Posted on 02/17/2012 9:22:14 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an appeal with the Georgia Superior Court in the case of Weldon v Obama, one of the three Georgia lawsuits claiming Barack Hussein Obama to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States or to be included on the Georgia ballot. (1)
It is perhaps significant that the very act of filing the appeal was fought by the Superior Court clerk’s office which claimed that an additional $2 fee had not been included with Liberty Legal’s paperwork for the filing of separate motions.
Additionally, the Court Clerk invented numerous excuses to prevent the filing, moving from one to the next whenever it was pointed out by Liberty Legal attorneys that none reflected normal court operating procedure. According to Liberty Legal attorney Van Irion, the clerk’s conduct was, in the course of his entire legal experience, “unheard of.” (2)
As a side note, although the paperwork had been provided some 7 days earlier, the clerk’s office failed to inform Liberty that there was a problem. The clerk simply “sat on the petition” and the filing deadline of TODAY would have been missed had Irion not called to make certain the filing had taken place!
The appeal itself is based upon the claim that the “rights of the appellant [had] been prejudiced because the finding of the Secretary of State (was) affected by…error of law.” (1)
That is, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who approved Judge Michael Malihi’s Administrative Court decision, had done so in spite of (or due to) mistakes of law made by the Judge in deciding the case.
As Irion states in the appeal, the decision of the Judge “not only violates…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
“Why do that when it’s so much easier to show that natural born citizenship can’t be passed from a transitional alien to their offspring.”
Then try that argument, rather than arguing that there must be two citizen parents. No court will ever rule that two citizen parents are a requirement, because it isn’t true. However, being here in amity, domiciled, was a requirement - according to the Supreme Court.
Arguing he was here as a rep of a foreign government is a weak argument, but at least it doesn’t reject the law and pretend something else is the law.
I cannot believe that, presuming that the country survives as a free, constitutional republic for another ten years. Then again, ask me that question on 21 January 2013. . .
We've become addicted to Big Government. Our government has turned into a monster that is no longer afraid of us. The oligarchic powers-that-be may very well find that they have been gravely mistaken in that assumption before too much longer. . .
No court will ever rule that two citizen parents are a requirement, because it isn’t true.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
However, being here in amity, domiciled, was a requirement...
Upon whom is that a "requirement"?
Being in the US on a student visa with no intent to immigrate is not being domiciled in the US.
...according to the Supreme Court.
In which case?
Arguing he was here as a rep of a foreign government is a weak argument...
Nobody is making that argument, nor would they ever do so, because everybody knows that he wasn't here in that capacity as he was merely attending college as an alien and the government, in their "amity", required him to get a student visa in accordance with USC 8, the laws governing...aliens.
“Nobody is making that argument, nor would they ever do so, because everybody knows that he wasn’t here in that capacity as he was merely attending college as an alien and the government, in their “amity”, required him to get a student visa in accordance with USC 8, the laws governing...aliens.”
Then you are screwed in court, because there is no requirement to have 2 citizen parents. That simply is not what the Founders or the ratifying states thought NBC meant. And the Supreme Court has already said so, which is probably why they didn’t take any cases prior to Obama taking office.
Guess it is time to defeat Obama at the ballot box, instead of pursuing another 100 LOSING cases in court.
That simply is not what the Founders or the ratifying states thought NBC meant.
And yet, once again, you come here valiantly trying to convince people that "the moon is made of cheese" because you say so.
And the Supreme Court has already said so, which is probably why they didn’t take any cases prior to Obama taking office.
There you go again. You know that none of those cases ever made it to the Supreme Court for them to "say so". And if you know of a case that has been before the SCOTUS on the issue of presidential eligibility I would sure like to read that decision.
Guess it is time to defeat Obama at the ballot box, instead of pursuing another 100 LOSING cases in court.
Guess it's time to keep Obama from ever getting on the ballot in the first place and stop him before he further ignores Constitutional eligibility requirements.
WKA discusses the meaning of NBC at great length. I know you don’t like it, but every court will follow what WKA said. And thus, you will never, ever win by arguing that a NBC requires two citizen parents - because WKA said it does not.
It is over. No matter how many hundreds of cases you submit, you will always lose. Even when the other side doesn’t show up.
Blah, blah - blah, blah, blah - blah.
Thanks for sharing your multiple opinions.
Are you seriously suggesting that the military and law enforcement not be allowed to vote? They are “government-paid” you know.
Personally, I’d be content if only people with a perfect score on the SAT were allowed to vote.
The burden of proof really doesn’t matter in this case. The plaintiffs showed by a preponderance of the evidence, that Barack Obama was eligible. Presented in court on January 26 were:
1. Barack Obama long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii (Taitz, Irion)
2. Indonesian school registration form showing he was born in Hawaii (Taitz)
3. US Passport showing he was born in Hawaii (Taitz)
4. Allen FOIA for Soetoro with State Department memo to the file that Obama was born in Hawaii
5. Allen FOIA for Obama Sr. with handwritten note from August of 1961 stating Obama II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4. 1961. (Hatfield)
The Court, seeing all of that unrefuted (the Court found Taitz’s experts “unqualified”) evidence, and recognizing that the eligibility theory arguments of Hatfield and Irion were junk as a matter of law, was able to conclude based on the law and the preponderance of the evidence that Barack Obama is eligible.
Even if Obama had the burden of proof, his opponents made the case for him.
Things must be getting serious as the spurious arguments just keep on coming.
So how could Malihi use any of that "evidence" in support of his decision when he said the "evidence" had no value.
What does "considered" mean?
That’s a straw man argument. No one has made NBC mean “citizen.” No one is arguing that and no one is suggesting that (except in straw man arguments like yours).
What NBC means is “born a citizen” (in contrast to “naturalized citizen”) and you can look that up in any good textbook on the Constitution. Even the birther-beloved Minor v. Happersett decision said that there were only two kinds of citizen, born and naturalized.
There are three kinds of citizen.
Natural born, native, and naturalized.
The culture war on America has been so successful few are left with the cultural knowledge to refute your false claims.
Doc Conspiracy happy dance ping...
Native and natural born are interchangeable.
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence...”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
Lynch, 1844. Notice it assumes native born can have two citizen parents.
“”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States...” - from Perkins v Elg
“But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below...declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.” - Perkins v Elg
““Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State;”
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
You do realize this fact, don't you?
I regard you as an idiot, So I don't bother communicating with you, or considering your opinion.
Judge Malihi stated the evidence submitted had no probative value. A “preponderance” of non-probative evidence would not prove Obama was born in the United States.
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.