Louisiana HB 561

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Louisiana HB 561

#26

Post by esseff44 » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:00 pm

What advice would you give them to stay within constitutional limits?Advice for birfer legislators to birf better? Not here! =)) Although if you read back through the Montana birfer bill thread, that was the one, IIRC, had the best chance of being konstitushinal, but it didn't exclude Obama.Thanks, I found the Montana thread. So, there's the birther legislators' dilemma. If it is written in such a way as to be constitutional, it doesn't exclude Obama. So, it's not worth doing and they might as well drop it.Jindal may be counting on it getting dropped. He hasn't had much attention lately and it might be a way of making points with his base. I am giving him a lot of credit here. I am not sure he is that smart.



User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#27

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:26 pm

Jindal's spokesperson made that statement earlier in the day, before the news of Jan Brewer's veto of a nearly identical bill. I would assume that the veto by his Republican colleague would give Jindal pause to reflect.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6152
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Louisiana HB 561

#28

Post by June bug » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:31 pm

Hope you're right, BB. He might also want to consider that, as it stands now, the LA bill follows the "template" and requires documentation of residence for the "preceding" 14 years. (And an attorney is sponsoring it... ](*,) :(( ](*,) )



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#29

Post by poutine » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:35 pm

Jindal's spokesperson made that statement earlier in the day, before the news of Jan Brewer's veto of a nearly identical bill. I would assume that the veto by his Republican colleague would give Jindal pause to reflect.Notwithstanding my earlier comments, signing the bill would be politically disastrous for Jindal. Unlike Brewer, he has presidential ambitions, not to mention a realistic prospect of being picked to run for Vice President this year. The bill has no chance at all of having any effect on the Obama candidacy. I'd give it a 95% chance of being struck down in court as unconstitutional, and a 100% chance of not affecting Obama whether or not it is struck down. So, he'd be signing a bill that would temporarily appease a bunch of birther nuts who would vote for him anyway, but would be struck down in court weeks later. That in turn would open up attacks on him of poor judgment and of being a nutjob, reducing his attractiveness as a VP candidate.





Jindal would do well to pay attention to Arizona. Birtherism didn't work too well for J.D. Hayworth here, when he ran against John McCain. McCain used it to paint Hayworth as a nut, and crushed him in a Republican primary.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17038
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Louisiana HB 561

#30

Post by Suranis » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:58 pm

A sane birther bill?Requires an up to date newly issued and certified Birth certificate of the type used in your birth state. (States change their birth certs all the time so having a newly issued one would remove all doubt.)Or a counselor form certifying you were born abroad to 2 parents.A list of your previous residences proving you have been resident in the country for 14 years of your life.For both the Pres and VP nominee.That's a sane birther bill and I for one would have no problem with it. Anything else is unconstitutional and pointless.


Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#31

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:03 pm

Hope you're right, BB. He might also want to consider that, as it stands now, the LA bill follows the "template" and requires documentation of residence for the "preceding" 14 years. (And an attorney is sponsoring it... ](*,) :(( ](*,) )Note that the statement is that Gov. Jindal will sign "a bill" requiring presidential candidates to prove copies of their birth certificates. He did not reference HB 561, which provides that some birth certificates would not be acceptable.As I read this, Jindal is saying, yes, provide a BC to assure the state that you are qualified for the office -- a reasonable requirement -- but he is not pledging to sign a bill that does violence to full faith and credit or that imposes extraconstitutional requirements to appear on the ballot. I don't belive he is committed to suporting HB 561 or any similar bill.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 16175
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Louisiana HB 561

#32

Post by ZekeB » Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:18 pm

Note that the statement is that Gov. Jindal will sign "a bill" requiring presidential candidates to prove copies of their birth certificates. He did not reference HB 561, which provides that some birth certificates would not be acceptable.As I read this, Jindal is saying, yes, provide a BC to assure the state that you are qualified for the office -- a reasonable requirement -- but he is not pledging to sign a bill that does violence to full faith and credit or that imposes extraconstitutional requirements to appear on the ballot. I don't belive he is committed to suporting HB 561 or any similar bill.What none of those morons seems to understand is... the vetting process. A candidate is going to be vetted by both friend and foe. Sticky mud is far better than dry mud. If there is even a remote chance that a candidate isn't constitutionally qualified, the opposition is going to be all over the issue. What a waste of time - the birther bills.


Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6152
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Louisiana HB 561

#33

Post by June bug » Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:30 pm

Depending on how the question was phrased by the Times-Picayune reporter, Jindal's spokesman could be referring to 561 specifically."It's not part of our package, but if the Legislature passes it we'll sign it," press secretary Kyle Plotkin said.Guess we'll just have to wait and see.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27358
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#34

Post by bob » Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:12 pm

The democratic majority in Louisiana Senate is [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Senate]23-16.Good luck, birthers!


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6152
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Louisiana HB 561

#35

Post by June bug » Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:21 pm

The democratic majority in Louisiana Senate is [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Senate]23-16.





Good luck, birthers!Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's 22-17 the other way. Republicans control. The chart runs from top to bottom chronologically so the bottom number is the current count (as of March 21, 2011).



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27358
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#36

Post by bob » Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:29 pm

The democratic majority in Louisiana Senate is [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Senate]23-16.





Good luck, birthers!Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's 22-17 the other way. Republicans control. The chart runs from top to bottom chronologically so the bottom number is the current count (as of March 21, 2011).You are correct. I was confused by the democrats in the leadership positions.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

chinacreekpj
Posts: 1347
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:09 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#37

Post by chinacreekpj » Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:42 pm

Apparently the president of the Senate is a dem.



A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#38

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:50 pm

[/break1]nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/04/gov_jindal_will_sign_birther_b.html]Gov. Jindal will sign 'birther' bill if it reaches his desk


The bill by state Rep. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport, and Sen. A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell, would require federal candidates who want to appear on Louisiana ballots to file an affidavit attesting to their citizenship, which would have to be accompanied by an "original or certified copy" of their birth certificate.





[...]





Seabaugh, an attorney, said his bill was motivated by the numerous lawsuits that have been filed over Obama's citizenship. "[highlight]Not one of them has ever been decided on the merits," Seabaugh said. "As an attorney, that's offensive to me."[/highlight]As an "attorney," he rivals Orly Taitz for pure cluelessness. A dismissal of a case for lack of standing is a decision on the merits. It's that there aren't any. How one tells whether a decision is on the merits is whether it is preclusive in its effect, preventing future suits on the same issue. A decision that a plaintiff lacks standing on a claim is based on a constitutional requirement, is issue-preclusive, and therefore, a decision on the merits.





This assclown apparently skipped the day of law school where they taught law. Unsurprisingly, he graduated from a [/break1]usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/louisiana-state-university-baton-rouge-hebert-03065]Third Tier Toilet.




Edit: Actually, it looks like they might have changed the tier system to a two-tiered system where the second tier is listed alphabetically. Since they have a number, they're probably what is now called first tier.



User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#39

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:51 pm

Mr. Seabaugh ... is a member of the National Rifle Association, Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce, the Shreveport Bar Association, Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society and the Louisiana Bar Association.[link]Seabaugh & Joffrion,http://seabaughlaw.com/attorneys/[/link]





Census data shows the population of New Orleans decreased by 29.1 percent since 2000. Because Louisiana's population has not kept pace with growth in other states, the state is losing a Congressional seat, going from seven to six. Also, with the decline of population in New Orleans and the demographic shift to other areas of the state (notably Baton Rouge, Shreveport, Lafayette and Lake Charles) state political boundary lines are also being redrawn. Much of the debate centers on how many districts should have a majority black population. African Americans make up one-third of the state’s population, but don’t hold a third of state house and senate districts. Louisiana's redistricting proposal will require approval by the U.S. Justice Department, to ensure adequate minority representation under the federal Voting Rights Act. DOJ rejection of a redistricting plan that does not raise the minority districts in the state to 30 would force the Legislature to do a second House remapping effort.





Rep. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport, a lawyer who recently took office in a special election, said the addition of a 30th minority district would dilute white voting power in the region.[/break1]info/category/alan-seabaugh]http://stateoflouisianafacts.info/categ ... n-seabaugh





Any wonder why he's a birther?


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#40

Post by Loren » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:21 am

Mr. Seabaugh ... is a member of the National Rifle Association, Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce, the Shreveport Bar Association, Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society and the Louisiana Bar Association.I don't follow. I mean, *I* am a member of the Federalist Society.





Or rather, I was in law school. I was Vice-Chair, even. The only reason I'm not a dues-paying member now is because I'm just lazy about keeping up membership in organizations that require the payment of dues.



User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#41

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:22 pm

The point -- which follows from Loh's observation that the man ought to understand the basis for dismissals -- is that he also should have a grasp of constitutional law and federalism, the bedrock of the standing doctrine . Modern day precedents that have closed the courtroom doors to citizen standing were decided by conservative federalists on the Burger court. I expect Seabaugh, a litigator, to be respectful of this even if he is disappointef by the result to birther suits.Don't take offense where none was intended.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

Loren
Posts: 4359
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:20 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#42

Post by Loren » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:00 pm

The point -- which follows from Loh's observation that the man ought to understand the basis for dismissals -- is that he also should have a grasp of constitutional law and federalism, the bedrock of the standing doctrine . Modern day precedents that have closed the courtroom doors to citizen standing were decided by conservative federalists on the Burger court. I expect Seabaugh, a litigator, to be respectful of this even if he is disappointef by the result to birther suits.Don't take offense where none was intended.OK. I'm still not clear on why the two conservative organizations were highlighted, and not the two bar associations, but whatever.



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#43

Post by poutine » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:07 pm

The point -- which follows from Loh's observation that the man ought to understand the basis for dismissals -- is that he also should have a grasp of constitutional law and federalism, the bedrock of the standing doctrine . Modern day precedents that have closed the courtroom doors to citizen standing were decided by conservative federalists on the Burger court. I expect Seabaugh, a litigator, to be respectful of this even if he is disappointef by the result to birther suits.Don't take offense where none was intended.OK. I'm still not clear on why the two conservative organizations were highlighted, and not the two bar associations, but whatever.Excuse me for jumping into this dialogue, but isn't it relevant that Seabaugh belonged to the Federalist Society, and yet it is Seabaugh who now fails to grasp the judicially conservative philosophy advocated by Justice Scalia et al. in the important Supreme Court decisions that narrowed the boundaries of what constitutes Article III standing? He should understand better than anyone that only a limited class of persons or entities can litigate the issue of a presidential candidate's constitutional eligibility. At least that's how I interpret BB's comments/highlights.



MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#44

Post by MaineSkeptic » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:21 pm

... it is Seabaugh who now fails to grasp the judicially conservative philosophy advocated by Justice Scalia et al. in the important Supreme Court decisions that narrowed the boundaries of what constitutes Article III standing? He should understand better than anyone that only a limited class of persons or entities can litigate the issue of a presidential candidate's constitutional eligibility.While were on the subject, can one of our lawyers explain what the standing requirements might have been if Lujan had been decided differently?





It's hard to believe that any reasonable definition of standing, liberal or conservative, would have permitted an arbitrary citizen to bring suit over presidential eligibility.





ETA: ...at least subsequent to the election.



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#45

Post by poutine » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:55 pm

... it is Seabaugh who now fails to grasp the judicially conservative philosophy advocated by Justice Scalia et al. in the important Supreme Court decisions that narrowed the boundaries of what constitutes Article III standing? He should understand better than anyone that only a limited class of persons or entities can litigate the issue of a presidential candidate's constitutional eligibility.While were on the subject, can one of our lawyers explain what the standing requirements might have been if Lujan had been decided differently?





It's hard to believe that any reasonable definition of standing, liberal or conservative, would have permitted an arbitrary citizen to bring suit over presidential eligibility.





ETA: ...at least subsequent to the election.That's a pretty good question. To illustrate the implications of Lujan being decided differently, consider what Justice Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion. Recall that Lujan involves the ability of environmental activists to sue the federal government for what they believed were violations of the Endangered Species Act. If Stevens had his way, this would be current law on standing:





In my opinion, a person who has visited the critical habitat of an endangered species has a professional interest in preserving the species and its habitat, and intends to revisit them in the future has standing to challenge agency action that threatens their destruction. Congress has found that a wide variety of endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of "aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people." Given that finding, we have no license to demean the importance of the interest that particular individuals may have in observing any species or its habitat, whether those individuals are motivated by esthetic enjoyment, an interest in professional research, or an economic interest in preservation of the species.


Now, if a scientist who visits the critical habitat of a species can sue the federal government for violating the ESA, why shouldn't a citizen who participates in elections as a voter be able to sue for whatever he or she believes is some legal or constitutional violation?



MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#46

Post by MaineSkeptic » Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:06 pm

Now, if a scientist who visits the critical habitat of a species can sue the federal government for violating the ESA, why shouldn't a citizen who participates in elections as a voter be able to sue for whatever he or she believes is some legal or constitutional violation?Wouldn't there still be a problem with redressability, given that Article III courts have no power to remove a sitting president?



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#47

Post by poutine » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:29 pm




Now, if a scientist who visits the critical habitat of a species can sue the federal government for violating the ESA, why shouldn't a citizen who participates in elections as a voter be able to sue for whatever he or she believes is some legal or constitutional violation?Wouldn't there still be a problem with redressability, given that Article III courts have no power to remove a sitting president?Well, now you're delving deep into the jurisprudence of the 0th Circuit, where insane lawyers do stupid things like only sue people when it's too late to do so, thereby distinguishing the facts in a major way from the standing issues in Lujan. But yes, there is a redressability/mootness/waiver/laches/incompetence question that Taitz would need to overcome even if Lujan was decided differently.



A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#48

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:53 pm

OK. I'm still not clear on why the two conservative organizations were highlighted, and not the two bar associations, but whatever.I'm not sure I know why BB picked those two organizations, though I think I have some idea. However, I would expect someone from the Federalist Society, even someone I disliked, to know something about federalism. So far, every member of the FedSoc I've met has a pretty sound grasp of federalist principles, such as the separation of powers and standing. In fact, one of its heroes, who was also one of its first faculty advisors, wrote the leading case on standing, prominently cited in every single one of the cases he is decrying for not deciding birfer cases on their "merits" but instead on the basis of "standing." This guy should hand in his bar cards.



User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7653
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#49

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:59 pm

The point -- which follows from Loh's observation that the man ought to understand the basis for dismissals -- is that he also should have a grasp of constitutional law and federalism, the bedrock of the standing doctrine . Modern day precedents that have closed the courtroom doors to citizen standing were decided by conservative federalists on the Burger court. I expect Seabaugh, a litigator, to be respectful of this even if he is disappointef by the result to birther suits.





Don't take offense where none was intended.OK. I'm still not clear on why the two conservative organizations were highlighted, and not the two bar associations, but whatever.Okay, I guess it should be significant that he belongs to a professional networking organization that Krewes floats in Mardi Gras:





Mr. Seabaugh ... is a member of the National Rifle Association, Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce, the Shreveport Bar Association, Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society and the Louisiana Bar Association.


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4110
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

Louisiana HB 561

#50

Post by DaveMuckey » Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:42 am

I suspect he's just padding his conservative cred resumé.Sekrit Stuffs!
You guys are all going Rube Goldberg's razor on this one. Number 4.



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Legislation”