Posted on 02/04/2012 10:04:54 AM PST by Seizethecarp
The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”
But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States.
The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.”
The court says that Ankeny is persuasive. The court does not show us why Ankeny is persuasive other than to just provide some quotations from the decision. On the contrary, upon close analysis, we can see that Ankeny is far from persuasive on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The court’s decision can only be as sound as the Ankeny decision may be. But an analysis of that decision shows that it was incorrectly decided as to its definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at puzo1.blogspot.com ...
You continue to fall into the Clinton trap of what the definition of the word "IS" is. According to the laws of nations there are only two "SOURCES", nature(A2) or man(A1). There is no other. Now while man may provide for many sources, they are still sources derived by man. Nature only provides for one source that has never changed since the beginning of time.
My point being is that one should not take my word for it, but go actually read & study for themselves to show themselves approved. Congratulations! You passed!
“Would it be remanded to the same Judge or just the same Court?”
IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but I have never seen a case remanded to other than the same trial court that originated the “findings of fact” for the appeals case.
SCOTUS did in Minor, IMO. No state court can reverse that and expect such ruling to stand. SCOTUS in Minor said there was NO DOUBT. No subsequent SCOTUS ruling repeals that interpretation, IMO.
I see this as being like the famous “prefatory phrase” “A well-regulated Militia,...” For seventy years progressives in the legal elite told us it limited gun rights to the state militia...until it didn't with the Heller case.
Heller reestablished 2nd Amendment gun rights and SCOTUS may yet get the chance to reaffirm what I regard as the true meaning of the NBC language in Minor.
Just as with Heller and the 2A, reasonable people can sincerely disagree on what a sentence means...then we get the 5-4 SCOTUS ruling.
Just checking. Now I'll have to go see how many administrative courts there are in Georgia, if there is more than one, that is.
If it got sent back to Malihi...why bother.
Yes! So, where may I ask you, does the 14th Amendment change Article 2 to remove the NBC requirement for the Presidency?
Any legislation that purports to support “jus soli” only citizenship is A1 (by birth) citizenship according to the US Constitution, no matter how one tries to skew it.
He is where you seem to run totally off the rails. ANY form of citizenship which relies on legislation, even in the form of a Constitutional amendment, is not and indeed CANNOT be Natural Born Citizenship.
The NBCs create the government; the government does not create NBCs.
So, if we want to break down citizenship into two types, the most basic classification would be (1) Natural Born Citizens and (2) citizens by virtue of statute or legislation. This second category can be further broken down into subcategories, for example (2a) citizens at birth by virtue of legislation (2b) citizens who become citizens later in life by means of a volitional act via naturalization, and (2c) citizens who are incorporated en masse, as in the case of the initial operation of 14th amendment.
Here, the main point is that no, repeat NO natural born citizen obtained that status via the application of ANY statute, law, decree, or any act of any government. It is a status that derives from the operation of Natural Law, not the common law, whether British or American, and it precedes and underlies government.
DUH! The 14th Amendment has not adopted to make any person a citizen as it is NOT a citizenehip law under A1S8, the 14th Amendment is a civil rights protection law for the already existing citizens who are either born or naturalized, both of which owed but one allegiance, either at birth or naturalization.
Who me? never! :)
Aside - You know, I've seen you post that numerous times and I just ignored that nagging feeling and gave you up for lost. I should have known better.
Damn! Even I can foolishly take the bait and not realize it. {;^)
You ought to actually read the document at your link.
It does not suport your position.
@Judges Directory - Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings
14 Judges
Pics and bios on all but Malihi, who pretty much has a blank page.
So since Malihi is the Deputy Chief Judge it seems reasonable that if it is remanded that Chief Judge Max Wood would get the case. I just can't see it going to one of the lower judges. What say you?
@Georgia Court System
As an administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Georgia, the AOC operates under the guidance of the Judicial Council, a policy-making body chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
@Judges Directory - Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings
14 Judges
Pics and bios on all but Malihi, who pretty much has a blank page.
So since Malihi is the Deputy Chief Judge it seems reasonable that if it is remanded that Chief Judge Max Wood would get the case. I just can't see it going to one of the lower judges. What say you?
Now you can just pick the link and it'll open for you properly...which was what I was trying to do.
@This will launch a new window with your referenced link, and keep the FR window undisturbed.
IIUC a remand would simply kick the case back down to the court and judge where the case was heard...which would be back down to Malihi. Malihi seems to be the sole specialist in eligibility challenges, IIRC.
I don’t see Fogbowers GA lawyers expecting it to go anywhere but back to Malihi on remand for example for new evidence of a BC.
When a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the “plain legal error” standard of review. Glover v. Ware, 236 Ga.App. 40, 45(3), 510 S.E.2d 895 (1999). Moreover, “[w]here it is apparent that a trial court's judgment rests on an erroneous legal theory, an appellate court cannot affirm. [Cit.]” Gwinnett County v. Davis, 268 Ga. 653, 655, 492 S.E.2d 523 (1997). This is such a case. See Wood v. Dan P. Holl & Co., 169 Ga.App. 839, 841(2), 315 S.E.2d 51 (1984)."Presidential eligibility is a national issue. Under our Constitution, ... [states] do not have power to change, add, or diminish the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (states have no authority to change, add, or diminish the eligibility requirements for members of Congress)." - Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
and
While the standard of review of a non-jury trial of disputed material facts is the clearly erroneous test under OCGA 9-11-52, here the trial court ruled on matters of law as to the claims in the affidavit of illegality and as a matter of law found that the claims lacked merit. Thus, the plain legal error standard of review applies, where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact, that there was no factual dispute, or that there was no discretion, so that the issue for review was whether the trial court made a plain legal error. See American Bldgs. Co. v. Pascoe Bldg. Systems, 260 Ga. 346, 348 (1) (392 SE2d 860) (1990); Uni-Worth Enterprises v. Wilson, 244 Ga. 636, 640 (2) (261 SE2d 572) (1979); Astin v. Carden, 194 Ga. 758, 764 (2) (22 SE2d 481) (1942); Hill v. Wadley Southern R. Co., 128 Ga. 705, 716 (7) (57 SE 795) (1907).
I never claimed I could fix ignorance, I just put forth tools in which one can can overcome it. Of course taking off the biased glasses is the 1st step.
Opps, for got to add the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagzTRmUBIE
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.