Posted on 02/17/2012 9:22:14 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an appeal with the Georgia Superior Court in the case of Weldon v Obama, one of the three Georgia lawsuits claiming Barack Hussein Obama to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States or to be included on the Georgia ballot. (1)
It is perhaps significant that the very act of filing the appeal was fought by the Superior Court clerk’s office which claimed that an additional $2 fee had not been included with Liberty Legal’s paperwork for the filing of separate motions.
Additionally, the Court Clerk invented numerous excuses to prevent the filing, moving from one to the next whenever it was pointed out by Liberty Legal attorneys that none reflected normal court operating procedure. According to Liberty Legal attorney Van Irion, the clerk’s conduct was, in the course of his entire legal experience, “unheard of.” (2)
As a side note, although the paperwork had been provided some 7 days earlier, the clerk’s office failed to inform Liberty that there was a problem. The clerk simply “sat on the petition” and the filing deadline of TODAY would have been missed had Irion not called to make certain the filing had taken place!
The appeal itself is based upon the claim that the “rights of the appellant [had] been prejudiced because the finding of the Secretary of State (was) affected by…error of law.” (1)
That is, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who approved Judge Michael Malihi’s Administrative Court decision, had done so in spite of (or due to) mistakes of law made by the Judge in deciding the case.
As Irion states in the appeal, the decision of the Judge “not only violates…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
The law of the land is that being born on US soil = NBC.
I know you disagree vehemently but WKA made it so and Ankeny confirmed it. And that is how it will play out through November.
“No. Of course the Constitution must be adhered to. I just don’t believe in the “two citizen parents = natural born citizen” argument.
And neither does the Supreme Court, the rest of the legal system, any conservative legal organizations, or any major conservative politician.”
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, Haran1196!
Read the Minor decision and the case information. The SC did indeed define Natural Born Citizen. And if today’s court does not with to adhere to the precedent and the Constitution, we need a new Court.
Many “anchor babies” are completely legal. Like those to mothers here in the US on various types of visas.
But to get an answer to one of my questions, do you believe this issue needs to be visted by the SCOTUS to finally determine the criteria on what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen? Since it has never happened to date.
As of right now, there is not any written law difinitively describing what constitutes a NBC. I personally think it needs to be settled.
WHO WILL ASK, AND WILL HE ANSWER?
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/16/top-12-for-2012-questions-for-barry-soetoro/
Election time is upon us once again. For clarity of the issues facing the candidates or challenging candidates to even appear on ballots for 2012, a simple engagement (preferably on camera) of inquiry provided in the list below should reveal the most pressing Constitutional issue facing America. For every candidate these types of questions have been routine and required to be sufficiently, accurately, and honestly confirmed to receive their Party nomination, that is, until the 2008 election, when none of the questions were answered and independently confirmed for Barack Hussein Obama.
Perhaps the 2012 election will be different. The more discerning voter has reasonable doubt that the last election was legitimate because of a questionably ineligible candidate on the ballot. This suspicion can be alleviated by obtaining the answers to twelve questions which Barry Soetero, aka Barack Obama, has never PERSONALLY answered.
Where and when did you formally (legally) change your name from Barry Soetero to Barack H. Obama?
What hospital in Hawaii will/can confirm your birth record?
With which student status (resident, foreign, etc.) did you apply for student loans at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard?
Have you ever traveled to Russia?
Having run as the most transparent candidate, why do you block all access to past records?
Since your release on April 27, 2011 of your Hawaii birth record, can we the American people see the microfiche of the original since you have nothing to hide?
How do you respond to the computer, Adobe®, and graphics experts who have declared your “long-form birth certificate” a forgery?
How did you secure a Connecticut Social Security number while living in Hawaii?
In transparency that you consistently affirm, would you commit to an independent DNA test confirming your claimed biological ancestry?
Can you explain the motivation for signing Executive Order #13489 sealing all records of your identity, passports, school attendance, college records, Selective Service registration, etc.?
How did Bill Ayers (he only lived in the neighborhood) have authorization to pick up your kids from school?
As a sponsor (with Hillary Clinton) of Senate Resolution 511 confirming McCain as eligible for the office of POTUS during the 2008 election, how do you qualify as Article II, Section 1 Constitutional “natural born Citizen” with a non-citizen father?
As a sponsor (with Hillary Clinton) of Senate Resolution 511 confirming McCain as eligible for the office of POTUS during the 2008 election, how do you qualify as Article II, Section 1 Constitutional “natural born Citizen” with a non-citizen father?
Those running and debating for President of the United States only need to ask Barry Soetero the above short list of pertinent questions to establish legitimate law-abiding grounds on which to proceed further into the campaign. Unless the above questions are accurately and provably dealt with, there is NO election by law. There was no legal election in 2008, since the issues are unresolved and continually pending within the corruption of Congress, Department of Justice, Homeland Security (think of it, a usurper has authority over these agencies), CIA, FBI, State Department, NSA, etc.
May integrity rule where it has declined. May the new candidates be filled with humble boldness to ask penetrating, truth-seeking, and law-abiding questions, and in so doing, secure a leadership that is from the people, for the people and by the people.
"Natural born citizen" is a condition, not a title. The law cannot make you one thing or the other. Just as being born in a stable will not make you a donkey, being born somewhere will not make you a "natural citizen." If it did, slaves and Indians would have been citizens. Being born as a "natural citizen" is a condition, such as having brown hair. You either have it, or you do not have it.
What YOU refer to is a misunderstanding of the law. Yes, in most people's common misunderstanding (to include most lawyers who were wrongly taught) being born here makes you a citizen, (because of the 14th amendment) but that is not the same thing as being born a "natural citizen."
I know you disagree vehemently but WKA made it so and Ankeny confirmed it. And that is how it will play out through November.
Ankeny is utter crap. I won't even debate Ankeny because it is so ignorantly stupid it doesn't even warrant notice. Wong Kim Ark, on the other hand, did not assert that being born here makes you a "natural born citizen", it explicitly stated that being born here (by virtue of the 14th amendment) makes you a "citizen."
Since the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" was well known to the Gray Supreme court, their decision to omit the words "natural born" was intentional, not a mistake. As a result, their ruling had nothing to do with Presidential eligibility requirements.
"Natural born citizen" is a condition, not a title. It cannot be bestowed on anyone for whom it is not already true. A "natural citizen" is one upon whom only ONE NATION can claim their loyalty.
If you have a claim on your loyalty from more than one nation, you are not a "natural" citizen.
American Taxpayers who do not work for the Government. (Mostly Non-Democrats.)
And what reason do you have not to believe it?
And neither does the Supreme Court, the rest of the legal system, any conservative legal organizations, or any major conservative politician.
That is irrelevant as to whether or not it is true. Do not base your understanding of the truth on what the crowd says. That is a fallacy called "Argumentum ad Populum." (Argument that the crowd agrees with you.)
To know what is the truth regarding the original and correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen" you have to do research as to where the term originated and what was it's intended purpose.
I have pointed out to people many times, if your interpretation of the term does not prevent foreign influence, how can it be correct if it doesn't accomplish what the founders intended?
A Definition that does not accomplish the task intended for the term, is an incorrect definition.
"What’s wrong with judging each man or women individually solely on their character and actions? We don’t have to lay the sins of the parents on their children. Leave it to the judgement of the American people."
The media never presented the case to the American People. I don't think I ever heard the term natural born Citizen uttered by any of the major networks even once.
Present the case to the American People and Obama will have no choice but to resign.
“What about anchor babies?”
According to the WKA decision, the parents need to be in the USA legally:
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.”
“In amity” means in friendship with the government. The 14th used the phrase: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”. It meant the same thing.
It would be interesting to see a birther try a court case arguing that Obama Sr was either not here in amity (I believe he was deported or encouraged by the US government to leave) or that he was here temporarily at the bidding of a foreign government, and thus did not fall under the WKA ruling:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
I reject the Vattel argument for many reasons, the big one being that until 2008 no one ever seriously argued that Vattel was used to define American citizenship. I have studied US history for years - lets just say that Vattel is not a name that pops up very often. Show me some serious legal articles in the past 50 years that talk about Vattel and NBC and then we will talk.
No, it was Aristotle. (322 BC, which was 2334 years ago.)
Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;
...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.
...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;
Look it up yourself. Aristotle, Book 3, Section II, First Sentence.
Of course, the founders would have no knowledge of Aristotle because they were ignorant bumpkins, barely able to do Advanced Mathematics and speak French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew and English. :)
The one person that the Founders HAD certainly read was Emerich de Vattel, and his book "Droit des Gens". (The Founders read French quite well, thank you very much.)
He basically said the same thing as Aristotle.
If I could show you that Barack Obama Sr. was in the United States Illegally, (I can) would that change your mind about Barry's legitimacy?
Barry is the son of an Illegal entrant into the United States.
Did you happen to notice that the Wong Kim Ark court did not discuss the WAR of 1812? The most salient event of the Nation's history after the War of Independence, fought entirely over the issue of what is a "natural born American" and what is a British Subject, and not a single mention of this watershed event in their decision? Forgive me if I favor the opinion that the Court might have missed a few bits and pieces.
I reject the Vattel argument for many reasons, the big one being that until 2008 no one ever seriously argued that Vattel was used to define American citizenship. I have studied US history for years - lets just say that Vattel is not a name that pops up very often. Show me some serious legal articles in the past 50 years that talk about Vattel and NBC and then we will talk.
The last 50 years are not relevant to the point. Only the First 50 years are. That is when people certainly KNEW what the term meant. I can show you serious legal articles, but most of them are 90 years old or older. I could show you one recent article by a well known Constitutional Legal Scholar that says a "natural born citizen" has two American Parents, but you probably won't find it convincing, seeing as how your mind seems to be fixed on the common fallacy.
If you want to look at stuff that disproves your belief, I can show you dozens of things. But for now, I would like to show you the opinions of two Highly respected Conservative Commentators and Scholars regarding this issue.
And
You have no case.
Therefore, no reasonable, knowledgeable attorney will help you.
None of you know what you are talking about, but you insult and flame anyone who tries to point out how futile and ridiculous you look!
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives
Loosen your kneepads, obamanoid.
Nothing will change the mind of an obamnoid working FR for sh!ts and giggles don’tchaknow.
Charles Manson
BTK
The Una-Bomber
They could all have children who might, some day, be President by your odd logic!
The VOTERS need to prevent such things, quit looking for some magic wand, to do it for you!
My Senator, Jerry Moran, thinks that simple, majority vote legislation can fix the anchor-baby problem.
“— subject to the jurisdiction thereof” -—
If an illegal immigrant couple crosses our border, from Mexico, and then they decide to split up, after having a child in the United States -—
What American Court will decide custody of that child?
Is that child truly subject to full “Jurisdiction” of American law?
I think not.
Congress should define those rules, Congress has every right to define those terms, under the law.
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.