Quantcast

«

»

Jan 29 2012

The Brewer – Obama Confrontation

Everyone is talking about that tarmac confrontation between Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and President Obama, but every time I see Brewer anywhere I can only think about this hilarious video:

23 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    exdrone

    That’s quite the interview fail when all she had to remember was something as simplistic and unchanging as Republican talking points.

  2. 2
    KathyO

    At what point will Republicans realize that the whole ‘I like to elect people who are just as uneducated and stupid as I am’ thing isn’t working so well?

  3. 3
    scotlyn

    Slightly off topic, but I just saw this link as a facebook post. Obama banned from Georgia Ballot listing? Are they for real?

  4. 4
    Michael Heath

    scotlyn,

    The conservative publisher of this post is lying. This conservative liar even contradicts his original assertion lower in that page by reporting a trial is taking place, though no ruling has been yet been published by the judge.

    Given dishonesty is a defining attribute of contemporaneous American conservatism, I suggest always assuming their provocative claims are simply not true.

  5. 5
    LightningRose

    Of course the irony is that it was Obama who put Jan Brewer into the AZ governors office through one of his many ill-advised appointments.

  6. 6
    TX_secular

    We have did what is right for Arizona….FAIL!

  7. 7
    TCC

    scotlyn: My meager understanding of that situation is that yes, Georgia is trying to keep Obama’s name off the ballot by way of birther challenges. Obama was summoned to a Georgia court but declined (rightly, in my opinion) to show up and participate. Here’s a recent AJC article on the mess.

  8. 8
    Michael Heath

    LightningRose:

    Of course the irony is that it was Obama who put Jan Brewer into the AZ governors office through one of his many ill-advised appointments.

    Arguably ill-avised, good counter-arguments exist it was a good appointment. In addition Gov. Brewer won her party’s primary in 2010 and was elected governor in Nov-2010 by beating Democratic challenger Terry Goddard 55% to 42%. So if we’re going to seek blame for her currently being governor, the most culpable would be Arizona voters.

  9. 9
    donalbain

    One contended an 1875 Supreme Court opinion says only a “natural born citizen” — someone born in the U.S. and whose parents were U.S. citizens — can be president.

    Anyone know what decision that would be?

  10. 10
    donalbain

    Never mind. I found it. They are referring to Minor v Happersett which says:

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

    So, the court very specifically said it wasn’t going to address the status of a child born to non citizens.

  11. 11
    Michael Heath

    The Wikipedia entry for Minor v. Happersett is interesting from a more general perspective, especially in regards to how it pertains to how we come to our rights and government’s obligations to defend the exercise of those rights. In this case the Wiki article comes from the perspective of a government granting rights or a government being able to discern whether a particular right exists or not. I find both fundamentally wrong, unconstitutional, and infeasible to even use – how could a government ever determine what is or is not a right?

    Not only can’t these paradigms work, superior models which actually work exist. These two flawed approaches are also ahistorical regarding historical intent; which was that rights are inalienable, including ones not numerated (9th Amendment). Therefore government is instead obligated to determine whether its power in this area is being properly applied, which is relatively easy to discern though this sort of application would allow people equal rights which we know is not a desired outcome for almost all conservatives.

    In this case Minor used logic to avoid the plain language of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause justifying state power to deny women their right to vote. They did this by claiming that no such right existed when the 14th Amendment was drafted. This is equivalent logic to Justice Thomas’ in the so-called Bong Hits for Jesus case where he argued students had no speech rights at the time the applicable constitutional clauses were ratified.

    I wonder if Minor‘s logic that the 14th equal protection clause concerns only those rights already protected at its ratification in 1868, which seems incoherent to me on its face, is logic the conservatives on the SCOTUS will use to allow states to continue to deny gays their right to marry. According to that same Wikipedia article, Minor has never been over-ruled though that assertion was uncited.

    As heroic as I found Sen. Ted Kennedy’s questions in one of John Roberts’ two Supreme Court nomination hearings (forgot which one), he was able to get Mr. Roberts to finally and reluctantly concede that voting is a fundamental right, contra Minor. I’m now wondering if this was a chess move by Kennedy to set-up Roberts in regards to the looming gay marriage issue – where CJ Roberts becomes either a hypocrite by denying gays their right to marry since no right was understood to exist in 1868 by at least some, or forces now-CJ Roberts to concede they have a right to marry under the 14th and therefore he must defend that right.

  12. 12
    slc1

    Re Donalbain @ #9 & #10

    Mr. Bain beat me to it. The case was, as Mr. Bain cited, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

    I am not a lawyer but I agree with Mr. Bain that this decision is in no way, shape, form, or regard a precedent for determining citizenship. The decision basically was over the right of women to vote and in any case, the negative decision on that issue was made null and void by the adoption of the 19th amendment.

    The precedent is: U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which, as I understand it, says that the 14th amendment confers birthright citizenship on anyone born in the US. Therefore, under this precedent, President Obama would be eligible, even if neither of his parents were citizens as he was born in Hawaii, which the plaintiffs in this case are apparently not disputing.

    169 U.S. 649

    UNITED STATES
    v.
    WONG KIM ARK.
    No. 132.

    March 28, 1898

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

  13. 13
    slc1

    Re Michael Heath @ #11

    Minor has not been overruled because it was rendered null and void by the adoption of the 19th amendment.

  14. 14
    Michael Heath

    slc1,

    Of course the 19th Amendment now better defends women’s right to vote, but that has nothing to do with my points. Rulings and opinions do not disappear in their entirety simply because one aspect of such a ruling is supplanted. So your point is irrelevant to mine points, which is instead based on other aspects of Minor.

    And even to your point, the 19th Amendment is redundant to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause regarding women’s right to vote. I.e., that women’s right to vote is in fact fundamental, which is exactly what John Roberts conceded to Sen. Kennedy as I noted in my prior post, contra your point.

  15. 15
    John Hinkle

    Wow, lots of good comments. But um, was that a real human in the video?

  16. 16
    slc1

    Re Michael Heath @ #14

    And even to your point, the 19th Amendment is redundant to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause regarding women’s right to vote. I.e., that women’s right to vote is in fact fundamental, which is exactly what John Roberts conceded to Sen. Kennedy as I noted in my prior post, contra your point.

    And Heath misses my point that no case has been brought to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to reverse Minor is because the 19th amendment renders it null and void, and thus reversal is redundant. The fact that Heath, and, apparently, Justice Roberts disagree with the court’s decision that the 14th amendment, doesn’t confer the right to vote to women is totally irrelevant.

    Of course, this discussion between Heath and myself is irrelevant as to whether Minor is a precedent for restricting birthright citizenship to individuals with both parents being citizens at the time of birth. I assume that Heath agrees with Mr. Bain and myself that it is most certainly not.

  17. 17
    Childermass

    “Slightly off topic, but I just saw this link as a facebook post. Obama banned from Georgia Ballot listing? Are they for real?”

    Probably not, but this would not help the GOP. Even it was true that a state judge ruled that Obama was off the ballot, the judge would almost certainly be reversed on appeal probably by higher state courts and if not that then by the federal courts. And if somehow that did not happen, then then some guy who got himself on the ballot for no other sake than to get himself on the ballot would get some delegates and Obama would win every other state. There is no way that this could possibly prevent Obama from winning the nomination.

    And there is no way it would stand for the actual federal election. Technically that is actually voting for electors and not Obama himself. But in some fantasy scenario which Obama is off the ballot in Georgia this November would not help the GOP. Indeed, Obama is not expected to win in Georgia anyways. Meanwhile it will really anger a lot of people and encourage some non-conservative people to actually show up and vote. Furthermore it will not help the GOP with independents who will rightly see this as racism.

    Meanwhile the birthers are wasting their resources on a boondoggle.

  18. 18
    Michael Heath

    slc1:

    Heath misses my point

    No I didn’t, your points are entirely irrelevant to my posts as I noted earlier. You seem fixated on the the general ruling of Minor as it relates to the present day, which ahem - we all already knew. It’s like your arguing with me about whether we have day and night as I if I didn’t know that. While also seeming to be oblivious to the fact rulings also create additional holding precedents which can apply to future cases, even if the core port of the case is overturned.

    So from your first post on this topic you’ve been off on a wild goose chase, I realized it then and pointed it out, for which I have no interest in following. It these peripheral matters which I’m focused on, not on the fact women can now vote, which we kinda all already knew and have for awhile.

    Peripheral matters as explained earlier were whether the idea that rights not acknowledged at or prior to 1868 are not protected by the 14th Amendment. Minor argues they’re aren’t, I wonder if there are subsequent rulings which overturn Minor. My point on Kennedy-Roberts was not my sole premise on this point – sheesz, I specifically asked if this aspect of Minor was overturned. The 19th Amendment, again, is irrelevant to that question. My question coupled to how the majority in Minor determined what rights make-up the ‘privileges or immunities’ clause that was the original defending clause for our inalienable rights is still open – has that approach been overturned?

  19. 19
    Modusoperandi

    Oh, come on, people! Obama simply has to provide the same level of proof that John McCain (Panama) and George Romney (Mexico) had to to make this go away. And also he has to be a Republican.

  20. 20
    slc1

    Re Michael Heath @ #18

    Here I would agree with Heath that it would not surprise me if the conservatives cited Minor as a reason for overturning the 9th Circuit decision relative to the right to same sex marriage.

    I suspect that Minor has not been specifically overturned; however, the question is, has there been a right acknowledged in a decision subsequent to 1868 that was not acknowledged prior to 1868. It would appear that the 1954 anti-segregation decision and Roe v. Wade might constitute such decisions.

    Another question is whether the lawyers petitioning the court to overturn the same sex marriage decision are citing Minor. Perhaps someone familiar with the pleadings knows the answer to that one.

  21. 21
    Kevin

    @19

    …and white…

    Just sayin’.

  22. 22
    grumpyoldfart

    Jan Brewer would make an ideal candidate for any political party. She’s so dumb that the party officials will be able to make her do whatever they desire. The last they want is a Governor who actually governs.

  23. 23
    Ichthyic

    At what point will Republicans realize that the whole ‘I like to elect people who are just as uneducated and stupid as I am’ thing isn’t working so well?

    what makes you think they ever will.

    Haven’t you heard?

    Brawndo: It’s got what plans crave.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site