Obama Can Be President, Says Supreme Court

Brian Doherty | December 9, 2008

I confess, I sometimes feel twinges of utterly unironic and unnuanced love of country when our Supreme Court actually considers even for a second this sort of wackiness:

The Supreme Court turned down an emergency appeal Monday from a New Jersey man who claimed that President-elect Barack Obama was not a "natural born citizen" and therefore was ineligible to become president.

The setback is the latest for a small group of persistent litigants who want the courts to block Obama from taking office. So far, none of these plaintiffs has convinced any judge that Obama's assertion that he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, is incorrect.

......Leo Donofrio, a retired lawyer from East Brunswick, N.J., contended that Obama was ineligible to be president because his father was from Kenya. In October he sued New Jersey's secretary of state, arguing that both Obama and Sen. John McCain should be removed from the state ballot because neither was a natural born citizen.

............

Donofrio said Obama should "be required to prove … he was born in Hawaii. … Even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii, Sen. Obama's father was born in Kenya, and therefore, having been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is not a 'natural born citizen.' "

In Monday's order, the court said it had denied Donofrio's request for a stay.

......Still pending at the high court is an appeal petition claiming Obama was born in Kenya. Hawaii's Health Department and its registrar of vital statistics have determined he was born in Hawaii.

Dave Weigel with some earlier Obama conspiracy watching.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|12.9.08 @ 12:05PM|#

2 for 2. That's a good track record. Lets just hope the President is endorsed/chosen by the Supreme Court for the rest of the century.

|12.9.08 @ 12:11PM|#

OK, but he IS a Muslim, or a Jew, or one of those other cult religions. Right?

Grandma interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo

|12.9.08 @ 12:12PM|#

Obama was actually born on Caprica, and I have proof. He is qualified to be President of the 12 colonies, but not the US.

Lets assume, for a moment, that this isn't a totally spurious tin-foil-hat mania imposed on us by a nutjob.

Supposing Obama was born in Kenya or accepted citizenship of another country? I think as long as he still had one American parent he would qualify as Natural Born. I would think the logical interpretation would be something like "Citizen at birth" meaning they qualified for citizenship at the oment of being a legal person. Even if they renounced citizenship later, this would still be the case.

cunnivore|12.9.08 @ 12:13PM|#

Even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii, Sen. Obama's father was born in Kenya, and therefore, having been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is not a 'natural born citizen.'

That's a novel argument! But wouldn't that disqualify several of our former presidents as well?

cracker|12.9.08 @ 12:14PM|#

They's got to be some way to keep this nigger from takin over.

cunnivore|12.9.08 @ 12:15PM|#

domo, I think you have to be both a current citizen and natural born to be President. There are explicit citizenship requirements for Congress, so it's hard to believe that the requirements would be less for the presidency.

|12.9.08 @ 12:20PM|#

This is an odd case. The petitioner is also claiming that McCain and one of the third-party candidates aren't natural born citizens, either.

|12.9.08 @ 12:22PM|#

These cases are too important to give up because you know the first thing Obama is going to do is appoint activist judges that will take our rights away.

|12.9.08 @ 12:24PM|#

I think as long as he still had one American parent he would qualify as Natural Born.

You would think so, and I've seen that posted a hundred times at other (lesser) sites, but I don't think that is quite true.

Here is more info:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Of course I never want to contribute to a good trainwreck....

|12.9.08 @ 12:27PM|#

domo, I think you have to be both a current citizen and natural born to be President.

Well, yes, that's what I mean. But no one says he's not a current citizen. For example, lets say we agree he's Natural Born by virtue of his mother being a citizen. After that, he went to Indonesia, and accepted citizenship there. After that he comes back, and is recognized to be a US citizen once again. Under my thinking, he would still be qualified, because he is a)a NB citizen and b) a current citizen. The fact that there was some intervening period when he was not a citizen is irrelevant. Totally trying to stave off boredom, BTW... Thoughts?

Fluffy|12.9.08 @ 12:27PM|#

I think the case is better against McCain, since there's no dispute that McCain was not born in the United States itself.

The courts have tred carefully through the birth requirements and length-of-residency requirements spelled out in the Constitution ever since the US started deploying diplomats and soldiers overseas for long periods, it's possible to read the Constitution in a way that would exclude McCain, as well as Eisenhower, Kennedy, the first Bush, and many others who either were born overseas or weren't US residents for the 14 continuous years prior to seeking the office.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

|12.9.08 @ 12:30PM|#

whoa - just read bigbigslackers link. Are any of these lawsuits alleging exactly that?

robc|12.9.08 @ 12:33PM|#

Fluffy,

At the time of his birth, the canal zone was US territory.

I agree with domo - Obama was a natural born US citizen as long as his mom was a US citizen at the time of his birth, no matter where he was born.

|12.9.08 @ 12:38PM|#

In brief, BBS's link says that yes, he was born in HI, HI was a state, his mom was a citizen - BUT his father was not. Since only his mother was, according to the law at the time, his mother must have been a citizen for 10 years, 5 of which were over the age of 16. Therefore, since she was only 18, and his father was Kenyan (undisputed, that I know of) Obama should have been naturalized.

Which (I can't believe I'm about to type this) would make him ineligible...

|12.9.08 @ 12:39PM|#

I think as long as he still had one American parent he would qualify as Natural Born.

That's correct. Obama, John McCain, Myself, and thousands of people who are born overseas to American parents are all natural born citizens.

-jcr

robc|12.9.08 @ 12:41PM|#

Huh, after reading the link, I guess one parent being a US Citizen hasnt always been enough to guarantee natural born citizenship.

I do think its safe to say the intent of the law wasnt to prevent

|12.9.08 @ 12:41PM|#

"be required to prove … he was born in Hawaii. … Even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii, Sen. Obama's father was born in Kenya..."

"You can't prove it! And even if you did, it doesn't mean anything! I'll keep pulling ridiculous claims out my ass until I get my way!"

I'll wager good money that this guy is a full blown Troofer.

robc, even if he WAS born on Caprica as Episarich contends? That's a debate that the Supreme Court really should take up.

robc|12.9.08 @ 12:42PM|#

domo,

It would only make him naturalized if Obama wasnt born in Hawaii. Being born in the US trumps all the other stuff. If he **was** born in Kenya, then under the literal reading of the law, he isnt eligible to be President.

robc|12.9.08 @ 12:43PM|#

damn you html eating the rest of my 12:41 post.

Stupid less than sign.

|12.9.08 @ 12:46PM|#

"Since only his mother was, according to the law at the time, his mother must have been a citizen for 10 years, 5 of which were over the age of 16."

Where does this five-years-of-citizenship-over-the-age-of-16 stuff come from?

robc|12.9.08 @ 12:46PM|#

BTW,

Anyone know what the law stated before 1952 or after 1986?

Is 1 US citizen parent now enough to born naturalized?

I would like to know the pre-1952 law to try to figure out the intent of the 1952-1986 law. Not that I think it matters, Im pretty sure Obama was born in Hawaii.

|12.9.08 @ 12:47PM|#

Being born in the US trumps all the other stuff.

Ah - that's well then

[/tinfoilhat]

robc|12.9.08 @ 12:47PM|#

Mark,

See the link in the 12:24 post.

|12.9.08 @ 12:51PM|#

The residency requirement for the lone citizen parent apply only to children born outside of the US.

A child born in the US is a citizen regardles of the nationality of either or both of his parents. Hence the wingnut concern over "anchor babies".

|12.9.08 @ 12:52PM|#

The 14th Amendment states that anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen - even if you have two foreign parents, not just one. Think of the 'anchor babies' argument.

The Constitutional definition would trump everything else, at least for the purpose of meeting a Constitutional requirement.

|12.9.08 @ 12:54PM|#

Darn! I so wanted to read Lonewacko's take on this momentous news.

*Kazam* I invoke the spirit of Lonewacko to appear.

Think it'll work?

robc|12.9.08 @ 12:55PM|#

joe/Isaac,

re: anchor babies

I think that is already covered. We are assuming the hypothetical that he was born in Kenya. Both domo and I assumed that it wouldnt matter because his mom was a citizen anyway. But do to a poorly written law, it looks like it would.

|12.9.08 @ 12:57PM|#

Ah, my bad.

|12.9.08 @ 12:59PM|#

I guess we know Weigel's gone for good if he didn't have 1500 words in him on this.

D.A. Ridgely|12.9.08 @ 1:05PM|#

robc|12.9.08 @ 1:09PM|#

DAR,

You failed to consider the possibility that the Bavarian Illuminati controls both the GOP and the Dems and they have selected BHO as the next president. Hillary and McCain and etc. are just following orders. Thats why only the "nuts" are filing law suits.

Also remember, Alcoa is also controlled by the BI, hence why its so hard to find tin foil anymore. Al foil doesnt work at all.

|12.9.08 @ 1:11PM|#

robc,

The law that made children born in the canal zone American citizens was passed (and applied retroactively) after John McCain was born. So in theory, at the time of his birth, John McCain may not have qualified as a "natural born citizen".

|12.9.08 @ 1:12PM|#

whoa - just read bigbigslackers link. Are any of these lawsuits alleging exactly that?

There are - I think Alan Keyes' suit does just that. But, as you and others already stated, if the court rules he was born in Hawaii then all that mumbo jumbo about the status of his mother, how long she resided in the US over a certain age, etc, becomes irrelevant.

At this point, even if the court believed the suit to have merit, I can't see any court ruling against the first African-American president elect. The court bends the constitution their way whenever it suits them, so why become sticklers and tear up the country over a very small detail. Let's say everything in the lawsuits is true. Obama's mother intended him to be born here. The founding fathers could not have forseen air travel that could potentially get a pregnant citizen stranded half way across the world for a couple days too long. The court could rule on this intent right?

My overall point is these suits are not as wacky as they are portrayed, even if they are chock full of sour grapes.

DAR,

John McCain needed Obama in the election so that they could steal the Hope Diamond from the Smithsonian.

robc|12.9.08 @ 1:16PM|#

bigbigslacker,

The founding fathers didnt have anything to do with it, the law was passed in 1952. The difference in travel between then and Obama's birth wasnt that great.

It was just a poorly written law that failed to consider the possibility of a women under 20 having a child with a foreigner outside the US.

|12.9.08 @ 1:17PM|#

Alcoa is also controlled by the BI, hence why its so hard to find tin foil anymore. Al foil doesnt work at all.

Bastards! So they HAVE been listening to my thoughts this whole time?

Paul|12.9.08 @ 1:31PM|#

The setback is the latest for a small group of persistent litigants who want the courts to block Obama from taking office.

A small group consisting of:

1. Lonewacko

|12.9.08 @ 1:31PM|#

The founding fathers didnt have anything to do with it, the law was passed in 1952. The difference in travel between then and Obama's birth wasnt that great.

I just got told. But that 35 years old business was original, right? (I got a memory like a....what was it again?)

|12.9.08 @ 1:32PM|#

Sorry, robc, I missed your hypothetical too.

It's just that this is a subject that seems to get a lot of people panties in a twist as they argue a bunch of shit they know nothing about.

I have argued before that things like this (and other conspiracy theories) often gain traction due to what the humorist Josh Billings observed:

The trouble with most folks isn't so much their ignorance. It's know'n so many things that ain't so.

Orange Line Special|12.9.08 @ 1:38PM|#

That's nice. However, the fact remains that Barack Obama has never definitively proven where he was born. If you think otherwise, you're wrong: see the link.

Several organizations and persons - including Weigel - have lied about this. In fact, I'm currently being stonewalled by a certain state agency, and as soon as they get back to me or enough time elapses expect those organizations and persons to lose even more credibility.

|12.9.08 @ 1:39PM|#

a poorly written law that failed to consider the possibility of a women under 20 having a child with a foreigner outside the US.

Oh, depravity!

|12.9.08 @ 1:41PM|#

In fact, I'm currently being stonewalled by a certain state agency, and as soon as they get back to me or enough time elapses expect those organizations and persons to lose even more credibility.

Did your brain shrink in the wash?

The Angry Optimist|12.9.08 @ 1:58PM|#

Did your brain shrink in the wash?

"Wait a second, this ain't no brain... this a damn bee's nest."

|12.9.08 @ 2:00PM|#

J sub D | December 9, 2008, 12:54pm | #

Darn! I so wanted to read Lonewacko's take on this momentous news.
*Kazam* I invoke the spirit of Lonewacko to appear.
Think it'll work?

Orange Line Special | December 9, 2008, 1:38pm | #

That's nice. However, the fact remains that Barack Obama has never definitively proven where he was born. If you think otherwise, you're wrong: see the link.

Several organizations and persons - including Weigel - have lied about this. In fact, I'm currently being stonewalled by a certain state agency, and as soon as they get back to me or enough time elapses expect those organizations and persons to lose even more credibility.

44 minutes. Okay, the Sorceror Supreme I ain't. Still, not too bad for an apprentice.

|12.9.08 @ 2:09PM|#

If there was a scintilla of credible or maybe even incredible evidence that Barack Obama might have been born outside the U.S., Hillary Clinton and / or the Republican Party would have pushed it relentlessly.

I always relied on Hillary for this one. You can guaran-damn-tee that if there was anything to this, Hillary's goons would have dug it up, stuck it in, and twisted it. This kind of thing is tailor-made for the Clintons.

So when Hillary didn't do anything with it, I figured there was nothing to it.

At this point, even if the court believed the suit to have merit, I can't see any court ruling against the first African-American president elect.

Plus, there's that.

|12.9.08 @ 2:12PM|#

I thought him not being a U.S. citizen was just a rumor...I'm confused as to why this is even an issue. The first thing that you should need to do, before running for President, is to provide your social security number. You have to provide it to get any job in the U.S. They should already have all of his information now. Why don't they just go by that?
This reeks of bullshit.

Naga Sadow|12.9.08 @ 2:13PM|#

LONEWACKO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*shakes fist in air*

Not bad, J sub D. I'm gonna have to remember that trick.

|12.9.08 @ 2:14PM|#

What about integrity? What about faithfully observing the constitution? It does not make any exceptions for the children of american citizens born in canal zones or while daddy was a diplomat in Deutscheland. Th
us, at the outset, one should dismiss as immaterial to the resolution of the matter, any legislation bearing on the definition of "natural born citizen".

Next, we must accord the words in the constitution their due. They were put there for a reason. Therefore, considerations of jet travel, the diaper dandies of diplomats and soldiers and african american historical electoral milestones, are of no import. The framers saw fit to provide for just a couple of requirements for those who would be president. Is there anything inherently wrong with requiring the president to be a natural born citizen?

Obama, produce the birth certificate. Its not too much to ask.

|12.9.08 @ 2:15PM|#

What is wacky and intellectually sloppy is the assertion that these lawsuits are wacky.

|12.9.08 @ 2:18PM|#

Guys, deal with the merits. The fact that the Clintons, apparently, have not been a part of the effort to make Obama prove his citizenship, in and of itself, as a matter of logic, means nothing.

|12.9.08 @ 2:27PM|#

Obama, produce the birth certificate. Its not too much to ask.

The person who examined the birth certificate here in Hawaii -- the head of one of the executive branch cabinets -- and said it was real was a Republican who works for the Republican governor -- a governor who not only campaigned for John McCain but was one of the few governors who refused to meet with Obama during the recent conference, citing some rather bogus sounding "schedule conflicts".

If there was a problem with the birth certificate, we'd have heard about it. The person examining it was not a person who has any great love for Obama, or incentive to do him any favors.

|12.9.08 @ 2:35PM|#

"Wait a second, this ain't no brain... this a damn bee's nest."

"Jeremy the Bullfrog lived in a tiny swamp on the edge of town. Every day he would dream of playing professional basketball. But he lived in a swamp, far away from the city lights and a major market team."

The Angry Optimist|12.9.08 @ 2:37PM|#

"I need complete concentration, or Obama's candidacy will die"

|12.9.08 @ 2:41PM|#

The first thing that you should need to do, before running for President, is to provide your social security number.

Umm, non-citizens with greencards have social security numbers. A social security number is not proof of citizenship.

libertymike, a "natural born citizen" is anything Congress says it is, subject to, at a minimum, the 14th Amendment requirement that "anyone born in the U...".

As such children born to American citizens overseas are citizens themselves, subject to the limitations above when only one parent is a citizen. This naturally includes "the children of american citizens born in canal zones or while daddy was a diplomat in Deutscheland" etc. Such parents do need to file paperwork but mainly only to avoid problems down the road.

But as I've concluded from most of your posts you are one of the people Josh Billings had in mind.

|12.9.08 @ 2:49PM|#

Doug|12.9.08 @ 3:03PM|#

I think he won't release his birth certificate because his real name is like Dodsworth or something.

Orange Line Special|12.9.08 @ 3:35PM|#

prolefeed says: The person who examined the birth certificate here in Hawaii -- the head of one of the executive branch cabinets -- and said it was real was a Republican who works for the Republican governor -- a governor who not only campaigned for John McCain but was one of the few governors who refused to meet with Obama during the recent conference, citing some rather bogus sounding "schedule conflicts".

Actually, that's wrong on a couple counts.

1. The only two people mentioned as having seen the cert are from HI's Dep't of Health, which probably doesn't include whoever's being referred to above.

2. Those two officials didn't say what was on it or verify it, because to do so would be illegal. All they said was that it was on file and valid. They didn't say what was on it or confirm it as being the same as the one on BHO's site.

Let me spill the beans: I'm trying to get statement from HI's Healthdep't admitting the second, and if/when I do organizations like FactCheck are going to look very, very bad.

I realize now there's little danger in pointing that out, because the hacks at Reason and elsewhere are too corrupt to break a big story.

Zubon|12.9.08 @ 4:00PM|#

For just a moment there, I thought someone was having SpoofingFun with him, but then I realized: wow.

|12.9.08 @ 4:03PM|#

Obama inaugurated 1/20/09? No way. No how. Read this: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm

Fluffy|12.9.08 @ 4:07PM|#

The real Constitutional fun starts with Hillary's appointment as Secretary of State, which is pretty explicitly unconstitutional under the Emoluments Clause.

I'm just wondering who might have both the (a) balls and (b) standing to challenge her appointment in the Supreme Court?

I believe this specific situation has arisen before, and apparently the way they get around it is to just only give Hillary the salary the SecState received before she entered the Senate. So it costs her a few bucks, but the emoluments problem goes away.

|12.9.08 @ 4:13PM|#

LIES!!!

|12.9.08 @ 4:20PM|#

I'm fairly sure that it would not be illegal for an official in Hawaii's Health Department to bring malfeasance of this order to the attention of the proper authorities. I invite people who know what they're talking about to correct me if correction is required.

So what everyone who believes these claims is saying is that not only has BO committed multiple perjuries by signing any number of affadavits to the affect that he is a US citizen (everything from passport applications to election documents) and gotten away with it, but that further he has done so with the connivance of God only knows how many public officials.

If this is true, then we need to stop worrying and bow down before our new Overlord, because, plainly he is too mighty for mere mortals to combat. This is surely the greatest coup since Karl Rove used Democratic election officials in Florida to steal the election for GWB.

And to think there were people who though Cheney was evil. Fucking amateur.

|12.9.08 @ 4:22PM|#

So it costs her a few bucks, but the emoluments problem goes away.

Maybe, but the problem of her lack of qualifications doesn't.

|12.9.08 @ 4:55PM|#

If Sec of State Hillary isn't paid the new salary, she is not taking a position for which the salary has been increased.

|12.9.08 @ 5:15PM|#

Considering what an excellent job the former President has done "monetizing" his status, she could just donate her time, as a concerned citizen. Let the Treasury keep the money, and give it to some deserving General Motors executive.

|12.9.08 @ 6:58PM|#

Here's the truth (HT "itooktheredpill.wordpress.com"

"The Supreme Court did NOT "deny cert" to Leo Donofrio yesterday. The truth is the Supreme Court did NOT "turn down" Donofrio's case yesterday. The truth is that Leo Donofrio's case is still "PENDING" at the Supreme Court, and the court only denied the application to stay an election.

... the election that Donofrio had been trying to stay was the November 4th election (he hurriedly filed his case on November 3rd to do so).

So, it is logical that the court would, on December 8th, deny an application to stay an election that already happened on November 4th.

Donofrio's case is still PENDING.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.

…

CERTIORARI DENIED
[Note the ABSENCE of Donofrio's case here]

Donofrio's case is NOT listed under CERTIORARI DENIED.

Everyone should take another look at the order list from the SCOTUS yesterday.

Not only was Donofrio's case NOT denied certiorari, but a third case (Cort Wrotnowski vs. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State) was referred to the Court by Justice Scalia - distributed for conference this coming Friday:

Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.

It sounds like Donofrio may have called this correctly earlier today:

On the chance that SCOTUS was looking at both my case and Cort's case, I must stress that Cort's case does not have the same procedural hang up that mine does. It may be that without a decision on the Judicial misconduct allegation correcting the NJ Appellate Division case file, SCOTUS might have been in the position of not being able to hear my case as it would appear that my case was not before them on the proper procedural grounds.

I did file a direct appeal under the proper NJ Court rules, but the lower Court judge refused to acknowledge that and if his fraudulent docketing was used by SCOTUS they would have a solid procedural basis to throw mine out.

Friday could turn out to be a very, very big news day.

GILMORE|12.9.08 @ 7:53PM|#

Orange Line Special | December 9, 2008, 1:38pm | #

That's nice. However, the fact remains that Barack Obama has never definitively proven where he was born.

You have also never proven *whether* you were born, or evolved gradually from a piece of fungus that got stuck in some retard's asscrack.

Was the birth certificate not enough for you?? Or was it.... forged!!!?? The truf will find you my son. Just... Keep....Trying....

|12.9.08 @ 9:10PM|#

lol obamas a darkie he'll sell us to mexico

GILMORE|12.9.08 @ 10:31PM|#

Ted | December 9, 2008, 6:58pm | #

This qualifies for "Argumentum Ad Ignorantum Gone Wild". Buy the video now! from 911 troofers, to Only The Guilty Have Reason to Fear types - they bring you the best in unsubstantiated rhetorical nonsense posing as reasoned argument. More entertaining than drunken teenage titties! Ok, not nearly as entertaining, but entertaining!

GILMORE|12.9.08 @ 10:38PM|#

I enjoyed lonewackos "exhaustive" examination of the evidence (or lack thereof!!) of Obama's Americanness-ness.

The one detail he omits in his exhaustive review is the mention of the birth of a certain Barack Obama in the Honolulu Register, August 4, 1961. Of course... one could have always GONE BACK IN TIME AND PLANTED THAT. WE MUST FIND THE ANSWERS!!

|12.9.08 @ 11:20PM|#

So, Ted, are you trying to tell us that BO has committed multiple perjuries by signing any number of affidavits to the affect that he is a US citizen (everything from passport applications to election documents) and gotten away with it, and has done so with the connivance of God only knows how many public officials? And that noone, ever, has caught on and exposed him as the fraud he is? Like, not in forty-some years?

GILMORE, interestingly enough, the "birth certificate" online for BO looks exactly like the one I got from the State of Hawai'i in 2001 when I applied for a copy of my birth certificate when I thought I'd lost the old one. It's apparently good as proof I was born in Hawai'i (and am therefore a natural born US citizen) to everyone who's curious about the question. I wonder why B Hussein Obama is having so much trouble getting folks to accept his.

|12.10.08 @ 1:14AM|#

Okay all you wackos, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS! I will bet a one ounce Liberty Eagle Gold Coin that by January 20 2009, Obama will be sworn in as President of the United States. I bet a further one ounce Liberty Eagle Gold Coin that he will not be removed from office for any reason relating to U.S. Citizenship. Wagers to be paid 1/21/2009 and 1/21/2013.

You guys talk a lot of shit, now it's time to put up or shut up. You have to accept now.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements