Dr. Conspiracy

Dr. Conspiracy


3,465 comments posted · 15 followers · following 2

2 weeks ago @ Birther Report - Full Ruling: New Jerse... · 8 replies · +1 points

I do think that people like Cruz are eligible, but I have been back and forth on that question since 2009. I have made the argument for my position, and it's on my blog in several articles written some time ago (for example in my article Framer v. Farmer from 2012. The strongest argument against Cruz, in my opinion, is the one that challenges whether the persons called "natural born subjects" in British statutes were actually natural born subjects or just people treated that way for some purposes. This position is well-supported by commenter ballantine in comments on the blog.

Cruz eligibility has nothing whatever to do with Obama eligibility--Obama's situation being well-settled except among the fringe. Should one or more courts rule Cruz ineligible, it has no impact on Obama unless the court should adopt a natural born citizenship theory that every court so far has rejected and that no recognized legal expert supports.

Even if you are pledged never to change your opinion, you could probably learn SOMETHING from the NBC articles on my blog, and the comments on them.


2 weeks ago @ Birther Report - Full Ruling: New Jerse... · 11 replies · +1 points

That is my primary argument in favor of Cruz. The historical record is not clear, and so in the face of unresolvable ambiguity, the voters can decide.

2 weeks ago @ Birther Report - Appeal: Law Professor ... · 1 reply · +7 points

In his New Jersey complaint, Prof. Williams wrote:

"Like the 14 years residency requirement, the "natural born Citizen" requirement is a test of American soil. This natural-born soil test is required only for the nation's highest federal office - the presidency."

2 weeks ago @ Birther Report - Full Ruling: New Jerse... · 21 replies · +1 points

The argument made by judge Masin is interesting because it gets around the whole naturalization objection. First, the precedent that the term "natural born citizen" comes from English law is firmly established by the Supreme Court in US v. Wong. There really is no question in the legal community on this point. The open question for some has always been whether "natural born citizen" is defined by the strict application of English Common Law (under which Cruz is not one) or whether the common law plus English statutes already in force in the United States at the time of the Revolution also formed a part of the common law (under which Cruz is a natural born citizen). Masin concluded that English statutes were part of the common law definition of natural born citizen and the Cruz is NBC directly under the Constitution, and not by virtue of Congressional statute.

Now I personally find this position, as I understand it, rather "far out there" because it says that the legislative history foreign-born citizenship law was for naught, and certain Supreme Court cases based on that law were wrongly decided.

A less extreme position is that since the Framers were well aware that anyone born a British subject ended up a natural born subject (either by common law or statute) that they intended the same for the US when they used the term "natural born citizen."

You say that Obama was born an English subject, but there is no US law that says that. To make that statement you must rely on British law, and I do not recognize the validity of British law to say who is and who is not eligible to be the American president.
Dr. Conspiracy Searching for gold coins in a bucket of mud

2 weeks ago @ Birther Report - Full Ruling: New Jerse... · 23 replies · +2 points

"the issue can never be entirely free of doubt"

Even if the Supreme Court were to rule unanimously, there would still be doubt about what the Framers intended. The historical record is just not conclusive.

4 weeks ago @ Birther Report - Must See TV: Donald Tr... · 0 replies · +1 points

I took the "warehouse" comment to be hyperbole. You may recall the photo of binders of evidence, but one of those has been identified as pre cold case posse stuff, and the rest may well be a bunch of stuff from before the first press conference.

The bottom line is: 1) The Cold Case Posse has never produced a shred of evidence that stood up to scrutiny. 2) Mike Zullo has consistently exaggerated, 3) He has been caught lying (or falling for someone else's lies) and 4) He has been stalling and making excuses for 2 years.

It's irrational to think that the future is going to be any different from than the past, and I would remind you that President Obama leaves office in less than a year.

4 weeks ago @ Birther Report - Must See TV: Donald Tr... · 2 replies · +1 points

The released exhibits, audio recordings, emails and testimony in the Melendres case make fascinating reading for anyone interested in the Cold Case Posse's failed "March reveal" a couple of years ago.

Dennis Montgomery had promised that he had solid proof that the President's birth certificate had marks of CIA creation, and proof that it had been created with three different version of Adobe products. Emails from Zullo to Montgomery detail money paid by a "non profit organization" (must be the CCP) to Montgomery, for which Montgomery provided nothing but excuses. The CIA/Adobes is on Detective Brian Mackiewicz's list of things that Montgomery never delivered.

You can follow the timeline and see that Montgomery's involvement with Zullo and Arpaio coincided with Zullo beginning to drop hints of the "deeper" and "darker" turn in the investigation.

There is no excuse for anyone to wonder why the March reveal fizzled, and the promised evidence never saw the light of day. It's all laid out for anyone to read in the Melendres documents.

4 weeks ago @ Birther Report - Must See TV: Donald Tr... · 4 replies · +1 points

She cannot convince Zullo to release what he never had. They THOUGHT that their con man informant Montgomery had the real deal, but it was just a con. The whole thing fell through, and that is the end of the story.

10 weeks ago @ Birther Report - Leading Presidential C... · 1 reply · +1 points

You are not educable.

10 weeks ago @ Birther Report - Leading Presidential C... · 3 replies · +1 points

I haven't changed. Your inability to read things in context causes you to misunderstand.=C2=A0 You suffer from a wooden-headed literalism that cripples your ability to engage in meaningful conversation, or else all you really want to do is create controversy where none exists for fun.

Now, you seem to be arguing in support of the straw man you condemned a few comments back. I think the world would be a better place if you just shut up.