![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, I heard that "birther queen" Orly Taitz will actually get to argue on the merits that Obama is not a "natural-born citizen" and thus ineligible to be on the ballot in Georgia. Although her public statements say that she will "finally get to depose Obama," her actual argument (PDF here) is that because Obama's father wasn't a US citizen, he's ineligible. Since he doesn't deny that, it's not clear to me why he would need to be called.
She's relying on Minor v. Happersett, an 1875 decision about whether a black woman had a right to vote. Since Wong Kim Ark is later and more on point, I think her "victory" will be short-lived. The 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and amendments change, or "amend," the Constitution. In short, Taitz's argument relies on a hyper-literal interpretation of the law.
In another example of hyper-literalism, Rand Simberg, relying in part on "Mister Torture" himself John Yoo, is arguing that Obama's recess appointment is unconstitutional. Again, not really (PDF). Really not really (more PDF).
Relying on hyper-literalism, especially when it violates common sense, is usually a bad idea. Even if you win the argument, nobody is terribly happy.
She's relying on Minor v. Happersett, an 1875 decision about whether a black woman had a right to vote. Since Wong Kim Ark is later and more on point, I think her "victory" will be short-lived. The 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and amendments change, or "amend," the Constitution. In short, Taitz's argument relies on a hyper-literal interpretation of the law.
In another example of hyper-literalism, Rand Simberg, relying in part on "Mister Torture" himself John Yoo, is arguing that Obama's recess appointment is unconstitutional. Again, not really (PDF). Really not really (more PDF).
Relying on hyper-literalism, especially when it violates common sense, is usually a bad idea. Even if you win the argument, nobody is terribly happy.
