Birther Suit Slapped Down By 10th Circuit
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals slapped down another birther lawsuit this week, referring to the plaintiff's argument as "somewhat difficult to distill." According to the decision:
Though it is somewhat difficult to distill Mr. Craig's arguments on appeal, he continues to assert that due to the lack of a legal definition for natural-born citizen, the existence of citizens who are naturally born, as understood by the Constitution's Framers, is no longer acknowledged. According to Mr. Craig, this has resulted in the "involuntary expatriation" of those whom he believes fall into this category of citizens. Mr. Craig argues that the definition is knowable, and he proffers a definition from a 1758 Swiss philosophical treatise.
The judges found:
Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig's claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such "right" (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.
The decision continues:
Thus, Mr. Craig's claim is sufficiently attenuated, insubstantial, and frivolous that the district court's dismissal of this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) was not in error.
The one bright light for Mr. Craig is that the court dismissed the suit "without prejudice," allowing Craig to file the case again.
It should be noted that two of the three judges on the panel were appointed to the federal bench by Republicans, Judge Jerome Holmes by George W. Bush, and Judge Paul Kelly by George H.W. Bush.