Obama Got Served

American Thinker ^ | February 1, 2012 | Cindy Simpson

[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...

[philman_36]

BTW, the FogBlowers are playing ignorant more than they usually do,
if that’s possible.

Break the shield wall and witness the mayhem that follows.

[ncpatriot]

are anchor babies eligible to be president?

[edge919]

Ideally, that should be all that is needed. However, a large number of judges could easily disagree on NBC status, either from being misinformed, or not willing to rock the boat, or arguing lack of standing (Remember the Supreme Court punted on D'inofrio in 2008).

D'onofrio didn't have the Minor definition as a legal precedent in 2008. He tried to argue from omission that the 14th amendment didn't define natural-born citizenship. This argument is true, because it was confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but Leo didn't cite that either. He relied strictly on the construction of the law, and not a citation to legal authority. Second, the appeal had to overcome the lower court's argument that it was filed too late. The SCOTUS didn't have anything to work with.

[Red Steel]

MaineSkeptic FogBlower post.

“Straight from the horse’s mouth (yeah, I know):

David Farrar wrote:

This case is going to be wrapped up, possible as early as tomorrow, with Judge Malihi issuing a default judgement against candidate Barack Obama, with a recommendation that his name not be placed on Georgia’s PPP ballot due to his failure to produce a certified birth certificate.”

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=339090#p339090

If this is true, it appears logical that Obama has to get to first base before he can argue that ‘jus soli’ means natural born citizen. As we all know, the loser has not done that. No evidence of being born on US soil submitted to the court is tantamount to being a foreigner.

[betty boop]

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.

Which means, I gather, that the MSN has no objection in principle to the idea of an absolute monarch "governing" us. For only an absolute monarch can be said to be "above the law." Worse, the MSN — by deciding what is "fit to print" — on the supposition that what can be kept out of the public record never happened — are not impartial conveyors of on-the-ground reporting of important public events. Rather, they have chosen to be the handmaidens of creeping absolutism....

Thanks for the great post, Sallyven!

[devattel]

My goodness. I guess we will have to school you. The reponse to your argument can be found directly in the Constitution itself. You do not have to go to case law to understand this response.

Pay close attention as I will only go over this once. Are you ready for a little grammatical magic?

 

Amendment XIV says:

All persons born or naturalized... are Citizens of the United States...

Article II, Section 1 says:

...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

Grammar Lesson:

Or is a coordinating conjunction that presents an alternative item or idea. One in place of another.

Are or Shall Be is a subject-verb agreement which means both subjects are essentially the same.

 

Let us complete the lesson by substitution:

...Natural Born Citizen, or a person born in the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

...Natural Born Citizen, or a person naturalized in the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

 

Your argument does not hold water.

 

[Danae]

Who is that? David Farrar... where was that posted?

Its interesting for certain, but really more relevant to Orly’s case.

Though.... really, Without ANY documentation that he was born in Hawaii, how can the court determine he was born there in the first place. No internet document is Prima Facie evidence. ONLY the document ITSELF is. A picture is only a picture and means nothing, particularly nowadays. So it makes sense that the court would reject what amounts to a picture. That is in accord with any chain of evidence.

This could get interesting..... You are right.

[philman_36]

Who is that? David Farrar...

David Farrar V Barack Obama

[philman_36]

...where was that posted?
Plaintiffs' briefs due today in Obama’s Georgia ballot eligibility case

[LucyT]

I just received information that Judge Mahili rejected the White House pdf file of 0bama’s long form birth certificate abstract. This should get real interesting.

As he should since it is BS. I see exploding heads in La La FogBow Land.

Thanks, Red Steel.

[philman_36]

Too Easy

[Suz in AZ]

I just received information that Judge Mahili rejected the White House pdf file of Obama’s long form birth certificate abstract. This should get real interesting.

Of course. It is not an original certified copy, with raised seal.

[STARWISE]

Really .. do you trust this info to be from
a reliable source?

#383 ping

I just received information that Judge Mahili rejected the White House pdf file of Obama’s long form birth certificate abstract.

[STARWISE]

Liberty Legal Foundation

*snip*

The second filing today was a Motion for Finding of Contempt against Obama. My message last week, Is the Judicial Branch Dead?, covered the implications of Obama’s actions last week.

Never before in our history have we had a President simply ignore a court order. We have had Presidents subject to a court order more than once, but in every one of those instances, the President in question followed lawful procedure in dealing with those orders.

We now have a sitting President that has openly declared that he is not subject to the Judicial Branch of our government.

This is dangerous territory and our Motion urges Judge Malihi to recommend “that the Superior Court find the Defendant in willful contempt of Court, and that the Superior Court impose sanctions commensurate with an act that threatens the foundations of our Constitutional Republic.”

Please continue to help spread the word about our arguments. There is so much misinformation circulating about what a Natural Born Citizen is and what our Constitution says.

Many wonder why this is even important at this point. It is important because everything is connected. If we fail to follow the Constitution in one circumstance, how can we defend upholding the Constitution in another?

This is not a partisan issue, this is not a gender issue, this is not a race issue. This is a rule of law issue. Either we have rule of law in the United States or we don’t.

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1689/georgia-ruling-coming-soon/

[sourcery]

The Minor decision defined "natural born citizens" to be "distinguished from aliens and foreigners." That means anyone classifiable as either an alien or a foreigner is excluded from the class of NBC.

Anyone who has foreign citizenship is a foreigner, even if they're also US citizens. By definition, using the legal dictionaries of the period, and specifically using the ones ordered by Madison for use at the Constitutional Convention.

Also, the Minor decision states that those who are born in the US to US-citizens parents form a citizenship class that is distinct from any others that don't satisfy all of the following conditions:

1. Born in the US
2. Both parents were US citizens when their child was born
3. Not a foreigner—so no foreign citizenship at any time in the past or present
4. Not an alien—so no one who is in the country on a foreign visa or passport (e.g, a foreign national who is not a foreign citizen,) even if also a US citizen

The explicit statement that those membership predicates form a distinct citizenship class does logically exclude anyone who doesn't satisfy the predicates from the class. The fact that the court names this class—and only this class—as "natural born citizens" excludes all those who don't satisfy those same membership predicates from being "natural born citizens."

And it was absolutely legally necessary for the Court to demonstrate that Mrs. Minor was a citizen solely by natural law, and not by statute or by the 14th Amendment, in order for the reasoning they used to justify their principal holding regarding the right to vote to be valid. In order to do that, it was absolutely necessary to correctly ascertain and enumerate the membership predicates of the class (set) of natural born citizens.

Without all the correct membership predicates of any set, it is not only impossible to prove that any missing predicates don't identify set elements missed by the incomplete predicate set, it's also impossible to prove that the missing predicates don't exclude set elements not excluded by the incomplete predicates. That's why the Court had to be certain that it had each and every membership predicate, and no others.

[House Atreides]

This may be a little off topic, but if the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the US Presidency had also been one of the requirements for access to the secrets of our nuclear weaponry it is highly unlikely that the Chinese communists would have been delivered those secrets. Of course unfortunately political correctness precluded that. And this (minimize the possibilities of divided loyalties) was the reason that the founders who established our Constitution had this as a requirement for the office of the US Presidency. Fortunately the affliction of political correctness did not exist at that time and common sense prevailed.

[MHGinTN]

I loved the commercial with Jerry Seinfeld getting trumped by Leno in the jet pack flying squirrel suit.

[Fred Nerks]

I tried to follow all the comments from that first ‘announcement’ by Obama Exposer...and I see NOTHING by way of a SOURCE - other than a prediction...so what’s going on here?

[lyby]

All natural born citizens are citizens, but the reverse is not true. Not all citizens are Natural Born Citizens.

---

Sounds like familiar 7th grade Math logic:
- a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not
necessarily a square;
- a diameter is a chord, but a chord is not necessarily a
diameter.

[4Zoltan]

What is with the comma after “United States” in Article II Section 1?

Wouldn’t good grammer indicate that it means:

“natural born Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” Or “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”?