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 ...
Why then, if my argument does not hold water (And your explanation was goofy at best) Why then, is it, that NOBODY IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION, NO IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS, NO ELECTED OFFICIALS and No real historians agree with you?
You are wrong.
You are all twisting yourself into knots trying to prove what you can’t prove.
Don't recall that--Segretti, perhaps? Anyway, he didn't appear, and no one has yet raised a single example where a sitting President did.
See #421. 4 min/27 sec.
obamacrimes.com
no both parents are illegal squatters.
"So let’s see—it’s a “long form” certificate? So the distinction is that it includes the footprint? - Because if it did, you ought to try and get him to appear and demonstrate his footprint. That would give us something to compare when and if we find a birth file that appears to have some validity (if ever).
"I assume the word “abstract” is there because the person who offered it didn’t include a footprint."
.
I just proved to you using the ENGLISH LANGUAGE that you are illiterate.
Apparently you must have flunked grammar and reading comprehension in school.
I miss Congressman Billybob.
A quick read of attorney Irion’s argument which appears incorporated in Hatfield’s post-hearing filing seems to me to contain a flaw. He states: However, this statement is immediately followed by the clarification that there have “never been doubts” as to the narrower class of “natural born Citizen[s]. On its face, the lack of doubts may be true, but the court’s classification may have applied to children and not forms of citizenship. In any event, we will not have to wait long to see what status the ALJ gives to Minor.
We may also agree on the view I prefer: that Minor has an important role in the debate because it asserts there can be no doubt regarding the intent of the framers and ratifiers when they used the term NBC and executed the document. That 1787 intent, if it can be ascertained of course, is what is most relevant, not subsequent theories, misapplications, redefinitions, or misunderstandings.
It is possible to imagine Minor could well have said, if indeed it did not actually convey, “It is unnecessary for the Constitution to say who shall be natural born citizens, because at common law there was never any doubt that all children…(etc.)” In such a reading, Minor does not define but affirms 1787 usage.
You may know there is evidence that George Washington, Commander in Chief of our nation’s forces during the Revolution corresponded with John Jay, then President of the Continental Congress, about the desirability of sending him officers that were American citizens. Jay, of course, established himself as one of the nation’s leading intellects and later argued strongly in the Federalist Papers against the danger of foreign influences in our new government. Jay’s 1787 letter to Washington, then the chair of the Constitutional Convention, emphasizing that the Command(er) in Chief be a natural born citizen was almost certainly in furtherance of their prior correspondence.
It is not clear whether very preliminary drafts of the new constitution addressed presidential qualifications, but a August 22 report from the Committee of Eleven recommended the president be a citizen (similar to senators and representatives, along with 35 yrs of age and 21 years residency). Within a matter of days there appeared on September 4 the term NBC applicable solely to the president. Typically there was discussion and comment on most issues but there was none on this point. Perhaps more telling, no concern was expressed about whether that important and unique qualification extracted the highest level of allegiance and loyalty
Would Jay, a prominent thinker and lawyer have used an ambiguous term to qualify the CinC in order to extract the highest level of allegiance and loyalty? That is unimaginable. What other term was available to convey those attributes by virtue of parental citizenship? There is none, the term speaks for itself.
It seems to me the burden of proof is on those who would propose a different definition of NBC. In that regard, I believe the only persuasive rebuttal would come from the record of those notables who attended the convention and those who signed the document.
He's still with us...if only in spirit.
I’ve not seen any reliable confirmation of it yet.
No. Article II, Section 1 is grammatically correct. The rule of punctuation has changed since 1787.
Hmmm....I hadn't thought about this, since Rubio has been adamant that he will NOT be the VP pick and showing every sign (my interpretation) that he knows fully well that no constitutionalist (such as he claims to be) could agree to violate the Constitution.
You do raise the interesting scenario of what the Dems would do if Rubio WAS picked.
The Dems are scared to death of Rubio and would stop at nothing to prevent him from peeling off a big chunk of the Hispanics.
Their attack, IMO, would be to point out that unlike Obama, who has ONE US citizen parent,...Rubio has ZERO US citizen parents! On this basis alone Dems could claim this distinction makes Obama eligible and Rubio ineligible. Dems could point to the precedent that the entire Congress ignored Obama’s publicly claimed non-citizen father, while there is NO precedent for a person with ZERO citizen parents (Chester Arthur's were unknown).
On this basis alone, the Dems might be bold enough to risk a fast-track NBC hearing before SCOTUS to try to remove Rubio and count on SCOTUS being too chicken to also remove Obama. Frankly, I don't think Obama's legal team would allow that SCOTUS test case if they could prevent it. But they might be too boxed in to try to prevent it, having told their peeps that there is NO QUESTION that Obama is eligible.
A private message can be sent farrar.
As I wrote, I tried to trace it back and that took me to fogbow website. Yet it's been spread all over FR threads. Obama Exposer, you were asked to provide a source, and have not done so. I checked your page. That's NOT how things are done here in FR.
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.