Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Those here posting about Wong Kim Ark should really really really read the brief by the Appellant - which was the United States.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
It talks about natural born citizen.
While reading it keep in mind that the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts decision without exception.
after reading it some of you may understand why I bring up Chester Arthur and his relationship with Horace Gray.
Read the brief by the United States in Wong Kim ark
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
It is also helpful to find the lower court case.
I wonder if you will stop quoting Wong Kim Ark once you really see what went down.
Note that the person in question was deemed A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Supreme Court affirmed the decision without exception.
I bet the Georgia Democrat party will cancel their primary and just have a caucus instead. That way here’s no state ballot or election board issue for them to deal with, not until the fall anyway.
Perfervidly. What a great word. Man, I love this place. FR Rawks! :)
Focus. You’re resorting to very bizarre deflections. Wong Kim Ark considered all kinds of original intent. That’s part of the reason why they concludes that NBCs were EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment. The question, for the third (or is it fourth) time: Why does Gray make a point of emphasizing that Minor’s citizenship was partially due to having citizen parents?? If you don’t want to admit what it means, just say so.
Read the statement again. It includes BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. Why did Gray included jus sanguinis when, as YOU adamantly pointed out, it was NEVER described as her situation in the actual Minor decision?? What's his reasoning?? Think, chick, think.
These questions would still remain for the general election though. Only eligible candidates can be on ANY ballot.
So if Obama doesn’t prove his eligibility he will disenfranchise all of Georgia’s voters.
Not a piddly thing.
This is a good point. There’s really nothing to support the idea that the child of a single U.S. citizen mother would be a natural-born citizen in the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, especially the child of a British subject, whether he was a bigamist or not. There’s nothing to indicate that they would have only rejected those persons who were legitimately born to foreign national fathers.
The thing that we need to focus on too, is that this hearing is an administrative law hearing for an elections law issue. Marriage and legitimacy cases are conducted separately and can take all kinds of time to sort out and resolve. This judge is not going to accept weak and speculative claims about Obama’s mama being an unwed mother because Obama’s papa was a bigamist. It just ain’t gonna happen. Instead, I predict that either A) Obama tries to strong-arm the court with a fake birth certificate or out-of-court website evidence, B) Obama bails out and allows a default judgment, or C) His lawyers find a way to delay the case and/or get an injunction and convince a higher court to dismiss the case.
Article II Super PAC Providing Live Internet Video Stream
From Inside Obama’s 3 Georgia Ballot Hearings
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/article-ii-super-pac-providing-live.html
Not correct, IMO. But only SCOTUS can say ultimately regarding Obama, which is the question at hand.
WKA was deemed “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Note the distinction. Two different classes: citizens who are not NBC compared to citizens who are NBC. Both have the same citizen rights, but they are not the same regarding POTUS eligibility.
NBCs and other citizens have equal citizen rights, but the POTUS eligibility is a status at birth independent from citizenship rights.
The Minor court defined NBCs about which there were NO DOUBTS, but said there was doubt as to the citizenship but not the NBC status of children of aliens and foreigners born on US soil. The WKA court reached and resolved the citizenship doubts about WKA a baby born to alien parents on US soil. The WKA court did not change the NBC definition in Minor despite that claim in the non-binding dissent.
What higher court could they appeal to?
chick, I have read the appellants brief and the lower court case. It did NOT deem Ark to be a natural-born citizen. It called him a citizen, in part because of a citation to a similar case where the defandant WAS called a natural-born citizen. Gray framed the question in the Supreme Court in a way that has NOTHING to do with natural-born citizenship, and he specifically punted on the appellant’s lament.
Now get back to the question you’re avoiding. Gray cited Minor’s definition of NBC, and then affirmed that the holding was based on Minor being born in the country to citizen parents. Why did he do this when in your own words, the Minor court did NOT say she had citizen parents?? What would be the point??? Focus on THE question and try to answer it honestly.
I don’t know the Georgia court system, so I can’t give a specific answer. If there’s a higher court to use, my bet is that they use it. Heck, they might even try to get this judge in trouble for overreach of power or something like that.
I don’t know the Georgia court system, so I can’t give a specific answer. If there’s a higher court to use, my bet is that they use it. Heck, they might even try to get this judge in trouble for overreach of power or something like that.
“A) Obama tries to strong-arm the court with a fake birth certificate or out-of-court website evidence, B) Obama bails out and allows a default judgment, or C) His lawyers find a way to delay the case and/or get an injunction and convince a higher court to dismiss the case.”
D) Bombing of Iran starts in five minutes.
Wag the Bo.
You miss the entire point of MvH. The question was not simply - does a woman have a right to vote? The question was - did the 14th amendment grant a woman the right to vote when it conferred citizenship upon "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
The Court determined that women were citizens before the adoption of the 14th amendment but that prior to the 14th, the Constitution did not specifically describe who were citizens. So the Court undertook the task of determining who were citizens prior to the 14th.
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.Before the Court could answer the question of whether or not suffrage was a privilege of citizenship, the Court first had to answer the question of who were citizens before the adoption of the 14th amendment.
If you cannot accept that premise as true then there is nothing more to discuss. Further, I've had enough of your snark. If and when you can accept the above the premise and do so politely, I'll be happy to continue the discussion. Otherwise, take your snark elsewhere.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed it, but I found the naming of the First Dog "Bo" (as in B.O. as in Barack Obama) was, for those paying attention, not only a huge "up yours" to his challengers/detractors, but a nod to his malignant narcissism as well.
Maybe naming the male dog after himself was a way to call his wife a female dog. lol (Is Bo male?)
Poor dog.
Thanks for the ping!
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.