Posted on 02/09/2012 9:10:05 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
On February 3rd a much anticipated decision was issued by Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi, recommending that Secretary of State Brian Kemp allow Barack Hussein Obama to appear on the state ballot as a candidate for President.
Given previous rulings by Judge Malihi in the Obama case, many had assumed things might go badly for the acting president.
Yet the judge’s 10 page decision could hardly have done more to accommodate defendant Obama and his attorney, especially in light of their having ignored court orders, subpoenas and the hearing itself.
And many of those who have reviewed Judge Malihi’s decision find it to be supported by neither fact nor law.
Of the statements made by the judge in his decision, the following are among the most objectionable to legal observers:
1.) “This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.” (1) p3
In actuality there was NO evidence “presented at the hearing,” in response to subpoenas or submitted pre-trial upon which Judge Malihi could base his decision, as Barack Obama provided nothing, either in documentary or verbal form. Yet Malihi states “the following FACTS are considered: 1.) Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2.) Mr. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth…” (my caps) (1) p6
From what evidence placed in the court record did Malihi obtain these “facts?” No one seems to know.
2.) “The Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny [sic] persuasive.” (1) p7
Ankeny (misspelled throughout the decision by Malihi) was a 2009, Indiana case brought by two plaintiffs who claimed Obama was not qualified to be president on the same grounds as used by at least one plaintiff in the Georgia case...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Madison was making a different point than what I am making.
Madison, in fact, was making the point at that time that more guidance was needed, from Legislative bodies on the matter. (At that time, the States still did have some rights and duties over citizenship matters.)
Madison admits the person in question made a different argument than he would have made, since BIRTHPLACE settled the issue already.
Even as I pray for God to do a miracle I keep doing whatever I can because if God could speak through a donkey then even I can also be used by Him to accomplish His purposes. I know that this donkey could accomplish nothing by herself, though, so the most important ingredient of all is the Lord.
thank you tablelamp! very illuminating
So you’re saying that a judge can accept and call probative anything he wants?
Somebody accuses you of murder and makes a photoshop of you with bloody hands and smoldering gun with the dead body. The judge convicts you of murder based on that lone piece of “evidence”. Is that good, according to you?
Because if it is, then you are primed and ready to accept sharia without a blink. You’re already totally bent over into position for what you’re gonna get.
And no, I cannot believe that any “conservative” would say what you’re saying.
Maybe we should set a time when all Freepers and their friends and families can all pray the same prayer. We should, perhaps, start with prayer suggestions. Anyone?
So if Irion had only presented an online image of the KENYAN birth certificate we’d be rid of Obama right now?
Why or why not?
It wasn't about "some rights." He said this was exclusively based on South Carolina's laws and constitution, meaning it had NOTHING to do with the U.S. Constitution.
I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South-Carolina, so far as they can guide us, and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature so far as they are applicable to the present case.Madison admits the person in question made a different argument than he would have made, since BIRTHPLACE settled the issue already.
He didn't say it was a different argument. He was arguing on behalf of Smith who was being challenged on the basis of NOT being eligible for the House. His challenger, Dr. Ramsey, argued that Smith was a British subject by jus soli reasons. Madison's argument was that Smith's birthright was established by his ancestors who settled the colony and that there was a primary allegiance to the colony or society because.
I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society.
- - -
I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign:
Where there is no rule of law, the people prevail.
Most conservatives ignore you.House just let me say this about that ...
Most conservatives are embarrassed by you.
I've been with most conservatives, I hang with them all all the time too. Not a one of them is ignoring you. They are ALL proud of you.
Oh?
Name one conservative elected official who agrees with you?
Name one conservative leader who agrees with you?
Name a conservative organization which supports your cause?
Oh?
Name one conservative elected official who agrees with you?
Name one conservative leader who agrees with you?
Name a conservative organization which supports your cause?
Oh.
So you are from the GOP Establishment and her to tell us what the LAW is and HOW we should think.
I am afraid for you sir. For your sanity and your future standing in the great Conservative Community, just as I am of any of those who claim to be conservative and yet tie themselves, like kids to mom’s apron strings, to the establishment now in power.
As we all see, the true conservatives are out in great numbers and voting. Your days are marked.
NONE of them do!
Bachman and Palin and Cain and many other leaders have avoided your silly crusade, as well.
And, Madison makes clear that he wanted Legislative guidance from either Congress or the State Legislature, and Madison says this in a case where even you radical birthers agree that the person was a Citizen.
Alan Keyes.
You “forgot” to answer the question from post #46.
If a copy of Kenyan birth certificate had been submitted to Malihi - would he have declared Obama ineligible?
No, this means YOUR argument fails on several levels. I'm the one who pointed out that Madison referred ONLY to South Carolina's Constitution and laws.
And, Madison makes clear that he wanted Legislative guidance from either Congress or the State Legislature, and Madison says this in a case where even you radical birthers agree that the person was a Citizen.
He said NOTHING about wanting guidance from Congress. Other than the South Carolina constitution and laws, the only thing he said he needed for guidance were "principles of a general nature." And if he wanted guidance, he wouldn't have said, "I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence ..."
And yes, Smith was a citizen. Obama, whose ancestors were not among the first settlers of Hawaii, had no birthright from his family. By Supreme Court precedence he was a British subject at birth, lock, stock and barrel.
Georgia ruled in favor of Obama and in return Obama gave Georgia two new nuclear reactors..
You lost. Move on.
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.