Posted on 02/09/2012 6:45:24 PM PST by thecodont
This is the litigation I mentioned when the judge allowed it to go forward earlier this year; the judge has now ruled on the merits that the fact that President Obama’s father wasn’t a U.S. citizen doesn’t keep President Obama from being a natural-born citizen: Anyone born in the U.S., with narrow exceptions (such as that for the children of diplomats) is a U.S. citizen from birth, and therefore a natural-born citizen.
I’m not an expert on this area of the law, but the Georgia judge’s reasoning, which echoes the reasoning of a 2009 Indiana Court of Appeals decision strikes me as quite persuasive, as does the much more detailed reasoning in a Nov. 2011 Congressional Research Service report, which reaches the same result.
(Excerpt) Read more at volokh.com ...
"And just 2 weeks ago, it was affirmed in the US District Court, Eastern Virginia District, that the 2 parent argument is wrong.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisdale-v-Obama-et-al"
Volokh is an OBot from Southern Kal.
I'm not sure about that. It really doesn't matter anyway. Obama wasn't born in the U.S. Obama was born in Kenya.
True enough, but I want to see what the other side is saying. It seems on the surface that the legal blogosphere is silent on the eligibility discussions, but this shows otherwise.
I see a lot of emotion generating arguments on that blog. Even the author claims to not be an expert on the eligibility issyes, but is “persuaded” by the Ankeny case and the CRS letter. Lots of emotion and lots of wishful thinking.
But any real legal analysis?
That's exactly right.
"I’m not an expert on this area of the law..."
then shut the H-E-double toothpicks up already since you don't know what you are talking about!
Volokh -- I’m not an expert on this area of the law, but the Georgia judge’s reasoning,....
The guy knows better. As an OBot sympathizer, he's being deceptively coy. It's easy to understand on the face of it, the opinion is dishonesty by Malihi.
You can read this excellent article by the American Thinker just posted.
"The Obama Ballot Challenges: A Crisis of Confidence"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2844672/posts
Or this letter from Attorney Hatfield to GA, SoS Kemp of the numerous abject failures by this Admin GA Court.
I’m not giving that blog a hit.
I did look at Tisdale v. Obama. There the court gave short shrift to that pro se case (filed by the plaintiff, a non-lawyer) and, in any event, merely determined that Obama is a citizen ...
then court then extrapolated, or took the quantum leap—presumably taking judicial notice of a `fact’ that has never been proven: that Obama, or whatever his real name is, was born in the United States—that all citizens born in the United States are natural born citizens.
See Article Two of the United States Constitution which makes a clear distinction between “citizens” and “natural born citizens.”
Since he refuses to provide an authentic birth certificate that satisfies the `Best Evidence’ rule, and because his father was a British citizen, “Barack Obama” remains either a turd or a Baby Ruth candy bar on the bottom of the American swimming pool. And since any one of us can just as easily beg the question, I conclude he is the former.
Thank you for the Tisdale v. Obama summary.
Hi, Red - I don’t know how to post an article. Would you please check out at World Net Daily - posted an hour ago, an article by Diana West (!!) titled: “WHY WASN’T OBAMA IN CONTEMPT OF COURT?”
this...”...a mob-like amalgam of sharp elbows and big mouths who dictate acceptable topics, their narrative flow and an approved range of opinion - the consensus-makers. Defying consensus, breaking what amount to Mafia-like vows of ‘omerta’ - silence - and delving into the verboten, is the worst possible crime of anti-mobness, punishable by eternal hooting and marginalization.”
It was just posted, about an hour ago.
Would you please ping all you know who would be interested in this? Thanks.
Does he have any proof? LOL
When read in that context any anchor baby whether he speaks English or not is eligible.
The judge cites Ark: "Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States ..." He ignores that there are criteria for being "subject to the jurisdiction" and he ignores that the court says that the 14th amendment (as cited here) does NOT define natural-born citizenship. In true fact, this passage does NOT even employ the term "natural-born citizen."
The judge then cites Perkins v. Elg, but gives no direct quote and then uses a Frankensteined quote from Hollander v. McCain which incorrectly combines citations from Ark and Schneider v. Rusk to presume that 14th amendment citizens are eligible to be president. Schneider v. Rusk cited natural-born as a separate term under "native-born" ... which is true. NBC would be a subset of native born.
Judge Gibney does not say whether the plaintiff cited the unanimous authority and legal precedent of Minor v. Happersett. His superficial review of natural-born citizen fails under its own lack of specificity in applying the term natural-born citizen.
What’s behind all the superficial misunderstandings and sloppy legal thinking? Who trained these judges? Who appointed them?
No one is carefully looking at the facts, and if they are, maybe they’re being threatened to shut up and look the other way.
I’m not sure if it’s just naturally intimidating to a judge to make a decision that would throw the political world into chaos, if they’re afraid of being branded as racists or if there’s something more nefarious at work. I would hope it’s only one of the first two situations at play. Unfortunately the third can’t be ruled out.
I am not paper trained at metaphysical refinements and tests of logical skill that can make everything mean anything or nothing at will Like this perfesser. My question to him is based upon something I observed when my so called adult children ran afoul of the local law. The clerks kept piling up the case files on the table -the base of the rapidly growing pile was not stable and soon the entire mess fell. I noticed that there was no system except what might be imposed by assistant DA pressed for time-and often disinterested so the last added case file most often was the one grabbed. My analogy of what this Perfesser seems to believe of our Constitution.WHY even have such an inconvenience as a written Constitution if Judges and others trained in managing it no longer reflect the terms used and adopted but the top of an unstable pile of dung?No dung has more stability than case files on a tabletop.
WHY was the Natural Born Citizen clause specifically put in the qualifications for the Office of the US President in the first place? Who granted any power to change the meaning of the terms used as they were adopted? WHY have the inconvenience of a written Constitution and a solemn Oath or affirmation to support it— If Courts and Judges and Progressive legislators and other sorts can violate the clear language used at will? And lastly when did repetition of a wrong ever make it right? (see Amos v. Moseley,74 Fla 555;77 So.619 ) @ www.constitution.org/cons/const_quotes.htm.
Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. Obama was born in Kenya.
Do you mean the man using the name BHO now, or the one born with the name BHO?
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.