Posted on 02/06/2012 4:32:19 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
Friday, February 3, 2012, for some kind of a bribe or because he was threatened, Georgia Judge Michael Malihi sold out his country and defecated on the constitution of The United States of America.
As an Administrative law judge in the State of Georgia, a case was presented to him to have Barack Obama removed from the ballot to run for President in the State of Georgia.
His actions have set precedence in American law that if a person is charged with a crime, the best defense, is to not show up for court. Law schools may now offer a course in "The Obama Defense".
Three separate legal teams presented evidence and witnesses to show that Obama is not eligible to run for President because he is not a natural born citizen. Obama produced no evidence, no witnesses and both he and his lawyer failed to show up for court in violation of a subpoena to do so.
Forget about what we think, whether he is, or is not a natural born citizen. Opinions don't count. Only evidence and witnesses count. But we're not dealing with rational minds in this case. We never have.
Judge Michael Malihi violated a basic rule of legal interpretation in his ruling. He violated our earliest Supreme Court ruling on how to interpret the Constitution. He ignored evidence. He ignored witnesses. He ignored earlier Supreme Court rulings establishing that the term "natural born citizen" means, one who is born in America to two American citizen parents.
As attorney Leo Donofrio points out on his website: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
"...this Court is 'not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.' ...There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited his father's British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948.
All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot."
It is impossible to believe, that Judge Michael Malihi, himself, believed, he was following the constitution and legal precedent. He knows he's a crook. He knows he's a liar. He knows, that in his ancestral home country, that unlike America, he would have his head chopped off for what he did.
He ignored the Constitution and at least three US Supreme Court rulings, defining Natural born citizen as one who is born in America to two citizen parents. He ignored the Law of Nations, that the founders of this country used to draft our constitution. He ignored the countless letters, written back and forth by our founders, defining natural born citizen and their reasons for why they would only accept a natural born citizen as their President.
(Excerpt)
>> “The Terms Natural Born, Native Born, and many others were all used, interchangeably at that time.” <<
.
That is the stupidest lie I have ever heard!
Then from whence does such authority derive? In other words, what specific Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power, much less the authority, to perform this function? It obviously isn't Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, since that pertains to naturalization, so where does Congress get the authority you claim it has?
Natural Born Citizen has ALWAYS meant Citizen at the moment of Birth!
And, at one time, Vattel did matter, as Courts had no other guidance.
However, even rulings or statements based on Vattel are now MOOT, since Congress did change the rules for Citizenship several times, since any of the Court rulings you cite.
And, Congress has NEVER been challenged by the Courts over the right and duty of Congress to set the rules and legislation concerning both Naturalization and Natural Born Citizens.
Congress has EVERY right to make laws regarding all forms of Citizenship, and has done so several times. Again, not once has Congress been challenged in its right to change any Citizenship law.
>> “James Madison says that Congress has such power.” <<
.
Reference?
(We already know that he said no such thing)
.
That is the stupidest lie I have ever heard!
Actually it is true and remained so well after the 14th Amendment was adopted. It was only after WKA that the tern "native" was misconstrued to mean more than it actually was known to be. The progressives(constitution haters) had to dumb down citizenship in order to bring about their plan to turn the sovereigns into slaves of the government. Hence fiat birthright citizenship via the WKA decision wherein "jus soli" citizneship embedded into our society the illegal concept of dual citizenship.
Orly insulting the court in her appeal isn’t a great way to go...
I would like to think that her passion on the issue would allow her some leeway.
Whether this is simply a letter making a request of him or an official submission...somebody smarter than I would have to answer that.
You grossly misunderstand WKA. (deliberately?)
James Madison is known as the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Are Birthers now “anti-Madison”??
Congress has the power, Congress has used the power to grant birth right citizenship to those born on foreign soil and has changed those rules more than once, for instance.
It is impossible to write rules for “Naturalization” unless you FIRST know who might need such a process -— Congress therefore has power over all Citizenship issues.
I would also point out the Congress has the power to limit the Jurisdiction of the Courts, and that Congress has a coequal power to define, interpret and enact the Constitution. Your reasoning and your line of questioning are absurd.
posted previously, more than once, find it yourself on this thread or learn how to use a Search Engine, “editor”
Now I've got to do some reading.
The Wong Kim Ark decision in the late 1800s discussed it in detail, and said:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
---------------
Sounds reasonable, until you realize that NOT every child born in the U.S. was a natural born citizen from the time of the Declaration of Independence on. Some weren't even citizens, at all. Blacks were not provided birthright citizenship until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and subsequently the 14th Amendment, and Native Americans weren't provided birthright citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Blows your theory all to hell.
I am not the one who grossly misunderstands WKA. But I know a lot of lawyers who do because they continue to make the case for WKA which in turn makes the case for Obama.
BTW.... the Laws of Nature were created by God. God only used the word “natives” when defining the members of a society. All others were “goyim” aka “gentiles” aka other(foreign) “nations”. Our fore fathers knew the difference
1859 Buchanan Admin Op (9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859)) that is the foundation of the 14th Amendment:
“The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”
“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them(native-born citizen) never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”
Well, geez, that already tells me that it has to do with Aliens and Nationality...the actual name of Title (USC) 8.
Congress provided specific legislative authority for nullifying citizenship when, in 1907, it enacted the predecessor of the modern federal expatriation statute. See Act of Mar. 2, 1907, ch. 2534, 34 Stat. 1228 (1907). As the Supreme Court has noted, such acts of Congress "are to be read in the light of [Congress's 1868] declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed." Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 498-99 (1950).
This is coming from...@www.justice.gov/olc/expatriation.htm the cached page
@Expatriation Act 1868 nullified (first link)
Also here...@8 U.S.C. § 1481 note (2000) (first link)
Do I need to continue?
Not true, slaves were not afforded citizenship in “pro-slavery” states until then. However, blacks were always considered citizens in abolitionist states which were mainly in the north. Blacks even sat as judges & elected community leaders in some states. The A1 of the Constitution says nothing of race, it only refers to free persons in regards to representation. You are mistaking congressional acts on immigration & naturalization that disallowed for the immigration of blacks. This was done in order to thwart the slave trade, not to denigrate black people.
Natural born citizen, citizen and "national" wherein national=14th Amendment citizen? Don't know yet.
Still all USC 8 Aliens and Nationality.
Political Code of the State of New York: “The citizens of the state are:1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls."California Government Code Sections 240-245 Article 1. General: "The citizens of the State are: (a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls."
There are those who claim that "natural born citizen" is strictly synonymous with "born a citizen," "citizen from birth" or "citizen by reason of birth." If that were true, then anyone who was a citizen either from the moment of birth, or because of the facts of birth, would be a "natural born citizen." That theory can be be disproven as follows:
The other issue in dispute regarding the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court's decision in Wong Kim Ark is whether any and all who are "born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are natural born citizens, as proven by application of semantics and logic to the syntax of and terms used in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, or whether the syntax and terminology allow some of those "born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be natural citizens while yet others are naturalized citizens.
Those who claim that the 14th Amendment declares all those "born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to also necessarily be Constitutionally-defined as natural born citizens by those words in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment base their argument on three assertions: a) natural citizenship and naturalized citizenship are mutually exclusive (not disputed,) b) in the phrase "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the conjunction or is exclusive disjunction, and c) therefore, the 14th Amendment is asserting that being "born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and being "naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are mutually exclusive.
The counter-argument: The conjunction or in English is usually used to signify inclusive disjunction, which means that the alternatives are not mutually exclusive. Although or in English can signify exclusive disjunction, it is uncommon for that to be the intent in the absence of auxiliary, modifying words or phrases in context that make it clear that the two alternatives are intended to be exclusive. But there is no reason in the historical record that indicates that the intent of those who authored and ratified the 14th Amendment was to Constitutionally assert that citizenship by birth in the US was mutually exclusive with citizenship by naturalization within the US. That distinction had nothing to do with the controversies that motivated the ratification of the Amendment. Citizenship in general was the issue, not whether or not anyone was or was not a natural citizen—by birth or otherwise. The same is true of the issue of record before the Court in Wong Kim Ark.
Although being a natural citizen and being a naturalized citizen are mutually exclusive, being born a citizen (a citizen from and by reason of birth) and being a naturalized citizen are not. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, the laws of Britain and of the several States absolutely included cases where those born in the country acquired citizenship, at birth, by naturalization, and not by the principles of natural law—as proven in my essay. There is no evidence that changing that fact was among the reasons or motivations for the 14th Amendment.
Even if the intent had been to change who was or was not a natural citizen, it is logically impossible for any positive law—even a Constitutional Amendment—to change who are or are not natural citizens—also as proven in my essay. The attempt to do so would violate the Law Of Non-Contradiction, because of the very definition of natural law. Positive law can be declaratory of natural law, but no law can make anything be what it is not. The law cannot convert lead into gold, nor prevent the Sun from rising in the morning.
The purpose of constraint predicates in the subject of a sentence is to denote or describe, not to mandate or prescribe. The purpose of the subject of a sentence is to identify or name the subject or topic of discussion, not to specify prescriptive mandates. It's the predicate phrase of a sentence that's supposed to do that. Based on its syntactical structure, the point and purpose of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment is to prescriptively define anyone and everyone who fully satisfies the denotational semantics of the constraint predicate expressions (set membership rules) in the subject of the sentence as citizens of the United States, and of the State in which they reside—and that's all.
The 14th Amendment does not say "All persons born as natural citizens or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. and of the State in which they reside." But that hypothetical version of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment must be perfectly synonymous with the actual text, if it is in fact true that all who are "born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," are also logically and semantically required to be natural born citizens by definition. Why? Because the assertion under discussion is precisely that "born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the very definition of a natural born citizen. It that's true, then adding the modifier "as a natural citizen" cannot possibly change the meaning, because the claim is that "born" already means exactly that in the phrase under discussion.
But the addition of the adjectival phrase "as natural citizens," modifying "born" in the hypothetical version of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, absolutely does change the meaning of the sentence. Why? Because that hypothetical version of the rule excludes anyone who isn't "born as a natural citizen in the US" or who isn't naturalized. So that version of the rule would have excluded all those residents of the United States alive at the moment the Amendment was ratified who either hadn't been naturalized, or who hadn't been born as natural citizens—which would have excluded every single former slave of African descent (who hadn't already been naturalized) from having been made citizens by the 14th Amendment!
But that just cannot be the intent! The most urgent purpose and intent of the 14th Amendment was to make citizens of those who were neither born as citizens nor naturalized as citizens, but who had in fact been born in the United States and subject to its its jurisdiction at the time. Therefore, it is categorically impossible that "born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to be perfectly synonymous with "natural born citizen," including and excluding all the same persons.
So, given the totality of the evidence and constraints regarding the interpretation and construction of the 14th Amendment, the correct reading is 'All persons are citizens of the United States who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof when born in the United States or when naturalized in the Unites States, or both' (inclusive disjunction.) That interpretation aligns perfectly with the known intent and motivation: To ensure that anyone who was or is either born in the US or naturalized in the US (or both) and where either of those events occur in the United States while the person is subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States and of the State in which they reside.
To summarize: All citizens are either natural or naturalized. The 14th Amendment is declaratory of the citizenship of all those who are natural citizens without needing the Amendment to be such, but who also satisfy the citizenship rules specified by the Amendment. But for those who would not be citizens but for the 14th Amendment, it makes them citizens by naturalization—by definition of naturalization, which is to deem or declare someone a citizen by positive law enacted by any political entity—such as a statute, or a Constitutional Amendment passed by Congress and ratified by the State legislatures.
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.