Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

The vast majority of the country thinks you, and your legal theories, are crazy. The vast majority of lawyers thinks you, and your legal theories, are not valid. No elected official, anywhere in the country, supports your views. The majority of conservatives do not agree with you.

All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

However, it could be argued that under the rules discussed in WKA, the parents had to be domiciled here legally, and not at the beckoning of a foreign government. Argued thus, then WKA would support the idea that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. However, I’ve never heard of a birther making that point in court. If they tried it instead of ignoring WKA, they MIGHT have better results.

Almost agreed.

Obama's claimed father was, in British terminology, a foreigner but not an alien friend. In US terminology, he was a temporary visitor on a time-limited visa, not a permanent legal resident. Unlike the parents of Wong Kim Ark, who were alien friends/permanent legal residents.

The disagreement is that there's anything at all in WKA that even hints that Justice Gray intended to base the definition of natural born citizen on natural born subject. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that his intent was to equate natural born subject with citizen, and thereby to imply (but not directly assert) that "natural born citizen" is analogous to subject born (which, unlike the general term natural born subject excluded anyone whose parents weren't NBS.)

Congress has passed legislation, several times, making and changing the rules for Birthright Citizenship.

Congress has full power to do so, and such power of Congress has never been challenged by any Court.

Congress has done so, and has acted on Birthright Citizenship several times, without challenge.

Madison said, clearly, that the Congress and the States (prior to the 14th Amendment) had such power.

Do you wish to state that all acts of Congress, granting Birthright Citizenship, are invalid?

“The High Court of philman rules?”

John Adams, 1776:
On the other hand it could never be our Duty to unite with Britain in too great a humiliation with of France. That our real if not our nominal Independence would consist in our Neutrality. If We united with either Nation, in any future War, We must become too subordinate and dependent on that nation, and should be involved in all European Wars as We had been hitherto. That foreign Powers would find means to corrupt our People to influence our Councils, and in fine We should be little better than Puppetts danced on the Wires of the Cabinetts of Europe. We should be the Sport of European Intrigues and Politicks.

Vattel`s Law of Nations, “...natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. “

I will point out that John Adams, (and Later, his son John Quincy Adams) LIVED with Charles Dumas when he was trying to obtain European Support for the American cause. I believe he lived in the Home of Charles Dumas (The guy who published copies of Vattel's Law of Nation, with his own notes included specifically for the American Cause, in 1775) for years, so the odds are very good that He and Charles Dumas had explicit conversations on the subject.

Charles Dumas was also retained by the Continental Congress (He was paid, but Lamented John Adams, not nearly enough) to act on Behalf of the United States in Europe.

Reprinted from Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin . . ., ed. Jared Sparks, 10 vols. (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Co., 183640), 8:162-67. Extract with postscript, in the hand of Dumas (The Hague, Algemeen Ryksarchief: C. W. F. Dumas Collection) . 1 Dumas' draft of the first of these letters, bearing his endorsement "17 May 1775, Minute de ma Lettre a Mr. B. Franklin," is in DLC, C. W. F. Dumas Collection his letter of June 30 is in PPAmP, Franklin Papers. Charles William Frederic Dumas (1721-96), of French ancestry, German birth, and Dutch residence, was a man of broad intellectual interests whom Franklin had apparently met on a visit to the Netherlands in 1766, which led to a correspondence that extended from 1768 to Franklin's death. Dumas, whose long service in behalf of Congress began at this time, enjoyed no formal recognition and was irregularly compensated until October 1785 when provision was finally made for his salary retroactively from April 1775. After Franklin arrived in Paris in December 1776, Dumas was employed in a variety of duties, particularly in the supply and outfitting of American ships in Dutch and French ports. Later he assisted John Adams as translator and secretary and for years functioned virtually as an American charge d'affaires at The Hague, although he never acquired an official diplomatic title. See Benjamin Franklin, The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959-)

Congress has passed legislation, several times, making and changing the rules for Birthright Citizenship.Congress has full power to do so, and such power of Congress has never been challenged by any Court.

True, but Birthright Citizenship is Naturalization at birth, [jus soli] citizenship.

It is NOT Natural-born, [jus sanguinis] citizenship.

I have given multiple quotes from the founding generation and beyond.

I have given multiple quotes from those you, yourself quoted as legal authorities such as Tucker and Rawle.

Yet you still persist in acting as if Congress has the ability to determine the limits of its own power despite all the Founders' writings to the contrary.

The only question is......why?

Are you so insecure about your decision-making ability that you refuse to assimilate information and draw your own conclusions, or is it just easier for you to acquiesce to the will of an entity that has perverted its Original Intent to protect our rights and not abridge them?

-----

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams

"Admin Moderator, I am asking for a ruling here. Regarding the repetition of a proven lie; I argue that such is not the type of conduct befitting a member of Free Republic, and ought to be grounds for dismissal. What say you?"

If repeating proven lies was a firing offense on FR there wouldn't be any birthers on this forum. How about asking for a ruling about calling other freepers idiots, like you've been doing?

Besides, your supposed "proven lie", isn't. It's the truth. Nothing you've dished up proves otherwise.

“Your misreading what WKA says.”

Odd, then, that every court agrees with me, and none with you. Odd, too, that they spent half the decision discussing something they then supposedly said had no impact.

Why did WKA quote from Minor? Because they wanted to show the Slaughterhouse case was wrong.

Thus they wrote:

“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said:

“Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

Please note they did NOT, in any way, write what YOU claim - that “NBC, it says, was excluded from the 14th amendment in a unanimous decision.”

On the contrary. They argued that the Slaughterhouse case was wrong when they wrote: “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

You can see the connection between the 14th & the NBC clause. The 14th phrasing excluded “from its operation children of ministers, consuls” - IAW the understood meaning of a natural born subject/citizen. But Slaughterhouse expanded that to include children of “subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

If true, that would have excluded WKA from both the NBC clause and the 14th - but the WKA court rejected that phrase, saying:

“In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances, it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:

It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.”

The birthers set up a false dichotomy between the NBC clause & the 14th, but the WKA court says the phrasing of the 14th was meant to mirror the understanding of the NBC clause.

They wrote:

“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”

NBS = NBC = “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country” = exceptions include “the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions”

Let me repeat:

“”The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words...the two classes of cases...[that] had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”

Exceptions based first on the meaning of natural born subject in English common law (”by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America”), and then the SAME exceptions based on the 14th “by the addition ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’”.

If birthers would just READ WKA instead of ignoring it, the conclusion is inescapable. And the courts CAN read, and do, and they understand what the Supreme Court has ordered. And the courts follow the dicta of the Supreme Court, not Vattel.

Birthers COULD argue in court that WKA excludes Obama Jr because Obama Sr was here as a representative of his government, and because Obama Sr never intended to stay in the USA. It isn’t a very strong argument, but it is one. It could also be argued, and should be, that the original intent covered those here, in the words of WKA, “in amity” with the US government, and thus all illegal aliens are excluded from both the NBC clause & the 14th - which, per WKA, are two ways of saying the same thing.

I'm not a lawyer and have never played one on TV either so your mileage may vary. I did rather like her asking about how Malihi could use Ankeny when it was never presented.

A judge is not allowed to consider evidence that was not presented at the hearing, but he is allowed to do his own research on the law and to cite any cases he finds.

Why did WKA quote from Minor? Because they wanted to show the Slaughterhouse case was wrong.

Minor doesn't show the Slaughterhouse case was wrong. NBCs aren't excluded because of the subject clause.

Please note they did NOT, in any way, write what YOU claim - that “NBC, it says, was excluded from the 14th amendment in a unanimous decision.”

It exactly what it says "all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court." Learn to read. I can wait.

On the contrary. They argued that the Slaughterhouse case was wrong when they wrote: “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

The only thing Gray disputed was about consuls being included in that list.

it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers

The birthers set up a false dichotomy between the NBC clause & the 14th, but the WKA court says the phrasing of the 14th was meant to mirror the understanding of the NBC clause.

Sorry, but the only false dichotomy is yours. There is NOTHING in the Ark decsion that says the phrasing of the 14th was meant to mirror the understanding of the NBC clause. The quote you provide doesn't even use the term NBC at all.

If birthers would just READ WKA instead of ignoring it, the conclusion is inescapable.

A) You misspelled Obots. B) I'm not ignoring WKA. It declares that NBCs = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It's there in black and white. Gray cited a legal precedent from the Supreme Court of New Jersey that completely undermines your errant belief:

The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race. The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized or in any way have become entitled to 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.

This says the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens were NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the same as slaves were NOT subject to the jurisdiction and were not entitled to citizenship at birth. They were made so after the passage of the 14th amendment because subject to the jurisdiction, according to Gray, means having permanent residence and domicil. This definition EXCLUDES Obama from being both a 14th amendment citizen and a natural-born citizen all in one swipe. I'm not ignoring WKA. I'm rubbing it in your face, Rogers. It clearly says that Obama is not and cannot be a natural-born citizen. Let that sink in to your head. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.

Nothing you have posted proves anything at all in support of your ridiculous theories.

Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth. There is no legal authority for the phrase you Birthers have coined “Naturalization at Birth”.

“Naturalized” means that some government program or official ceremony or grant or action of a government official is required.

Answer this question...

Were ALL blacks non-citizen slaves in 1866?

If you answer yes, then you are ignorant beyond belief. Also, you underline the word “born” but that is not the defining word for citizen, the definition for citizen comes via “not subject to any foreign power”. The US Constitution never denied citizenship to blacks born in the US, the pro-slavery states did that dirty deed. However, blacks living in the abolitionist states were always considered citizens and members counted for representation in Congress. You see the slave states wanted to count the slaves for representation, but since they considered them property, the abolitionist states said, well if they get to count their property, so do we and since the abolitionists were wealthy and had a lot of property, i.e. chairs, tables, lamps, etc, their representation would have been through the roof. Thus the pro-salvcery states settled for a compromise which is the 3/5 ths clause. Until they freed the slaves and recognized them as persons rather than property, the slave states lost out on full representation in congress. Slaves owed no allegiance to any nation, they owed servitude to their master and thus was under the allegiance of the master. Therefore, when they were freed and the 14th was passed, their rights as “born” citizens could not be refused. It might behoove you to actually read & study history before expounding on that which you do not understand.

I understand the limitations of Wiki, but it is a good way to find cases that might touch on these issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America#Eligibility_for_office_of_President

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_the_United_States

This is like “whack a mole” -— no matter what the Birthers come up with, there arguments are defeated, yet they never seem to want to admit how weak their case is!

Your side has not defeated any arguments. Your parroting of the opinions of long dead lawyers is irrelevant to what the FOUNDERS meant when they wrote that.

The case is not weak. It is the Lawyers understanding of what is the actual law that is weak. It is a disease that afflicts the entire profession.

No matter how hard they get “whacked” they don't pay any attention to facts, law or history, or basic English language comprehension.

A more fitting description of your behavior. Tell me again that birthers made up the "two parent" requirement.

Three types right there
Again, it's a ruse perpetrated by the WKA decision. The 14th is not a citizen act in the sense that it was to define another class of citizenry in order to increase citizenship numbers. It is a “citizenship protection” act that defines who the citizens are it protects. Born or naturalized who hold a single allegiance to the United States, either at birth or at the time of naturalization. If the 14th was truly an act ot create an increase in citizenship, the the US State Dept would have full authority to protect children born to aliens in the US when they find themselves in trouble int he country of their parents. But it doesn't, therefore any claim of 14th amendment citizenship is a claim for fiat law that was never passed by congress. It merely is fiat law via legislating from bench by corrupt justices.

I will add however, that I do not see this ever changing as it is clear the law means nothing anymore. We are now governed by the whims of man and these men have embedded the worse possible corruption into our system, that being that allegiance/loyalty to one nation in order to secure safety & economic freedom for the actual citizenry has been totally usurped. But does that mean I cower by not standing for the truth. ABSOLUTELY NOT! I have a higher power who I report to and it is not of the flesh!

(referring to "Kansas58") I was under the impression I was dealing with someone who had passed puberty.

My mistake.

NOW you understand how I see him. He is nothing but a mouthy little child that knows nothing and shouts it loudly at any passers by. I would regard him as I might anyone with autism or Tourettes.

But then, if birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers.

And if Mr. Rogers could comprehend, He would BE a birther.

Why did the Founders remove born a citizen and replace with natural born Citizen?

I would ask him no questions. You can't get milk from a bull. (At least not the kind you want.) :)

What does: “YOU WILL NEVER WIN A COURT CASE” mean?

It means you are a childish brat that has somehow managed to get access to your daddy's computer.