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)
“US Supreme Court Justice Daniel directly quoting Vattel:”
Yes...quoting from the Dred Scott decision, which was overturned when the 14th Amendment was passed. Nice of you to notice that Vattel was used to support slavery.
It looks to me like they were trying to establish who the Father was.
18 Q Showing the witness what has been marked for
19 identification as Plaintiff's 1. Are you familiar with that
20 document?
21 A Yes.
22 (The document referred to was
23 marked for identification as
24 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1.)
25 Q What is it?
1 A It's the birth certificate that I downloaded from
2 the WhiteHouse.gov website. It's a birth certificate
3 professed to be of Barack Hussein Obama II.
4 Q And do you see an item on line 8 -- I'm sorry,
5 excuse me -- on item 11. Can you read that?
6 A Yes, item 11 says the birthplace is Kenya, East
7 Africa.
8 Q And that's referring to --
9 A That is the birthplace of the father.
How is that agreeing "that 0bama was born in Hawaii".
Seen this?
He moved the document into evidence. He was intending to use it to show that Obama's father was not a citizen, but once the document is in evidence, it's in evidence, and the judge can use any part of that document to support a finding.
Birthers are radicals, and do not respond to reason or established law.
Madison clearly said that Congress needed to act, to better define citizenship.
Madison also said, clearly, that LOCATION of Birth was controlling in America.
(However, Madison would also, I am sure, agree that Congress had the right to establish rules for Censorship for those born on foreign soil to American parents.) James Madison, from the Floor of Congress, 22 May 1789 "It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of acitizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a lawexisted in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; butsince this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to theinference drawn from such principles.It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its forcesometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certaincriterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigateany other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the firstsettlers of that, colony." --- Madison clearly states that Congress has the RIGHT to establish laws concerning Citizenship! http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives
It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of acitizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a law existed in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles.It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that, colony.”
James Madison, in a speech from the floor of Congress, 22 May 1789.
If you notice, in Kemp's order accepting Malihi's recommendation, Kemp specifically rules that the 3 cases are consolidated. Kemp was obviously aware of this issue and wanted to protect himself from judicial reversal.
@Irion and Hatfield conceded that he was born in Hawaii because the Minor 2 citizen parent theory is based on being born in the US. February 04, 2012
And Hatfield responded to that problem...
...I am writing to respectfully point out several significant flaws in Judge Malihi's findings and conclusions.
Initially, I would note that although Judge Malihi ordered my clients' cases severed, as a unit, from the cases of Plaintiffs Welden; Farrar; Lax; Judy; Malaren; and Roth, and although Judge Malihi conducted a separate hearing as to my clients' cases as requested, he nevertheless erroneously issued a single "Decision" applicable to all of the Plaintiffs' cases, despite the fact that the evidence; testimony; and legal argument advanced by my clients differed from that offered by the other Plaintiffs.
The adverse impact upon my clients of Judge Malihi's erroneous issuance of a single "Decision" as to all Plaintiffs is which were "considered" by Judge Malihi ("Decision," p. 6). Specifically, Judge Malihi found as "fact": 1) that Defendant Obama was born in the United States; and 2) that Defendant Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of Defendant's birth. Both of these "facts" found by Judge Malihi constitute a second significant flaw in the judge's ruling and serve as the stated factual basis for his erroneous conclusion that Defendant Obama is eligible for the presidency.
Absolutely - I have quoted this for DL and others many times. They just don’t want to accept it.
We don't accept it because time & time again we have posted the "rest" of this long speech of Madison which shows what you post is taken out of context in order to support your flawed theory. Madison went on to state that is was because of Smith's parents membership/allegiance to the society that gave Smith his membership/allegiance to that soceity. According to Madison, birth location had no bearing on Smith being a citizen of S.C.
My primary intent was to show that James Madison, Father of the Constitution, clearly believed that the US Congress and the States (prior to the 14th) COULD pass legislation concerning all forms of Citizenship.
This case is GREAT for that purpose, as Madison CLEARLY states that more legislative guidance is needed, in a case that you radical Birthers clearly accept as a case of NBC!
Birthers have questioned my honesty and attribution frequently. Now, YOU seem to stipulate its veracity but challenge its meaning.
Now, to YOUR argument, which I was not making in the main here: Madison clearly states that the birth to two Citizens was NOT necessary to note, but that this WAS the claim of the person involved in this matter.
You lost, on this one.
You lost badly.
Can you point out exactly where in the speech Madison said precisely that?
The translator of the 1797 edition was? When did he pass away?
Was the translator in the colonies? Did the translator meet any of the Founders? John Jay, Jefferson, Franklin?
The manuscript was not completed in 1797..how could it? The translator died years earlier.
Mr Rogers the slavery issue has nothing to do with this debate.
Keep the debate to Vattel and natural born citizen. Get out of the weeds.
Prior to 1790, the states alone held all power over citizenship, born & naturalized. After the Constitution was ratified, the core power of naturalization was held by the US congress however, states were free to loosen the laws, they could not however make them stricter, thus some states allowed for aliens to naturalize sooner than the guidelines set forth by the US Congress. Smith's citizenship was determined prior to the 1790 when the 1st federal law of immigration & naturalization was passed, thus the US constitution had no power over his citizenship.
Also, Madison was “one” man and he did not write the constitution. If you want to really know the history behind US Constitution & citizenship, you need to study James Wilson as he actually penned the Declaration and was on the committee that drafted the final copy of the Constitution. And while Madison may have been important, he did not have the legal background of James Wilson who was appointed to the 1st Supreme court & who founded the 1st “American” law school in Pennsylvania.
Where your quote ends, keep reading the congressional record of Madison’s speech by actually continuing onto the next page. It will slap you in the face when you reach it.
Don’t evade. I repeat, point out where in the speech he says “birth location had no bearing on Smith being a citizen of S.C.”
Thus, you are beating a dead horse with Vattel. Vattel was only one source that supported natural law, but if you read the congressional records, others such as Locke who also wrote on natural law was far more influential. That & the fact that the meaning of “natural born” as it was at the core of English law, prior to the king expanding it with his feudal law, is exactly the same as Locke's, Vattel’s & all the other writers of natural law of nations that Congress used for reference.
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.