A Rat Called Tandem (natural born Citizen, GA ballot hearing, Obama)

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 2/4/2012 | Leo Donofrio

[rxsid]

"A Rat Called Tandem.

[UPDATED: 2:12 PM - Cindy Simpson's top headline article at American Thinker is also a must read. Excellent analysis as usual.]

What happened in Georgia is what we refer to in poker as, “playing to a script”. It’s like something out of a Frank Capra movie. The citizens head to court to fix a Constitutional wrong, and the State court appears to be tough on the feds, standing up to them bravely flexing their muscles in the name of their citizens. Nice script. But it’s so very transparent.

Everyone needs to read Mario Apuzzo’s in-depth exposure of the blatant flaws in Judge Malihi’s holding, wherein you will experience a brilliant researcher exposing a truly defective legal opinion.

I only have a little bit to add. My remarks will be brief, and focused upon Judge Malihi’s sad failure to address the issue of statutory construction, which I explained thoroughly in my last report, The Dirty “little” Secret of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.

But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:

“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).

The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.

Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:

“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ” (Emphasis added.)

Yeah, dude. Whatevah. Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just two weeks ago he said that was forbidden.

[rxsid]

This situation is precisely what the framers were concerned with. And guess what, that specific scenario is now possible.

If simply being born in the U.S. is enough to be considered a "natural born Citizen", then the current Dauphin of France (as considered by the Legitimists) Prince Louis Duke of Burgundy would be considered POTUS eligible.

French Royal Family
Legitimist

Prince Louis was born in New York City, 2010. Yet, his father is a French and Spanish citizen (but not a U.S. citizen) and his mother is Venezuelan.

If the French decided to have another restoration of the House of Burbon, the King of France would be considered POTUS eligible.
Or, if Louis Alphonse were to be elected POTUS 1st...and then the French decided to restore the crown...wow!

Imagine that. The King of France and the President of the U.S. as one in the same.

The judge has just essentially rule that he considers the current Dauphine of France to be POTUS eligible!

Coat of arms of the Dauphin of France.

I believe the founders and framers would be repulsed by such a ruling.

[rxsid]

Ping!

"A Rat Called Tandem (natural born Citizen, GA ballot hearing, Obama)"

[Baynative]

PREDICTION: After the coming election is over we are going to see a move from liberals to clearly define what a natural borne citizen is. The definition they will seek will specify that citizens must be born of citizens so as to eliminate any potential candidacy from Jindal or Rubio.

[biggredd1]

they dont care about jindal or rubio, they got their commie in for 4 or 8 years and they are happy commies.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

What happened?

Maybe it's as simple as the Obama/Holder Dept. of Just Us telling the judge.. "You know that little incident in Cincinnati back in 1996? Oh, you don't have to have been there. We have ways to prove that you were there and . . . ."

.. or the Clinton way.. "We'll start by killing your pets then . . . ."

[Mr Rogers]

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

[sourcery]

The Constutional Meaning Of "Natural Born Citizen"

[rxsid]

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.

[MHGinTN]

For more than a decade the congress critters have been trying to Constitutional clause without using the Constitutionally prescribed method. Now that they've accomplished that through corrupted judges obeying 'the Chicago Way', it is absurd to suggest they will reverse their evil over poor Bobby Jindal or upstart Marco Rubio.

You will have to change your law lenses now, the Constitutional Republic is dead and the long lusted for federal oligarchy is in place.

[Mr Rogers]

“But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President.”

No. It merely means that anyone born in the USA of parents here legally IS a natural born citizen allowed to run for President. All other offices would still allow naturalized citizens to run. It would NOT override the NBC clause, but define it.

To the extend the 14th deals with citizenship, it was to overturn the Dred Scott decision. It was the states telling the Court they had ruled incorrectly in Dred Scott.

[rxsid]

Quote the part of the 14th Amendment that has the term “natural born Citizen” in it.

[melancholy]

Ping..............

A Rat Called Tandem (natural born Citizen, GA ballot hearing, Obama)

Any rat would be better than 0h0m0allah!

[AlexW]

The fix is in...

I am sick of even looking at Drudge each morning...
“Happy Days are Here Again”
“Jobless rate falls to lowest in three years”
as Obozo is kissing Paluzie.

The conservatives are in shambles with Mittens running high.
Judges are running wild to protect the Commie messiah.
The Marxist Stream Media is all giggly over their new Karl.
What is left of the Tea Party will be driven into exile.

I am about to predict that Obumbo will be reelected, and America will end by 2015.
Welcome to the new USSA.
Fortunately, I am not there to experience it.

Am I overly pessimistic, or what?

[Mr Rogers]

The judge wrote, “This Court recognizes that the Wong Kim Ark case was not deciding the meaning of “natural born citizen” for the purposes of determining presidential qualifications; however, this Court finds the Indiana Court’s analysis and reliance on these cases to be persuasive.”

Like every other court to look at these issues, it was persuaded by the ARGUMENT in WKA. Yes, in the absence of a formal ruling, DICTA from the Supreme Court, particularly dicta that has been followed and used repeatedly for over 100 years, IS used to guide court decisions.

As I have written to you many times in the past, birthers need to comprehend the arguments and try to answer them, instead of ignoring them and then losing case after case after case. Birthers who ignore WKA will not win in court. Period.

Not even when the other side refuses to show up...

[rxsid]

While your searching for that...I'll take the liberty to quote the father of the 14th:

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

 

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

 
Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

(The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

The take away from this is that, while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people's house regarding "citizenship" and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect's multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution. The United States House was in complete agreement at the time. NBC = born in sovereign U.S. territory, to 2 citizen parentS who owe allegiance to no other country.

{1}

[Seizethecarp]

“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.

[rxsid]

I'll repeat the challenge for you and any other after-birther:

Quote the part of the 14th Amendment that has the term “natural born Citizen” in it.

[Mr Rogers]

Minor specifically stated it was NOT trying to give a comprehensive definition of NBC. That is why trying to force the Court to accept it was stupid. The Minor decision SAID they were not going to settle the dispute about the meaning.

[gunner03]

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.

[rxsid]

"God help the Republic."

Hear, hear!