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)
My pleasure, as always.
“As a result, the state could not accept laws that challenged Vattel.”
“Therefore, if the Constitution delegated a power to Congress, it did so in express terms to avoid usurpations. The result was a strict construction of the Constitution ...”
Virginia and state rights, 1750-1861
Okay. I would like somebody to critique it to do just that...look for flaws in my argument.
My comment was about the Ankeny decision. You're not claiming that that is a forgery, are you?
As to the birth certificate, if you look at my posts here on FR from before the hearing, I predicted that Obama would not be found qualified unless he submitted a certified (raised seal) COLB or birth certificate. (The only time, IIRC, that I made a prediction on an eligibility thread which proved wrong!) What saved Obama was that the plaintiffs offered the internet image and stipulated that it was correct.
“A dwarf is as much a man as a giant; a small republic is no less a sovereign state than the most powerful kingdom”. Vattel
Republican legal theory: the history, constitution and purposes of ... - Page 124
(50 Mich. L. Rev. 927 1951-1952) The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929)
********************************************************
(66 Harv. L. Rev. 707 1952-1953) For most purposes, it is not necessary to determine the method by which citizenship has been acquired. But the problem of whether a citizen is natural born or naturalized is important in such areas as denaturalization, expatriation, and qualification for certain offices such as the presidency. (For a discussion of the distinctions made in expatriation, see pp. 739-42 infra.)
When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen’s qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship. (See 5o Mich. L. REV. 926 (1952))
Is this you Mr Rogers and your friends in this forum?
“A more dangerous attack upon the constitution cannot be devised ; and a people who permit it deserve to be enslaved.
“To attack the constitution of a state, says Vattel, and to violate its rules, is a capital crime against the nation ..”
Political and constitutional law of the United States of America
I've already shown that that 'interpretation' is clearly contradicted by the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee which drafted the 14th Amendment:
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Congressional Globe
IMO, the reason they weren't mentioned is because neither Congress nor any part of the federal government can bestow rights. Priviliges and immunities, yes!. And the reason the 14th was created was because they needed a vehicle to 'grant' some kind of belonging to the free slaves, who were beholding to no one after they became free until they signed on the dotted line to become 'citizens' of the federal government in exchange for the bestowal of privileges and immunities afforded Citizens.
The amendment created another class of citizens. One, recognizing Upper case Citizens who didn't need any help from the feds and lower case 'citizens, who did need help -- for which the 14th was created. The 14th also created a make believe place for them to live. the federal United States, which is a different political entity than the union of States, or the united States of America.
Us Sovereigns still fly the ungilded flag. How about you?
@http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2701458/posts?page=69#69 April 08, 2011
@http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2487406/posts?page=12#12 April 06, 2010
@http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2717474/posts?page=193#193 May 10, 2011
So how can somebody be a natural born citizen when they're born in Hawaii, even if they're born to citizen parents, when Congress has kept that from happening because of the way the Section is worded?
One must be careful when trying to define the difference between granting and protecting. As the 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion & speech, the 14th protects the right as a freed person to be treated fairly as a free citizen. Thus the 14th grants no rights, it protects rights. And I agree with you on the make believe place that came out of thin air when the states allowed the US govt to decide who the citizens of the sates are rather than the other way around. This is the problem Chief Justice Field had with the 14th and the WKA ruling, it created something that the constitution did not support, a national territory as one big state thereby usurping the rights of the individual states. Field knew that Gray's opinion would lead to the erosion of the meaning of sovereign US citizenry which was not the intent of the framers of the 14th, nor the states that ratified it.
Tell us Mr Rogers why did the Founders borrow words from Vattel to place in the Preamble of the Constitution?
There was a time when the Obots claimed the Founders could not speak and write French and it was this false claim they used to spread their lies:
“Vattel was written in French”
“The Founders could not read French”
“How can Vattel be in the Constitution if the Founders could not speak the language?”
“Vattel is not listed in the Congressional debates during the forming of the country”
Except in this case, as I have posted for you many times in other threads, the decision is consistent with many earlier decisions, and with the common law heritage of this country. Anyone who thinks the court is going to ignore over a century of precedent is dreaming. Claiming that the judges are all idiots or slow witted isn’t going to change that.
What I want to know- is Orly gunning for another sanction and fine?
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States”
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Fuller.
The plaintiffs in the cases (aside from Orly) agreed that 0bama was born in Hawaii.
Chief Justice Fuller quoting Vattel:
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;
and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Book I, c. 19, § 212.
“The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage... .
The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.”
US Supreme Court Justice Daniel directly quoting Vattel:
“By this same writer (Vattel) it is also said:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
Again: “I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.” (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)
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.