Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven
[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.
Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.
The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.
Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
To repeat, for emphasis:
For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Minor expressly refused to give an authoritative definition of NBC.
Oh, you're a sneaky snake, aren't you!
You are right, a natural born citizen is always going to be a citizen at birth.
A simple test for you - a man and a woman immigrate to the US. They both become citizens of the US through the naturalization process. They then have a child in one of the several States of the US.
Is that child a citizen or a natural born citizen?
baloney they are afraid to rock the boat. if they agreed with you why were there so many attempts to change the NBC requirement?
But then, they may already have it.
NO IT HASN'T. When I was in school and CIVICS was being taught we were taught that a Natural Born Citizen was one born of two citizen parents.
I know exactly what I am talking about.
You clearly do not understand what you are talking about.
I suggest you study the definition of the word “ignorant” before you use that term, again.
A capias warrant is a warrant issued by a civil court to compel someone to perform an action.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.
(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal
on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.
(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity
are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup.
The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated
only by political self-preservation.
(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because
they see that none of their leaders are doing
anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.
Minor Court’s Definition of Natural Born Citizen Under Article II2
The United States Supreme Court defined the term “natural born citizen” in Minor v. Happersett. 88 U.S. at 167. The Minor Court established that “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
It is clear that the Minor Court was referring to the term “natural born citizen,” as it appears in article II of the Constitution because, in the paragraph preceding the definition quoted here, that Court quoted the article II requirement that the President must be a “natural born citizen.”
The Minor Court definition of natural born citizen is immediately followed by a statement that “there have been doubts” about the broader class of people identified as “citizens.” However, this statement is immediately followed by the clarification that there have “never been doubts” as to the narrower class of natural born citizens.
This understanding of the Minor Court statement is supported by its extensive discussion of the broader term “citizen” at the beginning of the Court's opinion. The Court concludes its discussion of the term citizen by stating, “When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”
The Court, therefore, clearly established that the term “citizen” in its opinion was to be understood to be very broad. Nothing in this opinion should be read as an attempt to independently construe the United States Constitution.
To the contrary, this section and the following section of this opinion are intended to show that this Court is simply applying the construction established by United States Supreme Court precedent.
Court's statement is unambiguous: it established two distinct classes of people, citizens and natural born citizens; “citizen” is a broad term that is inclusive of all “natural born citizens”; as to the outer limits of the term “citizen” there are doubts; and as to the definition of “natural born citizen” there have “never been doubts”.
The Minor Court's definition of the term natural born citizen uses the term “parents.” This is the plural form of the term “parent.” Had the Court intended to indicate natural born citizen status could be conferred upon an individual with one citizen parent, the Court could have used the term “parent” instead of “parents.” The Court could also have identified a specific parent using the terms “father” or “mother.” It did not use the terms “mother,” “father,” or “parent.” Instead it chose to use the plural term “parents.” The plain language meaning of this term indicates a requirement for both parents to be citizens.
Sometimes, it is not worth it to argue with crazy “birthers” but in defense of Rubio, it is now well worth the time.
so according to law a foundling of unknown parentage is a citizen at birth thus a NBC....yeah and Bin Laden or Prince Charles’ illegitimate baby born to a visitor in the US can be President! Were our founders that stupid?
You sound like alsore with his “no controlling legal authority” meme when he got caught soliciting campaign money from a religious nunnery some years ago.
JC
Fascinating - does anyone have any idea, specifically, who did this? Is it being corrected?
ROFL!
Do you have delusions of grandeur, too?
If she was naturalized BEFORE you were born here and your father was also a citizen at that time, then you’re good to go!
JC
You and Obama both make really good [fer nuthing ] obsfucating lawyer types [ cept for the fact that no one is allowed to see any credentials ].
You puked up this same bile 4 years ago and now your time is almost up. Even IL joined the group of 7 so far to review Obama qualifications to be on the ballot.
buh bah!
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.