Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: rxsid

Here is the actual decision, for any who have not read it:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

The judge based his decision on the US Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

and Ankeny v Indiana:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf


6 posted on 02/04/2012 3:41:22 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers
Wong Kim Ark was found to be a "citizen", not a "natural born Citizen", and the Ankeny case in Indiana admits it:

Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:

The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born Citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14
What does footnote 14 say?
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.

Additionally, WKA's parents were perminantly domociled in the U.S.

Something Barry's father never was.

You already know all that, but continue your full court press in support of a half foreigner who's father was a temporary student visitor, being the Commander in Chief.

8 posted on 02/04/2012 3:48:58 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers; rxsid; Red Steel; LucyT
“The judge based his decision on the US Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark”

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

IMO, Malihi punted to the fallacious interpretation of WKA concocted by the Ankeny court.

I believe that WKA was correctly decided, but wrongly interpreted by the Ankeny court and by Malihi when they twisted the grammar of the Minor citation in WKA to fit their preconceptions.

The Minor NBC language is like one of those optical illusions where some people instinctively see one image and the rest see an entirely different image. This would be assuming that both sides are honestly declaring what they see.

16 posted on 02/04/2012 4:00:21 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: All

Do you expect any other decision from these elitist bastards from both parties, including the judiciary. We have no rights, no justice, and no hope as long as they remain in power. Don’t tell me we can vote them out, you see how that’s working. Fix unemployment, not a chance, they use it to buy votes. Billion dollar campaigns are now the norm, and the common man with love of country has no chance. They now sit there smug in the knowledge that they control us all. God help the Republic.


19 posted on 02/04/2012 4:04:30 PM PST by gunner03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers
The judge based his decision on the US Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark:

Seeing that both cases were wrongly decided, why should we be interested in a chain of bad facts and bad reasoning? It would be tantamount to suggesting we should concern ourselves with a decision based on Roe v Wade and Kelo v New London.

They are crap, and therefore so is a decision based on them. Garbage in, Garbage out.

23 posted on 02/04/2012 4:12:26 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson