Posted on 02/03/2012 4:45:34 PM PST by satan69
Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate
A state administrative law judge on Friday flatly rejected challenges seeking to keep President Barack Obama from being a candidate in next month's Georgia primary.
In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has maintained a Hawaiian birth certificate that is a computer-generated forgery, has a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is not a natural born citizen.
Last month, Malihi heard testimony and took evidence in a hearing boycotted by Obama's lawyer.
With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification documents, Malihi said he found the testimony presented by lawyers of the so-called "birther" movement and their evidence "to be of little, if any, probative value and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs' allegations."
A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation, Malihi wrote. "None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony," he wrote.
MORE HERE: http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/judge-obama-eligible-to-1330300.html
Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Clever software.
However, every bit of what it discloses has been on my profile page for years, excluding the OS (I use more than one).
Well, of course. But, doncha know, we have learned from the NBC experts that Monsieur Vattel was a source of wisdom transcending the banalities of mere common law. Anything Vattel said on the matter of NBC's cannot be "trumped" and cannot be overruled -- not by legislation, not by the 14th Amendment, not by logic nor by standard usage of the English language.
So since Vattel tells us that Zerobama's Kenyan parentage disqualifies Dear Barry from the office of POTUS, we need inquire no further into the matter. Period. Full stop. End of story.
Don’t know. Maybe he’ll hold a press conference with his experts and let the people judge.
There’s a line between embracing something and finding for the side that neither presented evidence nor even showed up. He was prepared to enter a summary judgement but, upon receiving evidence, decided to hold in favor of the no-shows. That’s an alarming precedent irrespective of the facts of the case.
That is a fantastic picture! It deserves to be hung in public buildings.
Software?
Yes...the Danasoft on your profile page which yielded info about my location, OS, etc.
That Indiana case MUST be appealed.
That abomination is a massive corrupt hurdle.
That ought to be the next step IMHO.
The truth will be made knows after Obama is out of office and no longer in a position to punish those who speak out. They will realize the pot of gold publicity and book rights will bring them - of course by that time it will be too late, the damage he’s done will long live after him ...
Or maybe, just maybe, that really is the proper legal decision.
How so? No one from the defense submitted a shred of evidence and, as I pointed out to Drew in my post #69, there is a lot of compelling information to the contrary - much of which was presented.
Suppose you get a traffic ticket for doing 45 in a school zone and you decide to fight it because you know you weren't speeding due to the fact that your car was in the shop that day and you were riding your old Huffy bike. The officer didn't provide ANY proof during the stop to show that you were the one speeding (as required by the 4th Amendment), he didn't show you that he was licensed to operate a radar gun (as required by the FCC), and he didn't show you whether or not the radar gun's calibration was up-to-date (as required by most PDs and manufacturers to maintain acuracy).
On the day of your hearing, the officer failed to appear and provide testimony (again, as required by the 4th Amendment), nor did he send a representative to provide evidence or give testimony on his behalf, but the judge still ruled against you.
Did you get a fair trial and was the ruling just?
While this is a bit of an apples and pears comparison, in esence, that is what happened in Judge Malihi's hearing.
BHO is not the first President to have only one citizen parent.
There have been other individuals over the last 200 years who were born on US soil to one citizen parent and they ran unsuccessfully for the Presidency or Vice Presidency without their eligibility being questioned.
When considering the line of succession for the Presidency, having only one parent citizen parent has never been a disqualifier as long as the person had been born in the US.
There is the argument that it shouldn't be that way. That is fine. But to argue that it isn't that way is another matter.
Suit yourself. But, don't blame anyone else when someone yells "fire" and you burn to death because you think they are full of it.
BTW, I notice that you posted no facts to support your argument, you only threw stones.
Three facts:
BHO is not the first President to have only one citizen parent.
There have been other individuals over the last 200 years who were born on US soil to one citizen parent and they ran unsuccessfully for the Presidency or Vice Presidency without their eligibility being questioned.
When considering the line of succession for the Presidency, having only one parent citizen parent has never been a disqualifier as long as the person had been born in the US.
That's not the issue!
There have been other individuals over the last 200 years who were born on US soil to one citizen parent and they ran unsuccessfully for the Presidency or Vice Presidency without their eligibility being questioned.
Name them!
When considering the line of succession for the Presidency, having only one parent citizen parent has never been a disqualifier as long as the person had been born in the US.
I think you need to go back and take a long hard look at the 14th Amendment. You appear to have bought into a bunch of liberal talking points without giving any real thought to what they are saying. Therein is why I posted the long, factual post to Drew. The issue exceeds simply having 1 parent. Under the terms of the 14th Amendment, neither BHO nor any of the bazillions of Mexican anchor babies are "natural born" citizens.
This issue has been twisted and turned every way possible to avoid addressing what the 14th Amendment requires for the POTUS.
And, the NEW info coming to light as the result of all this is that since about 2003, there have been multiple bills introduced in the House and Senate trying to legally circumvent the natural born requirements of the 14th Amendment. If this is all birther "hooey", why has the Congress tried between 5 and 8 times since '03 to quietly override that part of the 14th Amendment? Smoke, meet fire!
And that's one glaring reason Birthers never get anywhere. A clear and concrete example that runs contrary to their fervent desire is simply ignored.
“Name them!”
John C Freemont
Spiro Agnew
There were others who did have their eligibility questioned, albeit unsuccessfully. Christopher Schumann and Charles Huges, for example.
And your reading of the 14th amendment is simply way out in left field. Another reason that Birthers have not gotten anywhere and will never get anywhere.
So, not only do you NOT grasp the fundamentals of the issue, you are going to define it for me!!??? Your "clear, concrete" example simply states the same blather. At issue is whether or not BHO meets the qualifications to be POTUS as established by the Constitution. It doesn't matter whether or not he came from a one-parent household or he was raised by a family of orangutans, the issue is the wording "natural born citizen". A natural born citizens is one, both of whose parents are American citizens and who was born on American soil. BHO's father, as BHO proudly proclaims, was NEVER an American citizen, he was a British citizen from Kenya!
And your reading of the 14th amendment is simply way out in left field. Another reason that Birthers have not gotten anywhere and will never get anywhere.
Ok, if MY reading of the 14th Amendment is "way out in left field" how do you feel about the Supreme Court's reading of the 14th Amendment and THEIR definition of "natural born citizen"?
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts
..
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html
This is precedent on the meaning of NATURAL Born Citizen. This Minor v. Happersett has NEVER been overruled.
Barack Hussein Obama claims the Barack Hussein Obama Sr. as his birth father. His father was a British citizen from Kenya and never became a U.S. citizen.
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Sure.
Regarding Minor...
Do some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents?
As to this class have there been doubts?
For the purposes of that case was it necessary to solve these doubts?
No wonder you don’t get it.
Free Republic is a site for conservatives to discuss conservative issues.
DU is where you need to share your brilliance.
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.