chris_gerrib (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chris_gerrib) wrote2012-01-05 03:33 pm
chris_gerrib) wrote2012-01-05 03:33 pm
Birthers Win One, or Hyper-literalism Runs Rampant
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.
no subject
Still it's amusing that when Obama does what was standard SOP for all other presidents for over a century he's being totalitarian and "using the constitution for toilet paper"... interestingly, it seems that the bits of the constitution he's ignoring often turn out to not actually be in it, or be controversial(*) or just situations where the author of the statement just disagrees with him.
(*) - in that hardline return to the 1880s Libertarians think pretty much everything written since the mid-19th century should be taken out.
no subject
Actually, George Washington made recess appointments, so it's a 200+ year-old power.
no subject
no subject
By the time he decided that working with the Republicans wasn't happening, the 2010 election hit. Then, he made a list of what he absolutely needed from Congress, and kissed whatever ass was offered to make it happen. (See, debt, raising ceiling of.)
Now, he's decided that he doesn't need anything from Congress, so he'll rope-a-dope them. Whether that's run against them via his jobs bill, recess appointments, defense spending cuts (coming soon to a Congress near you) or whatever, from now until November it's going to be open season on Congress - and Obama's got plenty of bullets.
Cordray, with the CFPB, will, by election time, have all sorts of bad guys in some form or another of legal action. Obama will showcase this, and say, "see, if you vote me out and/or don't vote in a Democrat, all of this goes away."
He didn't plan for things to work out this way, but, like most successful types, when he sees an opportunity he goes after it.