Skip to comments.Obama Got Served
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 ...
Let's see, if I neglected a judges ruling, or violated an order, you would see my face on the blotter tomorrow.
Emperors, dictators and such on the other hand, view these lower court rulings as frivolous. Annoying little things that drones or lower bureaucrats should handle. Definetly not to be bothered with by the annointed.
Societies quickly deteriorate when the upper, governing class, think the law no longer applies to them.
Jefferson was right about the liberty tree. The watering is long overdue.
Federal court seems to be a different matter, as you pointed out. I recall that Clinton made a feeble protest against testifying--now that I think about it, I seem to recall him appealing the adverse ruling, unsuccessfully. If I remember correctly, it was the Supreme Court that ultimately ruled--but I probably am wrong--and I even seem to recall Tony Scalia deriding Clinton's argument, either in the opinion itself or during oral arguments.
And I can see why the difference exists between federal and state courts. Federal courts are on a par, the same level, with the President as a co-equal branch of government, giving them standing a state court can never have.
in the end, history will prove that i am right
Then why are you here making a fool of yourself? You are either right, or you are not. What either we or you post here cannot change that.
I need to prove nothing else than I have because the Constitution proves it for me.
Your argument would result in a redundant coordinating conjunction in Article II.
But I would not expect you to understand what a redundant coordinating conjunction is because you obviously failed grammar as a child.
This link will take you directly to the quote by Farrar, for what it’s worth
yes, I saw that...but that’s NOT what Obama Exposer wrote, so it’s obviously NOT the source of the comment.
Oh DUH!!! I am studying chemistry WAY too hard...
Thank you Phil.
You decided what you wanted, you ignored all legal rules to the contrary, you ignored the process of law in this country, you do not state English grammar in any way that supports your case, and you are WRONG!
I can't stand Obama. I have fought liberalism my entire adult life.
However, I have noticed that the vast majority of conservatives IGNORE you crazy birthers, and I think it is time someone who understands the law to set you straight.
You have NO case! The fact that you might win a few ISOLATED cases in lower courts means nothing. You will lose in the end.
This battle is OVER and you need to spend your resources in a more effective manner.
(Having said that, Obama was arrogant to refuse any response to the Court on this matter. I am guessing Obama knows he will win on appeal, and that he will use crazy “birther” arguments as a foil to make fun of the entire conservative movement.)
Not a single conservative author agrees with you.
Not a single immigration attorney agrees with you.
No current or former employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service agrees with you.
No elected officials agree with you.
Yet, you call ME stupid?
Wow, a bit of arrogant projection, I would say!
Your total misunderstanding of the law would be criminal, if you were a licensed member of the bar and charging clients money for your...services.
The worst example is your bogus and legally dangerous idea that Congressional statutes have any power to overrule the Constitution, or Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution. That’s so wrong it’s shocking.
The Founders clearly allowed Naturalization PRIOR to adoption to be allowed for POTUS requirements, a point we need not worry about much, today, but the Founders clearly did not want Naturalization AFTER adoption of the Constitution, to qualify as a Natural Born Citizen.
You flunked. Your problem is that you figured out what you wanted PRIOR to doing any “research”.
You are biased and intellectually dishonest, and that is why you fail at debate.
Dude, you do realize that you’ve converted nobody here to believe that the Constitutional term “Natural Born Citizen” has the meaning you’ve assigned to it, don’t you?
Many of us here have contributed financially and have committed ourselves to support the mission of holding Obama (and, yes, others also) to this standard. I believe that finally progress is being made on these efforts and that seems to have you very upset. I’m guessing that you may have substantially more reason to be upset in coming days.
Stepan12, your mother and father needed only to be a citizens when you were born, naturalized, native-born, or natural born, and you to be born on sovereign soil. Will you be a candidate?
When someone tries to address the possible extensions to who is natural born, questions quickly arise. Article II Section 1 clearly eliminates many who could make fine presidents, but, since the majority of people are natural born, while it isn't a perfect rule, it seres the purpose of limiting the number of those with clear potential to be enemies of the state. Many attempts to amend Article II Section 1 have failed, and probably for good, or for understandable political reasons.
Just as it was politically expedient to promote McCain from citizen to natural born citizen for Obama’s election, many attempts at amending Article II were to promote an individual whom the opposite party saw no reason to support, such as Orren Hatch’s amendment attempt to make Schwarzenegger eligible. The two attempts by :John Conyers may have been intended to make Obama eligible. There were five other amendments to change Article II Section 1 between 2000 and 2007. The bill sponsored by Obama and his campaign chair, Clare McCaskill, in February 2008, "A Bill to Insure That Foreign Born Children of Military Citizens is Eligible to the Presidency," SB2678, could have become an amendment, but there wasn't time before the election, and McCain's campaign would have been stymied. Clare, Barack and Axelrod certainly knew that, so this bill was just for talking points. Everyone knew of McCain's ineligibility, since this bill and SR511 spelled it out. They also knew about Obama, since the hearings for both SB2678 and SR511 made "born to two parents who were citizens" the core of their legal argument.
Since natural born citizenship is only required of our president, and since citizens who immigrated or whose parents intended to immigrate have a special understanding of our freedoms, they may be especially useful in the State Department or Defense. Obama is the perfect example of the wisdom of Articel II Section 1; remarkably, he told us as much. Barack told us on Fightthesmears.com that he was “...born a subject of the British Commonwealth”, and called himself, correctly, “A native-born citizen of the US,” which is the language of the 14th Amendment for a jus soli citizen, like Wong Kim Ark, born on our soil of parents who were not both citizens. Barack was careful and legally inscrutable. He knew that the media would help to confuse citizens over the settled, but labyrithine citizenship law. Barack famously explained that he didn't feel bound by the negative principles expounded by the Constitution.
Well put as always Spaulding!
BTW, are you willing to stand behind every statement made by the birthers on this thread? Many of those in your camp did not even think Congress had EVER passed any laws concerning Citizenship, and many of your birther nuts also claimed that Congress had “no power” to enact any laws concerning citizenship of any kind other than Naturalization processes. Your birther buddies obviously were wrong and I proved that point.
However, one thing you Birthers share with the LIBERALS? You all circle the wagons and you rarely call out one of your own, do you?
How about a little intellectual honesty. BTW, notice how most conservatives IGNORE YOU? The reason is that most conservatives think you are nuts!
| Fred, I didn't find the quotes you were looking for but David Farrar said these interesting things tonight...
February 2nd, 2012, 9:58 pm ... the Malihi Court would have been glade to accept any type of verification Hawaiian Health Officials care to bestow, along with candid Obamas birth certificate into evidence. However, there are two major problems with that hypotheses: One, before the court can accept the two birth certificates into evidence, the plaintiff side must have access to the original files in order to rebut. And, Two: candidate Obama wasnt there to enter any evidence. And even if his lawyer was there in his place; he still couldnt enter any exhibits or witnesses into evidence because his PTO [pre-trial order] wouldnt allow him to.
I personally believe the farce Illinois hearing was designed and rushed to occur Thursday to compensate in the MSM for what should happen Friday in Atlanta