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)
Are you calling foul on what you've done yourself?
Shall I provide the link?
How many judges agree...
How many law professors...
How many historians...
How many Electors...
How many Election Officers, Secretaries of State, Immigration judges, INS employees, or State Governors...
And why should anyone bother listening to someone who argues what intelligent people know of as a "fallacy."
Argumentum Ad Populum.
I say again, your are an ignorant child, and there is no knowledge or wisdom to be had from you.
(Zero on all counts!)
Yup, that's pretty much your score.
“There is NOTHING in the Ark decsion that says the phrasing of the 14th was meant to mirror the understanding of the NBC clause.”
Here is what it says:
“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.”
Let’s go thru that:
It says there is a principle “citizenship by birth within the country”. It says the exceptions to that rule are:
“the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”.
It says their discussion has shown that those exceptions were driven “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America” - referring to the common law NBS, and the US NBC.
It says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is intended “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words” those exceptions discussed, that were true in the colonies as NBS, and in the US prior to the 14th as NBC.
Thus you have A & B, where the set of all A is identical to the set of all B, thus A = B. Or in this case, A = B = C:
“citizenship by birth within the country”, excepting “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”, and that was true in the colonies under NBS, true after the Constitution under NBC, and true under the 14th by intent of the writers in saying “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”.
Some here make a big deal about slaves not being citizens, but slaves were considered property under Dred Scott, and thus not capable of being citizens. And since so many people thought the Dred Scott case was an obscene rejection of “citizenship by birth within the country”, Congress and the states passed an amendment declaring, inescapably, what they believed had always been true under the NBC clause:
“citizenship by birth within the country”.
That is why birthers get their butts handed to them in court, even when the other side doesn’t show up. YOU HAVE NO CASE!
DL - Yup, that's pretty much your score.
That's not a tally, that's a statement of support.
The vast majority of lawyers thinks....
No elected official, anywhere in the country, supports...
The majority of conservatives do not agree...
Geeze, I guess you are still unfamiliar with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Let me give you another link. I doubt you will learn anything, but you can still serve a useful purpose by demonstrating to others why you are a fool.
You look rather silly questioning the sanity of anyone, on much of anything.
No, that's just a side effect of your distorted view. It not only makes everything you look at appear silly, it makes you appear silly as well.
I have dropped off part of a sentence of save space. I have never done so to change the meaning of the sentence. That is a distinction you don’t seem to understand...
The Constitution briefly provides that “ new States may be admitted into this Union,” without saying a word about the terms of ... The gentleman quotes M. Vattel’s treatise upon the laws of Nations in support of his proposition.
Debates in Congress 1828
Mr Rogers many many times you claim Vattel is limited to Swiss law.
What a moron. This is what James Madison said about this.
The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions [of the several States] equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. [Virginia] drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committee of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
Since you have a comprehension problem, I will save you the time of reading it and tell you what it says in words small enough for you to comprehend. What the Father of the Constitution said was:
You're Wrong!
Hat tip to sourcery for posting the quote where I could find it easily.
The arguments against your stupidity are so many that, even making each one concise, the remainder takes up considerable space. It would save us bandwidth if you would stop being so stupid.
Ms Rogers were you lying when you told us time and time again Vattel played no role forming the Constitution...you told us..”Vattel is French” he is limited to the Swiss law.
Were you lying?
“He referred to Locke and Vattel and particularly to that portion of Vattel in which the question is discussed as to whether ... he quoted the argument in which Vattel concludes that the legislature cannot change the constitution without”
The courts, the constitution, and parties: studies in ... - Page 46
DL, you are the moron.
“I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States.” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that
all 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,
also declares that
no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that
the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.
124 U.S. 478.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
@Immigration and Nationality Act
The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.
@INA: ACT 305 - PERSONS BORN IN HAWAII
Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] 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.
No sunset provision!
How many times have you lied about Vattel Mr Rogers. We thought you were a religious man...
a political union, Vattel noted that the constituent states “have also the right mutually to favor one another”
The classical foundations of the American Constitution: prevailing ... - Page 110
With such a bitter retort I guess I nailed it.
I did not say, “Vattel played no role”. I have said Vattel’s ideas on citizenship - which were based on parentage alone - had no impact on US law. They were used in cases involving international law - such as in dealing with the ante-nati during and after the Revolution.
Anyone can CALL someone a Liar. If you say it again, I will DEMONSTRATE to all and sundry that you ARE a liar. Call me on it. Say it again.
Meanwhile, no court anywhere in the country is buying any of this so-called "truth" the birthers are selling.
Truth and the legal system are not well acquainted. Note Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Lawrence v Texas, etc.
Obama is still the President of the United States and birthers are no closer today in removing him on the basis of his eligibility than they were three years ago.
None of those assertions are proof that we are incorrect.
Ping the mods if you want. This stuff was bunk three years ago when Chief Justice Roberts swore Obama in to office and it is bunk today, as Friday's ruling in Georgia once again clearly stated.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. What you are not entitled to is the privilege of falsely accusing people of "this two citizen parent" so-called "requirement" is nothing more than a fictional device created by birthers to be a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet." after having been shown demonstrable proof that this is not true.
Now you can challenge my proof (I have more besides this) or you can refrain from saying we made up this requirement. The requirement HAS historical reference. We didn't make it up. You can believe and assert that the issue is bunk, but you cannot accuse us of falsely fabricating it.
If you want me to be your shadow till one of us is gone, just call us liars again.
They probably find the conversations boring over there because most of them need dribble cups. We get the smartest ones of their tribe coming over here. Of course by our standards, they are morons... :)
Mr Rogers spreads lies on this forum regarding Vattel and the Founders to further his political agenda..
“Related closely to the administration of justice, civil and criminal, the subject was, nevertheless, separate from “justice,” as the word was used in Vattel”
“Vattel lays it down as a maxim, that no sovereign can transfer any portion of public property, ... without the authority of the constitution”
“For the influence of Vattel’s ideas on the constitution”
“Singleton the judges referred to a fundamental idea which in its form of statement is probably traceable to Vattel {Law of Nature and Nations, Bk. I, ch. iii, § 34) “In short,” says Vattel, “it is from the constitution that these ..”
“The constitution of a state, Emmerich de Vattel wrote in 1758, is the fundamental settlement that determines”
“Vattel makes multiple mentions of the individual’s natural right to self-defense. In Section 3 he states, “In treating the right to security” The Second Amendment: the intent and its interpretation by the ... - Page 197
You are the liar in these debates Mr Rogers. You are not honest.
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.