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)
If memory serves me correctly, the Afroyim v. Rusk case was about the govt who stripped a naturalized person of his citizenship due to a treasonous act, voting in a foreign nation. There was a time when allegiance meant allegiance to one nation and one nation only and one who came here, claimed allegiance to the US and then went and partook in the political rights of citizenship in their former nation, by that act, it was assumed they were not loyal to the United States thus they were stripped of their citizenship and rightly so. However, only the punishment (loss of citizenship) was changed, not the actual language of the 1868 Act that stated that under US law, one is to have but one loyalty & that is to the United States. And thus the reason the US State Dept to this day calls “dual citizenship” a “concept” and not a law, thus they have no legal right to protect a dual citizen when that person is in the country of their original citizenship, including babies born to aliens in the US should they get in trouble when in that foreign country. They are very clear on this subject at the US State Sept website.
The Expatriation Act is the foundation stone for the oath of allegiance ALL naturalized citizens must make before acquiring their official certificate of naturalization. If the 1868 Act is truly repealed, then the govt is illegally forcing naturalized citizens to renounce their former allegiances. I realize it is daunting and it took me 3 years of indepth study to get to the bottom of it all. But is is all there and according to US law, “jus soli” citizenship wherein a child is born a dual citizens is simply anathema to the US Constitution & the 14th Amendment.
Did his Father naturalize to become a US citizen while still maintaining his Mexican citizenship???
Did Obama’s mother lust after her father? Is that why she married an African. Did you read what was sent.
This makes Obama’s birth spurious. Do you know the meaning of a spurious birth? Do you know the meaning of a kind less birth?
An unnatural birth?
Terrazas v. Haig, 653 F.2d 285 (7th Cir. 1981) ... Not familiar with that case as I have not wandered the “Circuit” court cases, only the SCOTUS decisions. Got a linky?
“national” referes to a person born in a territory rather than a state.
“Nationals” as in Puerto Ricans are “nationals” not but not “citizens” as they have no legal representation in congress. That is why there is such a push to make them the 51st state. The libs just love abusing unsuspecting soles to promote more slavery to the govt via stripping them of their hard earned dollars via taxation. As of right now, Puerto Rican salaries/wages are not subject to taxation by the IRS.
You’re living in the fantasy world of denial and deceit.
You are not honest in this debate. You’re an advocate.
No response necessary.
Members of Congress on your side? 0
Judges on your side? 0
Founding fathers who believed that there were more than 2 classes of Citizens? 0
Yet you think I am in a “fantasy world”?
You are delusional!
By virtue of its express power "[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4, Congress has an implied power to set the terms of U.S. citizenship, including the power to expatriate. (4) But that power is limited by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision states that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.(5) As that clause has been construed by the Supreme Court at least since 1967, the United States may not deprive a person "born or naturalized in the United States" of his U.S. citizenship "'unless he voluntarily relinquishes it.'" Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 260 (1980) (quoting Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 262).(6)
4. It was once thought that, because the Naturalization Clause contained no express provision for Congressional power to expatriate a U.S. citizen against his will, no such authority existed. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4. As Chief Justice Marshall stated in dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), "[a] naturalized citizen . . . becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is, to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual." Id. at 827. In Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), the Court found an inherent federal power, beyond the express terms of the Constitution, to forcibly expatriate U.S. citizens, as a necessary attribute of sovereignty. See id. at 57 (concluding that power to expatriate necessarily arose out of federal power to conduct foreign relations (citing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936))). That view was abrogated, however, in Afroyim. See Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 257 ("This power cannot, as Perez indicated, be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty possessed by all nations. . . . Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones.").
Here is where, IMO, he was right.
Under the Court's current jurisprudence, the Naturalization Clause empowers Congress to expatriate U.S. citizens without obtaining their consent, but only with respect to naturalized citizens who fall outside the protection of the Citizenship Clause. Individuals not protected by the Citizenship Clause acquire U.S. citizenship, if at all, solely by an act of Congress enacted pursuant to the Naturalization Clause, and not pursuant to the Constitution itself. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971) (Citizenship Clause does "'not touch[] the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization'") (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898)); see also note 6. With respect to such individuals, Congress's power under the Naturalization Clause includes the power to set conditions subsequent to naturalization, failure of which may result in expatriation without consent. See Bellei, 401 U.S. at 834 ("it does not make good constitutional sense, or comport with logic, to say, on the one hand, that Congress [in exercising its authority under the Naturalization Clause] may impose a condition precedent, with no constitutional complication, and yet be powerless to impose precisely the same condition subsequent").
5. By its express terms, the Citizenship Clause does not protect persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen, because such persons are not "born or naturalized in the United States." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971).
6. Afroyim, the Court had held precisely the opposite view - namely, that nothing in the Constitution prevents U.S. citizens from forfeiting their citizenship, against their will, for voluntarily engaging in certain kinds of conduct, such as voting in a foreign election. That view was restated most recently in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958). See, e.g., id. at 58 n.3; id. at 61; see also Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 312 (1915); Savorgnan, 338 U.S. at 499-500. Three justices who dissented in Perez, however, concluded that the Citizenship Clause prohibits expatriation absent the citizen's assent. See Perez, 356 U.S. at 66 (Warren, C.J., dissenting). In 1967, the Court expressly overruled Perez by a 5-4 vote in Afroyim. See Afroyim, 387 U.S. at 257 ("we reject the idea expressed in Perez that . . . Congress has any general power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent"); id. at 262-63 (noting that primary purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to prevent Congress from stripping blacks of U.S. citizenship). Not a single justice suggested a return to Perez when the Court revisited the issue of expatriation in 1980. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980).
How did he blow it?
653 F.2d 285 (citation)
Laurence J. TERRAZAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Alexander M. HAIG,* Secretary of State,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 80-2292.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued May 11, 1981.
Decided June 30, 1981.
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/653/653.F2d.285.80-2292.html
Interestingly enough, this is probably why Obama’a college records are kept under lock & key & why there was hanky panky with his passport records in early 2008. My guess is that they would show he did the same as one Laurence J. TERRAZAS, Plaintiff-Appellant and renounced his US citizenship in order to gain foreign aid for college.
There in lies the problem. The idiot that can look up another idiot's decision can use that to substitute for common sense and rule of law, not men, the very thing that the Founders feared. If the crook you hire is too dumb to look up a dumb precedent that is in your favor, well then you lose, that is Justice? Nope just the lawyers way.
Case closed!
The preceding is a paid political announcement.
Nothing more.
Say hello to foggy, NS, jamese777 and Lorenc.
Under the Court's current jurisprudence, the Naturalization Clause empowers Congress to expatriate U.S. citizens without obtaining their consent, but only with respect to naturalized citizens who fall outside the protection of the Citizenship Clause. Individuals not protected by the Citizenship Clause acquire U.S. citizenship, if at all, solely by an act of Congress enacted pursuant to the Naturalization Clause, and not pursuant to the Constitution itself. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971)
If the 14th Amendment truly is a citizenship law by which one born in the US acquires citizenship via an act of congress, then those persons are ALL subject to expatriation, including A2 citizenship because then ALL citizenship is derived by as act of congress and not nature because of the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th. This would unlawfully subject ALL natural born citizens to unlawful expatriation and that is why the court is all over the place in it's decisions over the last 150 years. It all depends on who the majority of the court is, true constitutionalists or the living constitution worshipers.
This is a ruse to keep up the facade that “jus soli” citizenship regardless of the parents nationality is law, when it the State Dept clearly says it is not. Law by fiat, legislating from the bench. It isn't going to end anytime soon. Sleep well, Shalom
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.