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.

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.

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... )

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.

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.

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.

Depending on how the question was phrased by the Times-Picayune reporter, Jindal's spokesman could be referring to 561 specifically.
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

The democratic majority in Louisiana Senate is 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.

Apparently the president of the Senate is a dem.

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 Third Tier Toilet.

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.

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.

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:



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.

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.

I suspect he's just padding his conservative cred resumé.