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)
Do you think matters of naturalization and natural born are not federal jurisdiction?
I know that Congress has been given power to establish rules of naturalization via article 1 section 8 clause 4.
I know that Congress can't legislate into existence a natural born citizen.
Not expressly given in the Constitution?
Since you didn't join this question into the other, as I believe you intended to do yet didn't, and left it as a separate question I can't answer that question.
Yup.
Like a terminal cancer patient there comes a point where there`s nothing one can do for them.
We could put them out of our misery. :)
We may fairly infer from all that has been said that the common law of England stands precisely upon the same footing in the federal government, and courts of the United States, as such, as the civil and ecclesiastical laws stand upon in England: 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.
I think what James Madison says on the issue is more authoritative.
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.
Unlike some posters, I feel it discourteous to post large volumes of text.
In fact, I try to post with clickable sources in order to encourage FReepers read the full text and decide its meaning for themselves.
-------
So Tucker acknowledges there is federal authority over naturalization and citizenship.
No, he acknowledges the authority of the federal government over naturalized citizenship.
The word 'citizenship' appears a total of only 9 times in the entire text. Each one is talking about State citizenship.
Even the quote you posted is erroneous.
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,
Tucker's saying naturalization is a state of perfect citizenship.
Nowhere does Tucker agree with your conclusion.
--------
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.
Sorry you don't like being called on the carpet for picking up in the middle of a conversation and implying I said something I never did.
Get over it.
“...the plaintiffs entered the Hawaii COLB into evidence and stipulated 0bama was born in Hawaii. “ - SL
This was *not* the case in Hatfield’s case. There were 3 separate cases, and in his case *no* birth documents were entered into evidence for BHO II. Hatfield used the divorce documents to show BHO was baby’s daddy, and showed that BHO was never a US citizen, or permanent US resident.
Were you paying attention? How could you be so certain, and so wrong at the same time?
Googling his quote brings one to this site. The quote from #387 is posted there, along with the writer's admission that he is not sure where it came from, he thinks it might be Rogers v. Bellei or one other case (which I can't find the text of online.) His quote is not in Rogers v. Bellei, and indeed, the "jus soli" portion of Rogers v. Bellei contradicts his quote, showing that considering Rogers v Bellei as the source was very inconsistent with the R v. B opinion.
And now I really should be working - so no more posts from me for a while.
Man, you are deceptive as hell! Can you even conceive the notion that this "argument" was discussed at places other than FR or the Internet?
Nobody discussed it prior to November '08?
This has already been proven wrong. Shall I provide the link?
Why is that?
A discontinuing question of no effect.
...it was all but ignored on this forum...
Once again, see my second sentence in my first comment above.
Some might call your reply pure evil, I merely consider it deceptive.
Something about “eating crow”, I do recall...
...or one other case (which I can't find the text of online.)
From your link...I’m not sure which SCOTUS case I took this from. It’s either the Bellei case or the Flores-Villar case:
Here ya go...@Flores-Villar v. United States
Holding: An equally divided Court affirmed the decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding, against a constitutional challenge, a citizenship-transmission statute that imposes different standards for children born out of wedlock outside of the United States depending on whether the child's mother or father is a U.S. citizen. (Kagan, J., recused).
Judgment: Affirmed by an equally divided Court on June 13, 2011. (Kagan, J., recused).
They've got lots of links so it may take a while if anyone wanted to go looking for that quote.
“A review of the record in my clients’ above-captioned cases reveals no evidence of defendant’s place of birth and no evidence of defendant’s mothers’ citizenship at the time of defendant’s birth,” he wrote. “My clients did not enter into evidence any copy of defendant Obama’s purported birth certificate in these case.” - Hatfield (WND article)
Plain English Holding: By a vote of four to four (because Justice Kagan was recused), the Court allowed the lower court's decision to stand; that decision rejected the argument that a federal law which establishes different standards for children born out of wedlock outside of the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship, depending on whether the child's mother or father was a U.S. citizen, is unconstitutional.
The issue was not one of Georgia law; it is a question of federal constitutional law. An Indiana decision on a federal issue is not binding precedent in a Georgia court, but it is certainly persuausive precedent that a judge is entitled to consider.
I did address this above. This was not a conventional lawsuit, in which a judge could rule that the defendant owes money to plaintiff A but not to plaintiff B; it was an administrative hearing for the purposes of making a recommendation to the Secretatry of State, who has to decide whether Obama is on the ballot or not. Kemp could hardly rule that when Farrar goes to vote, Obama will not be on his ballot, but when the other plaintiffs vote, Obama will be on the ballot. Malihi was entitled to consider all of the evidence anyone put before him when he made his recommendation to Kemp, and Kemp was entitled to consider Malihi's recommendation when he made his decision.
And you heard it here first: the Georgia courts will uphold Kemp's decision, and SCOTUS will not review the case. You can take that to the bank.
Most interesting.
what part of “ties of nature” do you not understand?
You are stuck in England, the original colonies were not all founded by the English, thus the common law of the colonies was not English, it was a mixture. And that is another of your problems, your focus is too narrow because you do not know & have not studied the true history of America
" My research leads me to believe that the article was written by James Madison, but this has not been conclusively established yet."
YSo you now claim to have established conclusively that the letter was by James Madison? Your proof?
My proof is that I was addressing an idiot, and that actual facts are rather immaterial in his weird little world. But for your sake, the Pen Name of James Madison was PUBLIUS, and as the other prominent founders who used that name were either dead or retired, it is reasonable to believe that no one but James Madison would have dared to use such a prominent name during that era. Knowledge of the Federalist papers was ubiquitous at this time, and it is unlikely that the Editors of Both News-Papers would have countenanced a willful deceit of borrowed prominence from someone other than the Original PUBLIUS.
Regardless, authorship by Madison only lends an air of prominence to the article, whereas the points outlined within stand on their own merits. You simply cannot argue that the Law as you see it was clearly "jus soli" when you have the very evidence in front of you that it was not.
Honest debaters among you will concede that there was some confusion about what was correct at this time. You cite Rawle for example, and based on his writings I can only conclude he held the British view. Of course, he was not a founder. Indeed, his stepfather (his real father died when he was two.) was a British Loyalist during the War. According to his biography he studied law in London, so it is no surprise that he might not have been well acquainted with the distinctly American version of citizenship.
I have read historical claims that much of the confusion in the early Republic was due to the Influence of British trained lawyers.
From Patlin's website:(lot of good stuff there.)
“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”
Back to you.
That paper is very popular and is cited in many modern books & law reviews on the history of citizenship
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.