Oral Argument in Paige v State of Vermont, et. al.

Thanks to a reader named William Rawle who provided an audio file of the oral arguments in Paige v State of Vermont, et. al. before the Vermont Supreme Court that were conducted on November 30, 2016. Vermont resident H. Brooke Paige had challenged the eligibility of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and two other candidates in the Vermont 2016 presidential primary. Paige unsuccessfully challenged President Barack Obama with a similar lawsuit filed during the 2012 election cycle.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Ballot Challenge, Birthers and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Oral Argument in Paige v State of Vermont, et. al.

  1. I am listening to the audio. Paige is [too] quickly reading his prepared statement. A male judge interrupts and reminds Paige that they heard his de Vattel nonsense last time and the dismissal was on other grounds. Shouldn’t he get around to addressing those? He goes back the prepared de Vattel crap. Finally a female judge interrupts and the judges took over to guide the discussion to the key issues of mootness and standing.

    Judge asks about personal harm to Paige. He claims the other “ineligible” candidates prevented him from getting signatures. Paige claims the law only allows a person to sign one petition but cites no law. Judges didn’t buy it. The lower court found his campaign consisted of nothing. He had exactly one worker, his wife.

    Daloz: It was Paige’s fault that the case is moot. He made multiple procedural errors. He could have appealed the injunction dismissal but didn’t. Daloz makes a strong argument there are so many different situations on citizenship and circumstances of birth that any ruling about this coming up again would be speculative and would be an advisory ruling.

    If anyone wants to bet on a ruling in Paige’s favor after listening to this count me in for some action.

    • tbfreeman says:

      Paige wasn’t horrible, but he won’t win. Paige wasted way too much of his precious time on his wrong beliefs about the meaning of natural-born citizenship — an issue not even before the court. And none of the justices were buying his mootness argument; Paige even repeated his same losing arguments about the mootness exceptions that failed to carry the day in 2013.

      As a wager, after the Vermont Supreme Court dismisses Paige’s appeal, Paige could promise to return here and admit that he was wrong. But I doubt he has the strength of character to do even that.

  2. I would be good with that. I agree Paige was at least as good as Apuzzo and miles ahead of Orly Taitz. Orly has entertainment value beyond comparison though. Who could ever forget her interrogating herself in Georgia?

    Paige however like the moron Trump he loves will never admit he was wrong.

  3. I checked the Vermont Supreme Court website and there is no decision in Paige’s case. I suspect we will see something around June based upon the time they took to issue a decision in his last case.

  4. William Rawle says:

    Vermont’s Supreme decision on Paige v. Condos is out. Moot.

    https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/op16-202.pdf

  5. Frank_O'Pinion says:

    Article I of the U.S. Constitution instructs that one only needs to be a ‘citizen’ of the U.S.A. for eligibility of the legislative branch. What factors determine or make a U.S. ‘citizen’?

    Article II of the U.S. Constitution instructs that one MUST be a natural born ‘citizen’. Why this distinction? Why is ‘natural born’ not in Article I?

    Every traitor in the U.S. will not answer the difference. Every patriot will find their answer in Vattel.

    • Well it is easy to find out the requirements to be a US citizen. They are contained in 8 US Code Chapter 12. It’s no surprise that the authors of the Constitution made the requirements for holding office progressively more stringent for representative, senator, and president. The natural born citizen requirement was added very late in the process with little recorded debate. Most historians believe it was added to make sure a foreign government couldn’t install a leader through nefarious means as had happened with some of the monarchies in Europe. Remember that the Articles of Confederation lacked central executive. The “president” under the Articles presided over Congress.

      The writings of de Vattel have nothing to do with the definition of natural born citizen nor citizenship in the Untied States. I would bet a large amount of money that you had never heard of de Vattel before Leo Donofrio and other Birthers dug him up in 2008-09.

    • David L says:

      Because they wanted to allow naturalized citizens to be in the Congress but not President.

      If you read the debates in the Convention, in early August there was a proposal that members of the senate had to be native born (as I’m sure you are aware the Founders used the terms native born and natural born interchangeably). James Wilson, who was not native born to the Colonies, argued this was unfair to people like him. So even though he was helping to write the Constitution to form the new government, that Constitution would prevent him from serving in it. The senate proposal was dropped. But shortly after that they added the “grandfather clause” which allowed Wilson to be eligible to the presidency.

      In the 1795 congressional debates in Congress over the new naturalization act, Congressman Hillhouse of Connecticut gave an example of an alien/non-citizen’s children being “natural born citizens”.

      Under your interpretation of Vattel, that would be impossible, yet Congressman Hillhouse obviously didn’t agree.

Leave a Reply (Please see the RC Radio Blog comment policy). Your first comment will be moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s