Nice. Stealing it.
16 We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES, GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4 (1975). During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor “that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive.” Id. at 3. Although President Arthur‟s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur‟s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.
The GA court is required by Federal Law to accept certification by other states as fact.
The State of HI has hidden what is really the issue. This must be uncovered within the state of HI.
No proof has been that BHO, Jr. was in fact born in HI. All public release are in a form that makes authentication impossible. If this was a simple as releasing a COLB, this would have been over. IT IS NOT.
I do not believe he was born in HI. Which is contrary to what is stated by the state of HI. If he was not born in the U.S., he is not a U.S. Citizen, much less a natural born citizen.
Instead of the “butler did it” in this case the “grandma did it”.
What will it take for this to be uncovered? For the right people to want it uncovered.
I think we are being suckered by the GA court. The new Obozo appointment to the appeals court which will review the GA case if it is appealed, is bought and paid for. She was noted as having done work on this exact issue prior to his election. She got the job to silence this challenge.
IMO the Judge ruled against his own subpoenae.
No way in hell should a ruling go against the side that shows up in court against the side that doesn’t.
I guess there is no such thing as a default ruling in Georgia.
So Judge Malihi equates citizenship at birth with Art. II natural born citizenship and the constitution grants congress the authority to pass laws regarding citizenship.
USC Title 8,1401 states the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
So if I understand the ruling correctly, all these children after attaining the age of 35 and having resided in the US for a period of 14 years are eligible to hold the office of POTUS.
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
From the DISSENT of WKA...that would be the LOSING side.
U.S./?? dual citizens worldwide are nodding yes to this Georgia decision.
Maybe my dual citizenship brother-in-law will move back to the US and become POTUS someday like Obama. I’m gonna advise he become a constitutional lawyer so his qualifications are clear. /s
Here is the final ruling:
"For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‟s grant of the Governor‟s motion to dismiss.M Affirmed. CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur."
The governor's motion to dismiss had nothing to to do with WKA, it had nothing to do with MvH or another SCOTUS ruling or the Constitution itself.
The motion to dismiss was due to lack of ability provide relief since Indiana could not remove a sitting president.
And when it went the appellate level they added pages and pages of dictum that looks like it came from the same source as CRS reports on the subject. It probably did.
In hide site - the default ruling should have been taken. We know there is an aversion to lawyers being the same room as any Hawaii birth document. Maybe that would have forced that issue. He seemed to ready to do that but the plaintiffs insistence of all of this muddied the water so badly he used the cover of Ankeny to avoid leaving the SoS with an unclear path.
As FBI guy says in the movie National Treasurer - "somebody's got to go to jail." To get this off center. That seems to be the case.