Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven
[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.
Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.
The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.
Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Natural born includes those born of American parents on American ships in foreign ports, or on the high seas, or in American Embassies and Consulates, all of which are considered by the principles of ex-territoriality, as within the United States and under its laws.
Children born to American parents traveling in foreign countries are regarded as native born, instead of natural born.
You are correct.
At the time of Clinton's shenanigans I think there were some court decisions that postponed civil actions while he was in office. There certainly could be a legal argument that an administrtaive hearing should also be delayed while the President is on official business.
But the point is, Obama's team in their overwhelmingly arrogance failed to cite any legal reason for the subpeona to be quahed. They essentially just said: "We've decided this is stupid, so we are ignoring it." Big mistake.
Obama is now in contempt - and since they made no legal argument against the subpeona, I don't see how he appeals. From Wikipaedia:
A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:
Existence of a lawful order
The potential contemnor's knowledge of the order
The potential contemnor's ability to comply
The potential contemnor's failure to comply
Check, check, check and check. Obama's team could have raised grounds for appeal by claiming he was "unable" to comply, due to his official duties. But in their arrogance, they failed to even make that basic argument.
Natural born or native?
That is the differentiation.
“My point is that Congress HAS changed Citizenship requirements, for those born on foreign soil, several times.”
Congress has Constitutional Authority to write legislation to determine the procedure for obtaining citizenship through the naturalization process. This is done through revision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
Congress cannot define a Natural born citizen or establish a process for obtaining the Natural born citizen classification because it does not have the Constitutional Authority.
Marco Rubio is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Marco's status is the same as that of Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
I wonder if Rubio could get standing to get a court ruling on the matter? What if Rubio tried to put himself on the ballot, and was denied based on the above? Certainly he would have standing then to force the courts to make clear the meaning of "natural born citizen". And he could well catch the expresss train to the Supremes, since irreperable harm would be done to him if he were barred from a ballot.
Oh, its been addressed. So much so it resembles the feather pillows after Bella and Edward got done with them...
I have personally addressed it so many times I can’t even begin to count them. Divided loyalty is at the HEART of the matter when John Jay wrote to Washington during the Constitutional Convention.... it is the main reason he even addressed the issue to the future first President.
There are dedicated individuals who are SCARED TO DEATH of this issue ruling the day. It means their preferred a$$hole is headed for prison, and every God forsaken thing the cretin signed or did is struck from the record. Obama is erased from history as a POTUS, but instead recorded as an usurper who was caught and PUNISHED. There are too many useful idiots who have too much egotistically if not literally at stake to give up on the Kenyan worm.
You can’t fix stupid. You just cant. Particularly when the stupid want to STAY stupid. So it is up to us to inform those who just don’t have the information, the REAL information they need to come to the correct conclusions.
‘Your father, born of U.S. citizen parents, would be a “citizen by birth” regardless of where he was born. He would not need to be naturalized. He couldn’t be president, but I’m guessing he never wanted to. YOU, on the other hand would have no issue for NBC’
You have just stumbled into saying exactly what is meant - Dad was not born here in the boundaries - but I was! So THAT is the prime issue. Eh?
30 million murdered babies might disagree.
You are banging your head against a wall with these people.
I agree; I despise Uhbama but we cannot pick fights based on foolish falsehoods. All we do then, is look like fools and liars.
The only question I would ask is if Uhbama was really born in the US. Not that his father was not a citizen.
I do concur that we have some work in from of us. Iteresting that I am responding to post 308. (A favorite of mine.)
“no one alive at the time met the NBC requirement since none of their parents were USA citizens.”
Here’s another distinction:
They didn’t meet it BECAUSE THERE WAS NO USA!!!
I'm sorry, but Minor did not settle this question. It is the longstanding practice of the court to decide only those constitutional issues which MUST be decided to address the case at hand. Minor addressed the voting rights of a woman; the final sentence of the decision reads:
"Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we affirm the judgment.
Earlier in the decision the court made clear it was NOT defining natural-born citizen, as it was not necessary to do so to decide the case at hand: [emphasis added]
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Hehe, that was my first thought too!
You are clearly wrong.
You are wrong.
The United States has only two classes of Citizens:
Naturalized Citizens
or
Citizens from the moment of Birth
You keep saying that.
The attitude you project is not backed up by the veracity of the supporting information in your posts.
A) The last sentence in the decision is NOT the only part of a decision that is binding or stands as a legal precedent. The court also said, "Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage." In this question that THIS court settled, citizenship is a key part of the decision.
B)You misunderstand what the court is saying when it says it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Its only talking about the doubts of whether the second class of persons are citizens or not. The first class of citizens had no doubts, and that's why it alone was characterized as natural-born and distinguished from anyone who must rely on other means of becoming citizens.
You are just silly.
The Courts said, in the Citations given, that there was NO Constitutional guidance on NBC.
Therefore, the Courts used other authorities available.
Those authorities? Common Law!
Congress then enacted Legislative Law that TRUMPS common law.
Therefore, your Court case citations, ALL OF THEM, are MOOT!
Must be a sleeper.
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.