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 ...
The horses are doing well. We were given a BLM mustang pony in December, and he is shaping up to be a good little (13 hands) trail horse. He has a level head, which I appreciate after too many bolts on my spooky Arabian mare.
As for arguing, I’d rather not. We’ve gone back and forth in hundreds of posts, and I don’t see much value to it. Hopefully, Georgia will rule Obama is ineligible. Since Indiana has ruled him eligible, that ought to force a Supreme Court RULING instead of dicta this or dicta that.
We can debate on FR as long as we want, but nothing will change without a formal ruling.
Good morning!
First IM, I am a 42 year old mother of two in school for Emergency and Disaster management, I will be graduating with honors, and a couple of memberships to fraternal honor societies,and hold a 4.0. Just to give you a proper context of who I am.
Forgive my sarcasm... it gets frankly frustrating to answer the same losing arguments over and over and over again with correct, factual historical information... often from the same people. It gets tiresome.
You are correct in ‘deciphering’ my point of view. Minor V. Happersett does define Natural Born Citizen. The Indiana case was incorrectly decided. It did so based upon what I believe to be an incomplete and inaccurate interpretation of Minor. Be that as it may, No state or appellate court can overturn the Supreme Court of the United States. The legal hierarchy simply does not work that way. In a very real and accurate way, the Indiana decision is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Here is why: “Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.” to use your citation, a footnote is not a holding. It isn’t an independent ground either. It is dictum at best and I think is likely stretching that definition as well.
Second, Minor Case did not take into account anything other than the fact that Minor was born to two parents who were citizens. The court is not at liberty to discuss something which is not a part of the case, and quite simply must look at what is presented, not what MIGHT have been presented, that goes against the rules of law. It has what it has, no more.
Third, the court ruled that because Minor was a Natural Born Citizen, she had no right to call upon the 14th Amendment in order to secure voting rights, because the 14th Amendment, by definition, did not apply to her. Thus it made the clear distinction between a Natural Born Citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen.
A Natural Born Citizen CANNOT call upon the 14th Amendment for citizenship rights. A 14th Amendment Citizen CANNOT call upon Natural Born Citizenship for citizenship rights. This is in essence what the Minor Court Decided in 1874.
The two are different classifications of citizenship, by simple logic. Very simple logic.
There are those born in country (A) to two parents that are citizens (B) - Natural Born Citizen (C) - this class of citizen requires no law, no statute, no anything. It is what it is. That person is a Citizen of the United States in a clear and obvious manner, there are zero questions about their nationality, or the nationality of their parents. A + B = C
A 14th Amendment Citizen is something else. The existence of the Amendment itself tells us that it is a citizen who must have a statute or law which clearly and legally states to everyone that this person is a citizen - and what their rights are, because those rights are DIFFERENT in ONE respect from a Natural Born Citizen - the RIGHT to run for POTUS is reserved for Natural Born Citizens. The need for a law or statute is the variable in this discussion. Because this variable is present, the citizen in question cannot be a Natural Born Citizen.
For example a person who is born in country (A), to a Mother who is American (D), and a father who is Foreign (E) and being a citizen (F). Which gives us: A + D =/= C (=/= meaning “Not Equal to”) Because A + B = C. No, what we have here is D + E = F. F being VERY different than C, E being very different than B. F also tells us that there is citizenship of another Nation involved in that child’s citizenship status.
You can also have A person born in country to a Mother who is foreign (G) and a father who is American (H). This gives us G + H = F.
You can also have a person born in country (A) to two parents who are aliens (I). That gives us A + I = F ... but this is a slippery one, and based upon a false interpretation of the 14th Amendment - “Born under the Jurisdiction thereof” requirement. Being born on our soil is NOT being born under the citizenship jurisdiction there of, the parents are beholden to their own Nation - particularly when the parents are transients otherwise known as illegals or travelers, and their children’s citizenship follows the parents - but that is an altogether different discussion about anchor babies. Back to math.
That leaves a child born out of the country (J) to two parents who are citizens (B) and inheriting their citizenship by virtue of blood (F). This is a “F” because there is citizenship in another nation - the nation of birth - in question. At that point, the laws of another nation are involved. The child may or not be a citizen of that nation by virtue of his/her birth there. This applies whether or not the nation in question would bestow citizenship upon the child of parents who were but transients in their nation. The possibility exists and must be taken into account, one cannot dismiss Jus Soli - as is demonstrated by our own problem with Anchor Babies. This gives us J + B = F.
What does this indicate?
A+B=C Natural Born Citizen
D+E=F Citizen
G+H=F Citizen
A+I=F Citizen
J+B=F Citizen
These simple equations are all true statements. Only A+B=C. The only way to GET “C” is by A+B. You cannot get “C” by any derivation of “F”, and “F” is not equal to “C”. Are these equations perfect descriptors? No, I chose to use the term “F” when in reality I should have given a different variable (the alphabet letters) for each of the “Citizen” equations, because each result has different legal implications and variables attached to it, therefore the variable F is a generalization - that of citizen - because there are many shades of grey in this category, It is not black and white as is the case of A+B=C. I chose to simplify matters by sticking to F. I did this for the sake of simplifying the discussion.
It nicely demonstrates that there are many ways of being a citizen, but only one way to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Natural Born Citizen has specific meaning. This is simple logic. If it did NOT have specific meaning, then the Minor court would have HAD to use the 14th Amendment to determine Virginia Minor’s citizenship status, because there was NOTHING else that could on a statutory level or a constitutional level WITHOUT Article 2 Section 1! Because there IS Article 2 Section 1, the term Natural Born Citizen the Minor court HAD to rule that Minor could not use the 14th to establish Citizenship, because A+B=C, and C is NOT equal to F.
Courts are by their nature very literal creatures, they MUST be in order to meet their existential requirement for for delivering fair justice which applies to everyone. In other words, the decision must apply to everyone in equal measure, and this we consider to be Justice. It is why we have laws, and why we have a court system. Otherwise we would be subject to a monarch who would mete out Justice as he saw fit on what ever whim took him that day. It is one of the reason so many fled Europe, and why the founding fathers created the United States. So WE could make our own laws which would apply to everyone in a systematic and traceable nature, subject to laws, not a sovereign.
This is what I believe. I also believe the logic to be not only sound, but correctly sound. Every bit of research which has been discovered to date, both recent and historical agrees with what I have stated above. The Law as it was written bears it out, the constitution bears it out, the Supreme Court, in the only decision it has made regarding it, bears it out and is supported by 138 years of SCOTUS decisions citing TO Minor v Happersett.
Minor is the Law of the Land. Until it is overturned, it states that Barack Obama is an “F” (pun intended) not a “C”. He is an usurper who should be in prison.
I hope this makes sense now.
Back to Organic Chemistry for me. /sigh
The words are clear an unambiguous. They clearly state that those born in the country to citizen parents are natural born citizens, but those those born in the country to alien parents are not. One can always argue anything, but any other interpretation would be intellectually dishonest.
Second, your quotation clearly states that Citizenship rules can be changed and altered by Statute.
But that has never been in dispute. Of course they can. But not all of them. The only ones that can be changed by statute are also the only ones that the Constitution grants Congress the power to make at all: laws that confer citizenship by naturalization. The whole point to "natural born citizen" is that such citizenship is by nature in its actuality, and not by the legal fiction called "naturalization."
Third, your citation does not, in any way, say that a person who gains citizenship at birth is not, in any way, a Natural Born Citizen.
That's precisely what it says, because it makes a clear contrast between two different cases, one named "natural born" and the other not. The whole point of the statement is that those born in the country to aliens are just as much citizens as those who are born in the country to parents who are citizens and not aliens—in spite of the fact that only the latter are natural born citizens. Otherwise, the statement wold have been been that the child in both cases was a natural born citizen. But it said the opposite.
Juan should go back to the 0bama idolaters at NPR...
How did my tagline get messed up??
There, thats better.
Hey Sallyven, can you add me to your ping list please?? ;)
Thanks!!
I LOVE how the attorney argues:
Also, the 14th Amendment establishes a path to “citizenship.” If individuals that qualify as “citizens” under the 14th Amendment are construed to qualify to run for President, then the term “natural born Citizen” establishing a distinct qualification for holding the office of President under Article II would lose its distinction from the term “citizen” as required to hold the offices of Senator and Member of the House of Representatives under Article I. This would leave the distinction between the qualifications for President and members of Congress without effect. “Such a construction is inadmissible.” Marbury, 5 U.S. at 174.
Notice the citation of Marbury v Madison? Brilliant!!!! :)
“Money is Speech.
Yes, spend yours, waste yours, any way you wish.
However, I feel compelled, as a fiduciary duty to the Conservative cause, to protest your waste of time and resources on this crazy idea.
This is NOT the hill that conservatives should choose die upon!
You have the right to waste your own money, you have no right to promote this cause, unchallenged, just so that you can lead more innocent, uninformed sheep to the slaughter!”
Kansas, glad you think you somehow have a “fiduciary duty” to make sure MY assets are managed and expended in a prudent manner. Sounds like a very progressive idea to me. I was once banned from FR for making a comment about another poster who was (in my opinion) engaging in trollish behavior so I’m not going to say anything about you. But maybe you can read between the lines. In any case I’ll waste no further time reacting to you; you likely are hopeless and beyond the possibility of redemption. So I bid you goodbye; remember to give a shout-out to Barack, Rahm and David Axelrod from me.
The Admin Hearing Officer can only recommend a Contempt of Court citation be issued by the GA Superior Court. Once the GA SoS renders his decision, the Admin Hearing, its record and evidence become moot. Obama would have to sue the GA SoS if he thought the GA SoS was incorrect.
"...which would support the idea that NBC = NBS."
Prior to the Naturalization Act of 1790 (and even for a while after it was passed), it was up to the states to naturalialize the foreign born.
In Massachusetts the legislature passed various acts of naturalization that turned aliens into citizens. What's interesting about these acts is the language they used.
For example,
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens."
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS" in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Obviously in Massachusetts the two terms meant the same thing. Which brings up the question of what would have been their understanding of the Constitutional term "natural born Citizen"?
“A court can also relieve a party from a default judgment if newly discovered evidence provides a defense to the underlying lawsuit or if the defendant was served by publication.”
The Admin Hearing Officer is delivering an opinion to the GA SoS, not a judgment. Whatever action the GA SoS takes with regard to Obama being removed from the GA Ballot or continuing to stay on the GA Ballot, the GA SoS bears sole responsibility for the decision. An aggrieved party to the decision could file suit against the GA SoS in GA Superior Court.
If Obama is taken off the Ballot and does not sue the GA SoS, then it’s solely because he does not have a defense against the charge he is not eligible for the office of POTUS and has nothing to do with any actions or lack thereof with regard to failing to appear at an Admin Hearing.
Yes, it was. A nice, tight box.
You do know about Mr. Hatfield, don't you?
I would vote for him.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning.
Relatively few Supreme Court decisions are unanimous. Some of the greatest jurists in our country (and I would by no means claim all 9 of the current justices fall in that category) can be presented with a substantial record developed by the lower courts, hear oral arguments, deploy a team of clerks to research precedents, argue with their peers and still come down on different sides of a case.
It's not because those jurists don't understand the law, haven't done their homework, haven't given deep thought - they simply have a different interpretation of a given set of facts.
I respect your interpretation of Minor - I think you have given a lot of thought to the matter, done research and arrived at a conclusion in good faith. So have I. I just don't happen to agree with your interpretation of the facts at this time - although the entire discussion has given me much to continue to ponder. As I see it, that is one of the purposes of discussion.
I appreciate having your explanation. I don't feel any purpose is served in picking it apart. The horse is not only dead, it's beginning to rot. There is a time to let this discussion go, and I think it is now.
Eventually, the people in black robes will probably decide the matter - baring the revelation of new facts.
http://www.examiner.com/news-you-can-use-in-atlanta/update-on-georgia-s-eligibility-hearing-for-president-obama
The decision of Judge Malihi regarding the eligibility of President Barack Obama to be on the Georgia Presidential Preference Primary ballot on March 6, 2012, could be sent to the office of Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp soon.
In a phone conversation with Ms. Ruff, the Judge's secretary, she stated that her impression was that the Judge would be making his final decision; and forwarding the case on to the Secretary of State's office as early at this evening - or Monday morning.
There is a lot of interest all across America concerning the Judge’s decision since the hearing was held here in Atlanta last month. The controversy is whether or not President Obama is a “natural born” citizen; which is required by the United States Constitution to be President.
Currently the Judge is going over all the aspects of the hearing with all of the “legal eagles” making sure that all the t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted.”
Wow, Speedbird! I have a good friend who was a BOAC pilot.
Thanks for the link to Mr. Hatfield’s bio. I’d vote for him also if I could.
There were a couple of things that his bio didn’t mention. First, that he is a great PATRIOT. And second, that he takes the oath of office that he took for his position in the Georgia legislature seriously. That oath includes a promise to support the United States Constitution, and he is clearly doing that IN SPADES.
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.