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 you're referring to my summaries of the Tucker quote, you're going to have to tell me. The quote actually says "Jura Coronae" which is defined as
A right or prerogative which belongs exclusively to the Crown; a royal right, such as in regards to taxation, treaties and war, land or pardons.If you use the alternate Jus Coronae, it still means the same. So yes, it all pertains to the crown. All laws pertaining to the crown, as Tucker states, were obviously obliterated by the Revolution.
As to your quote, I suggest you stop grabbing quotes off birther websites without checking them. Where does the quote you cited originate, so one can see the context? Please link.
Since the quote refers to an English statute from 1350, I can only guess that it refers to "A statute for those who are born in parts beyond sea," wherein it says that those born of English parents who are overseas, can still inherit English property. This is your argument that common law does not follow jus soli? You can read quite a bit about this just by reading the WKA decision, it discusses this statute by Edward III, and also Binney's analysis of it.
You misunderstand me. I cited the “jus soli” portion which is indeed in Rogers v. Bellei. It contradicts his quote, from post 387, that is not.
I should have been clearer in my response.
Go see what Justice Scalia says about common law. Much of common law was to guarantee the rights of Englishman. That which guarantees rights could scarcely be described as inconsistent with democracy. Tucker was arguing about whether a Federal "common law" existed that superseded the rights of states. He did not claim that there was no reference to common law in the United States. If you go back to my post #345, you'll see that Tucker said
That is to say, it’s maxims and rules of proceeding are to be adhered to, whenever the written law is silent, in cases of a similar, or analogous nature, the cognizance whereof is by the constitution vested in the federal courts; it may govern and direct the course of proceeding, in such cases, but cannot give jurisdiction in any case, where jurisdiction is not expressly given by the constitution.Do you think matters of naturalization and natural born are not federal jurisdiction? Not expressly given in the Constitution?
Sorry, I forgot to add you on post #403.
You and I have a very different view of the legal system. I regard it as greatly corrupted by the influence of Roosevelt and Truman's appointed Judges in the Federal Judiciary, and as a result, the affect that had on the Teaching of law in the Law Schools.
That Subsequent Generations of Lawyers and Judges would get basic premises of law completely wrong, is a given in my view, and I dare say in the view of many conservatives.
It is LIBERALS that usually get what they want from the legal system, and we conservatives are left looking at it as if it were a peculiar and unpleasant smelling insect. Banning Prayer in Public Schools, (14th amendment), Creating the "Exclusionary rule", Forced Busing, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Kelo v New London, and numerous and sundry other examples demonstrate that our court system does not administer law, they administer Liberal ideology and pretend that it is law.
This perspective is COMMON among conservatives. It is interesting that you do not seem to share it. What is YOUR opinion of Roe v Wade?
Follow me around all you wish. I've not changed my position on this subject in the past three years (long before you graced us with your presence).
You are entitled to think what you want. It is the false accusation that I have grown tired of tolerating. The issue of requiring two parents is not of recent vintage. It was present from the very beginning of this nation. Dr. David Ramsey wrote a treatise on the very subject and presented it to the first Constitutional Congress back in 1790 or so.
That YOU and others may not have been aware of it, I can believe. It is quite evident that most of the Nation was unaware of it, and remain so today.
A point which I've never contradicted.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
It was up to the federal government to set the criteria for naturalization and it was up to the States to see to it that the individuals met the criteria for naturalization.
It is NOT the same thing as Congress having the sole authority on every type of citizenship.
-----
BTW - nice attempt at obfuscating the point of the original post which was how much influence Vattel had and whether or not common law was operational on a national level.
-----
If you like to have a conversation of your own with me, I'd be happy to have one.
Unless you just like trolling the thread and picking up someone elses' sloppy seconds.
Thanks for posting that.
Prior to November '08, there are thousands of posts on this forum discussing Obama as being born in Kenya and not more than 2 or 3 total disqualifying Obama on the basis of his father (and these posts generated little if any further discussion). This argument didn't take off until Donofrio created it. Suddenly, you all knew this all along and, in fact, learned it in civics class! Nobody discussed it prior to November '08? Why is that? Obama's narrative had been well-known since he entered the political scene yet it was all but ignored on this forum until Donofrio made it an issue after the election.
Excellent point.
IMHO, it should have been up to the States to decide on the subject of jus soli citizenship while the federal government continued to exercise its authority to set the standards for naturalization.
Excuse me pal ... I brought up this point many times, going all the way back to the days when Obummer was beginning to emerge as a presidential candidate. My question at the time 'How can this guy even think about running ... his father is a foreign national?' This was even before the birther issue ever got started. Being born in Hawaii, or not, really didn't matter. His father was a Kenyan & British subject ... 'nuff said.
I regard the Ankeny decision as utter crap, and I likewise fail to see how a case in one state court has any bearing on a different case in another state's court. Each state makes up and administrates it's OWN laws, not the laws of other states.
As to the birth certificate, if you look at my posts here on FR from before the hearing, I predicted that Obama would not be found qualified unless he submitted a certified (raised seal) COLB or birth certificate. (The only time, IIRC, that I made a prediction on an eligibility thread which proved wrong!) What saved Obama was that the plaintiffs offered the internet image and stipulated that it was correct.
Two of them did. The third stipulated that it was fake. How the Judge applied the facts of the first two cases to the third is a question of legal malfeasance that I have yet to see addressed by anyone on the "Obama is legitimate" side of this issue.
Those are great quotes you found. I borrow them often. :)
And as the right of denization did not make a citizen of an alien, but only placed him in a middle state, between the two, giving him local privileges only, which he was so far from being entitled to carry with him into another state, that he lost them by removing from the state giving them, the inconveniences which might result from the indirect communication of the rights of naturalized citizens, by different modes of naturalization prevailing in the several states, could not be apprehended.Tucker's comment on this:
Now although the act of congress may operate to repeal this act, so far as relates to the rights of naturalization, or, a state of perfect citizenship, under the constitution and laws of the union; yet, as it respects the rights which the state hath power to grant, such as holding lands, or an office under the sole, and distinct authority of the state, I see no reason to doubt that the law is as valid at this day, as it was before the adoption of the constitution of the United States.So Tucker acknowledges there is federal authority over naturalization and citizenship.
I did not realize that I needed prior permission to answer one of your posts. I apologize for daring to address you without permission and will cease forwith, no matter what errors I see. And now, to work.
And as the right of denization did not make a citizen of an alien, but only placed him in a middle state, between the two, giving him local privileges only, which he was so far from being entitled to carry with him into another state, that he lost them by removing from the state giving them, the inconveniences which might result from the indirect communication of the rights of naturalized citizens, by different modes of naturalization prevailing in the several states, could not be apprehended.Tucker's comment on this:
Now although the act of congress may operate to repeal this act, so far as relates to the rights of naturalization, or, a state of perfect citizenship, under the constitution and laws of the union; yet, as it respects the rights which the state hath power to grant, such as holding lands, or an office under the sole, and distinct authority of the state, I see no reason to doubt that the law is as valid at this day, as it was before the adoption of the constitution of the United States.So Tucker acknowledges there is federal authority over naturalization and citizenship.
I did not realize that I needed prior permission to answer one of your posts. I apologize for daring to address you without permission and will cease forwith, no matter what errors I see. And now, to work.
The Civil war screwed the country up badly. We are still dealing with the consequences of that war, Chiefest among them is the federal leviathan.
I should have been clearer in my response.
I agree. Sometimes retrospect can be an ugly thing.
Oh, i'll grant you that it is consistent with other precedents. When one court is flying into the ground, the rest of them tend to follow in tight formation. That is one of the religious aspects of the legal system. A blind adherence to previous decisions without regard to the original principles upon which they are based.
and with the common law heritage of this country.
And this statement is disputed by numerous and sundry sources. Did you see this one form Patlin for example?
(50 Mich. L. Rev. 927 1951-1952) The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929)
Or this one?
When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen’s qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship. (See 5o Mich. L. REV. 926 (1952))
The very existence of such things in the historical record deals a blow to your belief.
Anyone who thinks the court is going to ignore over a century of precedent is dreaming. Claiming that the judges are all idiots or slow witted isn’t going to change that.
Yes, the courts put great stock into their reliance on "precedent." I have always regarded this thinking as a variation on the "tu quoque" fallacy. (Just because other people did it this way, WE should do it this way as well.) I have personally witnessed courts get verdicts wrong in several cases. Unless the case being heard is exceedingly obvious, and requiring of very little reasoning, the court system is mostly a crap shoot, and in my experience, tends to get the answer wrong as often as it gets it right.
No, FIXING the court system so that it works properly is a monumental task that will take generations, and that is if it is possible at all. Once an institution has become infected with a bad meme, it is virtually impossible to eradicate it.
I see the legal system in the same manner I see the scientific community, with one important distinction. Scientists can issue proclamations and judgements, and they can go around telling everyone that it is correct. Many people will believe them because they are an "authority" figure. However, other people can test their theory to see if it is correct, and if it is not they can alert everyone else that they are wrong. This is called "falsifiability."
The Courts, on the other hand, can be just plain wrong, and everyone will salute their decision in perpetuum.
I think a good reform for the legal system would be to require a Science degree in order to practice law. That might go a long ways towards removing much of the flim flamery currently infused into the system. :)
Yes they did, but the Judge is not supposed to apply the findings of fact in one case where it is voluntarily stipulated, to another case where it is specifically and vociferously disputed. That is a legal error, and in my mind, one more among many grounds for appeal.
Yes they did, but the Judge is not supposed to apply the findings of fact in one case where it is voluntarily stipulated, to another case where it is specifically and vociferously disputed. That is a legal error, and in my mind, one more among many grounds for appeal.
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.