The court cites WKA, acknowledges it doesn't support their claim, and cites it anyway - AND YOU TAKE IT!
Posted on 08/02/2013 5:35:11 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
The court cites WKA, acknowledges it doesn't support their claim, and cites it anyway - AND YOU TAKE IT!
Don’t like Ankeny? O.k. then:
Tisdale v. Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v. Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12
Allen v. Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Purpura & Moran v. Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
Voeltz v. Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp
“Time will tell whether NBC’s claims are substantiated or not. He is challenging others to try and replicate his findings.”
NBC hasn’t published any “findings” but only hand-waiving claims to have achieve 100% replication with his Zerox-Mac “workflow.” There is NO indication he has replicated the “floating” Onoka signature block and NO published replicated pdf.
NBC is an anonymous blogger who has filed NO affidavit in any court or with the CCP.
Zullo’s independent certified document examiner, Reed Hayes, has reportedly confirmed Mara Zebest’s (and other’s)published detailed forensic analysis, but because Hayes report is part of a criminal investigation, it is properly being kept confidential at this time.
The jokes just keep on coming.
Gibney equates “citizen” with “natural born citizen”
Malihi cites Arkeny [sic]
Gordon cites Ankeny
Masin “accepts” facts not in evidence
Cooper claims eligibility is a political question.
The clown car is full but you can squeeze in.
Precedent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with precedence.
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.” Common law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies), and regulatory law (regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies).
“Stare decisis” is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: “to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed.” In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters.
Case law is the set of existing rulings which have made new interpretations of law and, therefore, can be cited as precedent. In most countries, including most European countries, the term is applied to any set of rulings on law which is guided by previous rulings, for example, previous decisions of a government agency - that is, precedential case law can arise from either a judicial ruling or a ruling of an adjudication within an executive branch agency. Trials and hearings that do not result in written decisions of a court of record do not create precedent for future court decisions.
And your point is?
Right there in post #125. If you use your critical thinking skills, I’m certain that you are intelligent enough to figure it out.
You’ve made no point whatsoever.
You are entitled to your opinion.
“Making a point” entails more than enumerating facts.
I could say, “the sun rises in the east and sets in the west”. It is a statement of fact, put no point is made.
O.K., I understand your point.
OK - that made me chuckle.
In a good way.
Then mission accomplished!
Sometimes stating facts, particularly when facts are being debated, IS the point.
It is a fact that American case law, which is our common law system, places a high value on precedent and the concept of “stare decisis.”
It is a fact that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment (Section 1) has been interpreted since its adoption in 1868 as the definitive constitutional position on citizenship for ALL Americans (”All persons born or naturalized...”). The 14th Amendment did not supplant Article II, Section 1, it simply further defined it. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”— Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
It is a fact that the precedent established in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 has stood as “stare decisis” for the last 115 years.
It is a fact that the Ankeny ruling in Indiana cited US v. Wong Kim Ark as one of the legal precedents for the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling and it is a fact that other courts have also been persuaded by the Ankeny ruling. That is the way precedent works however ANY judge or court majority can choose to go against precedent or establish a new precedent.
On issues of presidential eligibility under Article 2, Section 1, to date, no court has gone against precedent.
From a Reagan judge: Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”— Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
Wong was ruled “citizen”, a fact noted by the court in Ankeny. The court then said that Wong not being ruled “natural born citizen” was “immaterial”. Ankeny is a farce.
“The 14th Amendment did not supplant Article II, Section 1, it simply further defined it.”
Do you really believe you can slip that by? The 14th Amendment makes no mention of Article II or “natural born citizen”
Exactly, you are correct, sir.
sup·plant
Verb
Supersede and replace.
Synonyms
supersede - displace - replace - substitute - oust
From the government’s brief in U.S. v.Wong Kim Ark (1898):
“The district court, following as being stare decisis the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing (10 Sawyer, 356), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizen by birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within The United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.”
Because of the Chinese Exclusion Act which was in force in 1898, Wong Kim Ark could not be naturalized as a U.S.citizen.
The Supreme Court clearly established that there are two classes of citizens ONLY since the adoption of the 14th Amendment.
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884): “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”
Note that “citizens by birth” are contrasted to naturalized citizens, with the former exclusively being eligible to be president.
The Court went on to rule in Elk v. Wilkens:
“This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
At any point in time Congress could pass a bill and a president could sign into law an act differentiating between a citizen of the United States at birth and an Article 2 natural born citizen. But that has never happened and thus the Supreme Court has not had the opportunity to rule directly on the constitutional issue.
Another option would be for a state legislature to pass legislation requiring two American citizen parents in order to be eligible to run for President/Vice President on a state’s ballot. That state law would be fast tracked to a Supreme Court ruling.
Leftist (& now British) Daily Show is already crowing about how Ted Cruz' run legitimizes the illegal foreign Obama regime.
Check this out: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-5-2013/can-t-you-at-least-wait-until-jon-stewart-gets-back---the-expanding-2016-field
Cruz bit is around 1:20
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.