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)
Three types right there. Natural born citizen, statutory citizen and 14th Amendment citizen.
Enough for tonight. I've got to get to bed.
“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.”
Both of those situations were dealt with in other parts of the opinion. Free blacks WERE citizens, but slaves were not - because slaves were considered property, not people (see Dred Scott, which the 14th Amendment overturned). Indians were considered to be foreign nations physically located within the USA. Sorry that the entire decision cannot be totally encompassed in two paragraphs, which is why they wrote much more. The link to the entire decision was provided.
That's exactly the qualification Obama DOES NOT meet. Even the Democratic National Committee OPENLY ADMITTED that Barack Obama's citizenship status is governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 because of his British citizen father on their Fight The Smears website.
Incorrect. Read the Civil Rights Act of 1866:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"
You can get a preview of some of the improvements I’ve made in the last week to my NBC essay in post #159
One of those cases was Slaughterhouse because it lumped "consuls" into the exceptions of the subject clause, while Gray says they shouldn't be excepted ... only foreign ministers.
When he gets to Elk v. Wilkins (a decision that HE wrote himself), he says the 14th amendment only excluded Indians from the subject clause because they had a "peculiar" relationship with the "National Government" that wasn't recognized by the common law. This is a little strange since the British empire included several places that had indigenous peoples within them.
But moving ahead, when Gray gets to the Minor argument, he does NOT challenge the exclusion of NBCs from the 14th amendment, but instead upholds it. The reason is that NBCs are not excluded by the subject clause, but they are excluded by an extraconstitutional definition of natural citizenship.
NBCs are certainly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and would fit within the 14th amendment's subject clause, so much so, that it begs the question as to why Gray did not make U.S. citizenship of either parent one of the criteria for satisfying the subject clause. Instead, U.S. citizenship is treated as an irrelevant criteria ignored in favor of permanent residence and domicil.
Neither of Obama's parents had permanent residence and domicil, so even if he was born in the U.S., he does NOT meet the terms of the subject clause. SAD's U.S. citizenship is irrelevant because it was excluded from being a criteria that satisfies the subject clause. If Gray was going to be comprehensive, why did he NOT include citizenship?? Well, partly because of THIS quote:
The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship.
- - -
The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.
It doesn't get much clearer than that. Children born in this country of parents who were NOT citizens were previously not subject to the jurisdiction and therefore they were not citizens — especially not natural-born citizens — anymore than the children of slaves. And to be clear, when Gray gives his conclusion on the 14th amendment, the children of citizens are conspicuously absent; it's only the children of persons who are permanently domiciled in the U.S.
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
Read it closely, Gray ONLY applies the 14th amendment to children of resident aliens ... or "every citizen or subject of another country while domiciled here" ... this covers slaves and permanent immigrants who have not yet naturalized. Gray reserves Minor's NBC definition for children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Obama is not a natural-born citizen. He is not a 14th amendment citizen. He MIGHT be a statutory citizen under the collective naturalization statute on Hawaii, contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 ... if the Kenyan coward was ever brave enough to provide legal evidence in a court of law.
To me he falls under @USC 8 (Aliens and Nationality), Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401.
(or the relevant similar statutes in effect at USC 8 at the time of his birth)
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
Son of an alien (@USC 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter I, Section 1101 (a) As used in this chapter - (3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.) father and a US citizen mother.
The simple fact that his father, if he had chosen to immigrate to the US instead of just coming here to study (@http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VII/1301 § 1301 No visa (student or otherwise apparently) shall be issued to any alien seeking to enter the United States until such alien has been registered in accordance with section 1201(b) of this title.), shows that he would automatically fall under Congress' naturalization powers and should be the first sign that any child he sired could not be a natural born citizen as they too would fall under USC 8. And it's well known that his father had a student visa and never naturalized.
How can it be anything else? His father had to have been given a student visa under USC 8 just to get into the country to begin with and was automatically recognized by our laws as being an alien! An alien simply can't pass down citizenship they never possessed.
And if one were to follow the exact "letter of the law", even insofar as to the usage of "citizen" and "natural born citizen" and the necessity of Congress and the Courts, to use exacting wording in constructing and enacting legislation, or making rulings/decision/opinions for the latter, then being born in Hawaii is covered by Congressional enactment as well, to wit...
@8 U.S.C. § 1405 : US Code - Section 1405: Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
That section of the law doesn't say "A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a natural born citizen of the United States at birth." as Congress can't make such a law as it isn't in their Constitutional powers. Congress wrote the law under their authorized powers.
A concise and exacting reading would mean that nobody born in Hawaii has ever been a natural born citizen.
An exacting reading tells me that even something as miniscule as my comma inserted at that location is not proper and I have to rewrite the sentence to make the necessary correction.
...and the necessity of Congress and the Courts to use exacting wording in constructing and enacting legislation, or making rulings/decision/opinions for the latter...
“You can get a preview of some of the improvements I’ve made in the last week to my NBC essay in post #159”
Either no one was willing to read it through, or they (opponents) were too intimidated to attempt to respond cogently up to this point. I read it, and it’s outstanding stuff.
DL: I was going to send you an “Idiotorium Ping”, but held off until now. Despite an excess of patently vacuous offerings by sundry Zero-Is-Eligible apologists, there are actually a goodly number of excellent historically pertinent offerings on this thread. h/t: sourcery; bushpilot1. I don’t have the time, wherewithal or talents necessary to carry out the deep research you guys (colloquially speaking) have undertaken on this issue, but I recognize quality analysis when I read it, and my hat’s off to you folks for your tireless efforts.
Take that attitude and exercise it on someone else. I am one American that despises lawyers and all of the justice system and quite frankly... the entire federal monster. Not all lawyers are at fault but many are responsible for the downfall of our American dream.
LLS
I am not a birther... never followed it any more than reading here on FR. Here is a bit of perspective from me. It does not matter what you or any other lawyer says... it no longer matters what our Constitution says... the Law is so corrupt and infected today that the US Constitution and case law says whatever any activist judge says it says and we have a SCOTUS that is so afraid of any case dealing with politics that they are basically castrated as an effective protection of our basic Constitutional rights. That my friend is a fact... so the law is whatever holder and a black robed terrorist says that it is.
LLS
Blows your theory all to hell.”
It must, further, be asked of Birthers why they want the PR disaster of going into the “intent” of the Founders on citizenship, since the greatest political document in history STILL had to make compromises due to slavery and the Indians. It was not the “intent” of our Founders that any American Indian should be President yet does anyone deny that Indians ARE full citizens, Natural Born Citizens if born in the United States? Such right was granted by STATUTE and not by any Constitutional Amendment.
Just as the Natural Born Citizenship status of John McCain was granted BY Statute or by simple LEGISLATION concerning the citizenship of children born of citizen parents on foreign soil.
Thank goodness that mess was from a single source.
I have to wonder, however, why you felt the need to post it en masse. If you point was so easily made, a single reference should have sufficed.
I also note the majority of it came from the discussion pertaining to natural born BRITISH SUBJECTS as the court was tracing the rule of citizenship from the British Crown.
You don't start getting to the applicable part until halfway down.
-------
From your source:
By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization." Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress.
*******************
By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization".
The ONLY type of citizen Congress can create is a naturalized one. [There is no authority to alter the preexisting definition of natural born]
....for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record.
In order to be considered for naturalization, an alien had to register with the local authorities in the county of his residence.
Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization."
Minor children of naturalized citizens were considered to be naturalized at the same time their parents became citizens.
Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress.
Also from your source:In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows:
The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been [p673] resident in the United States.
Children born abroad to American parents are natural born citizens
------
Please show me [preferably in 100 words or less] WHERE Wong Kim Ark claimed to be OR was proclaimed to be a Natural born citizen.
Then you can enlighten me as to how Zero is supposed to be 'natural born' citizen when he can't even meet the criteria for a naturalized one!
That's odd, since Malihi based a good part of his argument on it.
-----
Just as Madison, Father of the Constitution, said that Congress had the power to do!
Source, please.
Any comments on #182 and 188 by me?
I'm familiar with the thread, and I agreeing that only natural law can make a natural born citizen.
It seems we agree in principal. Or have I misunderstood your post?
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?
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.