1992 biography.
What few in the Washington bubble (yes, it was a bubble back then, too) understood was that Truman had actually made his career by refusing to engage in Pendergast's patronage politics, to the everlasting annoyance of the old man. Not long after he anointed Truman a county judge, Pendergast was appalled to learn that Truman actually intended to keep his campaign promises "to conduct the county's affairs as economically and efficiently as possible" and "see that every man does a full day's work for his pay," as the candidate put it in a speech. To the outrage of local Kansas City bankers, Truman set about negotiating lower-interest loans with banks in Chicago and St. Louis. Truman also insisted on pushing through a major bond issue to build badly needed roads and to see that they were constructed honestly and well. "The Boss wanted me to give a lot of crooked contractors the inside and I couldn't," Truman later wrote. To the astonishment of all—including the Missouri newspapers—Truman was as good as his word. "It is now generally recognized that every promise made at that time … has been carefully fulfilled," the Independence Examiner reported, five years after the road system was built.
The article might be wishful thinking and Hirsh admits that - although we may all know one way or another within the next year.
He missed one thing, though. Obama's version of Truman's Pendergast would be IL Senate president Emil Jones.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
It will be interesting to see what the State supreme court does with this.
It's actually a pretty scary argument being made by the AG in her brief. I think there should be a mechanism for temporarily removing an indicted governor; I'm skeptical that this is a good way to do it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it sets a scary precedent. And I don't think it would get very far in court. Impeachment is the right way to go. On the other hand, this could sufficiently slow down Blagojevich from naming a senator until the legislature can act to impeach or to legislate a special election.
I think that may be the real purpose.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
A governor and lieutenant governor were necking in the woods, near corruption point. Things were getting hot and heavy, and bribes and payoffs were being bandied about like hotcakes. One of the governors decided to tune the radio to a hot corruption-format station, to hear about some white collar crime, to get the executives in the mood to steal and betray public trust. He came across a station where the AG was making a speech. She was talking about ending corruption, removing the governor from office, and setting things right in Illinois!
Well, the governors rolled up the windows just as fast as they could, and drove out of the state lickity-split. But when they got to their offshore holdings in the Caymans, and opened the door, there was her legal brief... right in the window!
Or... the radio adress had been coming from inside the car!Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's actually a pretty scary argument being made by the AG in her brief.
Would you be willing to elaborate on that?
The brief relies on Article V, Sec. 6(b) of the state constitution, which reads: "If the Governor is unable to serve because of death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability, the office of Governor shall be filled by the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of the term or until the disability is removed." She argues that "other disability" "describes a Governor who is unable or unfit to serve or who has been rendered incapable of proper or effective action."
She then argues that the volume and nature of the charges in the complaint indicate that he is "unable to distinguish between his financial interests and his official duties and between illegal acts and legal conduct, rendering him incapable of legitimately exercising his authority as Governor." She also points out that his future acts will be subject to challenge as illegal or improperly motivated.
Converting a section of the constitution which has always been interpreted as relating to mental or physical ability into an almost metaphysical form of "ability" leaves open lots of other ways allowing for judicial removal of the governor. And I'm not talking slippery slope. I mean that the plain meaning of the AG's desired outcome can, as a precedent, justify removal in situations of intense unpopularity, for example.
Again, I'm not against a properly enacted provision that allows the court to remove (temporarily) a governor under indictment, either for any crime, for a felony, or for crimes that implicate his duty - however they want to couch it. But the radical redefinition of a constitutional provision to meet the emergent needs of this situation is scary.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious as to sndrake's take on this interpretation of "disability" especially because he has experience in IL in particular.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm assuming that if "disability" in that context had ever been successfully used in the manner she advocates then she would have cited the case.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can they order an impartial psychiatric evaluation, because the man is not behaving in a sane manner?
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Dagonee, I was fairly confident that you felt her arguments would set a precedent that opened a door for abuse but since I am not familiar with the brief I wasn't sure why.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Can they order an impartial psychiatric evaluation, because the man is not behaving in a sane manner?
Her arguments seem to hint at a mental disorder but they don't actually make that claim directly. If he were diagnosed with a mental disorder, say for example Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I think it would be reasonable to claim that this diagnosed disorder was a "disability". But she doesn't actually make this argument.
I have to agree with Dagonee that the way she defined "disability" is disturbingly broad.
I wish that the US had stronger conflict of interest laws for elected officials. I think elected officials should be legally required to recuse themselves from participation in any decision that presented a substantial financial or personal conflict of interest. Violations of the law should lead not only to criminal charges but to immediate invalidation of any contracts, laws, appointments made in violation of the law.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went and read the brief after Dag red-flagged it. (That's something I generally do if it's a subject of interest.)
As near as I can figure, this was enacted in 1970. I'm not a lawyer, but this may not be as unusual as some of you think.
Broad definitions of incapacity and/or disability are built into (I think they're still this way in Illinois) guardianship statutes. Many states - as a matter of statute - allow a declaration of incapacity or incompetence for physical disability alone.
In fact, in general, I'll go out on a limb and say that definitions of disability that deal with taking away your rights (such as guardianship or this current situation) tend to be very broad.
OTOH, legal definitions related to protections or benefits tend to be relatively narrow or at least well-defined (social security, American with Disabilities Act).
As I googled around on this, the most interesting thing I found is the total silence from disability bloggers on this. Two blogs devoted to picking up disability-related media coverage haven't picked this up at all. No bloggers that I can find (disability bloggers) are discussing it at all.
I think I'll go post something on a couple disability listservs I'm on to see if I can rectify the situation - It's not really my subject area and kind of out of my area of expertise, but I'm really puzzled that this aspect of one of the top two national stories isn't being discussed in the disability community.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really sounds like we need to open a Chicago branch of the Gulabi Gang who fight things like societal-approved wife-beating and government corruption by dragging the men into the street and whacking them with sticks if necessary. That puts the fear of shame into them and makes them act better. Seriously I think a Gulabi Gang here might be just what we need to make corrupt government officials clean up their acts.
quote:As near as I can figure, this was enacted in 1970. I'm not a lawyer, but this may not be as unusual as some of you think.
The language is, I believe, a carryover from an earlier state constitution.
Disability is often used in non-physical contexts. Imprisonment is a legal disability in some contexts in some states. But generally not in a fitness for office context.
quote:Broad definitions of incapacity and/or disability are built into (I think they're still this way in Illinois) guardianship statutes. Many states - as a matter of statute - allow a declaration of incapacity or incompetence for physical disability alone.
I'm assuming a certain level of competency on the AG's part, but I seriously doubt that she (her staff, really) didn't look for examples that would have supported her broad definition.
Statutory construction is (much) more an art than a science, but she takes a lot of liberties. The following objections to her interpretation are right off the top of my head.
First, the text being construed: "If the Governor is unable to serve because of death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability, the office of Governor shall be filled by the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of the term or until the disability is removed."
She argues that "other disability" describes someone who is "unable or unfit to serve or who has been rendered incapable of proper or effective action."
Her interpretation amounts to something like "If the Governor is unable to serve because of ... or because he is unable or unfit to serve or has been rendered incapable of proper or effective action, the office of Governor shall be filled by the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of the term or until the disability is removed."
In other words, under her definition, "other disability" does no work except to make it clear that the list of reasons is non-exclusive. This isn't unheard of, but typically courts resist such interpretations. The maxim is that we assume each word has meaning.
quote:Her arguments seem to hint at a mental disorder but they don't actually make that claim directly. If he were diagnosed with a mental disorder, say for example Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I think it would be reasonable to claim that this diagnosed disorder was a "disability". But she doesn't actually make this argument.
I think she's aware she can't make the case for an actual mental illness. Plus, if she did, she'd be providing ammo for his defense against the charges - probably ineffective ammo, but she must be aware of the possible harm she could do to he governor's case.
I don't fear the broadening of "disability" outside this context, because I doubt there'd be much spillover, but rather the structural precedent, wherein one executive officer and a court can remove a sitting governor in a way that deliberately short-circuits the intended mechanism for removing governors because of malfeasance.
If this is truly urgent, then the legislature ought to convene now and impeach him. And then look for a way to amend the constitution for future instances to account for this kind of thing. Such a mechanism would also take resignation from office off the plea negotiating table, something I think is unseemly.
I would propose amending the temporary removal section to explicitly allow the court to remove a governor under indictment. I've seen opposition to this based on "innocent until proven guilty," but paid administrative leave is quite common in such situations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would only be concerned that technically, iirc, a grand jury can indict anyone for anything. Doesn't mean it would stick, but that would give a small group of citizens the ability to remove a sitting executive at almost any time. Is that not the case?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
