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)
Sorry, I forgot to close something. At least we don’t have to worry about it running on into the next reply any more.
Atleast my quotes are not taken out of context as to obfuscate a very important issue in order to further a progressive socialist slave mentality agenda. Your cut & paste out of context quotes were exposed a loooong time ago. Read and weep...
(snip)
Progressive scholars and legalese of today would like you to believe that since the term native-born was often spoken when discussing and writing about the presidential qualification, those scholars were inherently implying that the term native as adopted merely meant born and had nothing to do with allegiance.
Enter James Kent, who was the 1st professor of law at Columbia College from 1793-1798 during which time he also resumed his seat at the NY state assembly. In 1798 Kent then went on to serve as a Justice on the NY State Supreme Court where he became the Chief Justice in 1804. Here is the Kent citing that the very liberal progressives want you to see and uses adnausium.
As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States . Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
The progressives cite from 2 completely different sections in Kent's commentaries as if the above phrase was all part of the same section. What they do not tell you is that the latter part, natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States is cited from Kent's lecture on A1, S8, C4, the power granted to Congress to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
The actual text of Kents commentary on the qualifications for president taken from Kents original works, not cites from unknown sources and taken out of the original context, state something quite different.
(2.) The constitution requires that the President shall be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot ; intrigue for the office, and the qualifications of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome (James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Part II: Of the Government and the Jurisprudence of the United States, 1826)
Lets break it down:
As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot; intrigue for the office ( here he is speaking of the grandfather clause ( a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution),
Then he goes onto part II:
and the qualifications for birth (natural born citizen) cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war,
There you have it. As the President is required to be a native citizen AND the qualifications for birth. Kent was talking about each qualification respectively, not inclusively.
As you can see, the progressives go to great lengths to twist and turn the truth with no regard as to the law. Liberal progressive legal scholars believe that the meaning of the words written in the constitution are ever changing and that the constitution itself is a living, breathing blank vessel for liberal interpretation. The radically progressive Professor of law at Harvard, Laurence Tribe, writes in the opening of his newest book that [i]nterpreting the constitution is an equal-opportunity reality that is not confined to the text of the document.]
Moving on, under the progressive interpretation of native, which is that of the feudal form of government, mere chance of birth on the soil is equivalent to perpetual allegiance. So was this really the case? Lets continue with the Commentaries of James Kent, who wrote about just exactly what the term natives meant. This is the actual text of the above mention cite the progressives had you believe was under qualifications for president, when in fact it is found under immigration & naturalization.
James Kent, Commentaries 1:39798; 2:3363(1826-1827)
We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations. There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives, and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.
(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation. If a person was born here before our independence, and before that period voluntarily withdrew into other parts of the British dominions, and never returned; yet, it has been held, that his allegiance accrued to the state in which he was born, as the lawful successor of the king; and that he was to be considered a subject by birth. It was admitted, that this claim of the state to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories prior to our revolution, might subject those persons who adhere to their former sovereign, to great inconveniences in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns might claim their allegiance; and, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it was, undoubtedly, a very strong application of the common law doctrine of natural and perpetual allegiance by birth. The inference to be drawn from the discussions in the case of M'Ilvaine v. Coxe, would seem to be in favour of the more reasonable doctrine, that no antenatus ever owed any allegiance to the United States, or to any individual state, provided he withdrew himself from this country before the establishment of our independent government, and settled under the king's allegiance in another part of his dominions, and never afterwards, prior to the treaty of peace, returned and settled here. The United States did not exist as an independent government until 1776; and it may well be doubted whether the doctrine of allegiance by birth be applicable to the case of persons who did not reside here when the revolution took place, and did not, therefore, either by election or tacit assent, become members of the newly created state.The ground of the decision in the latter case was, that the party in question was not only born in New-Jersey, but remained there as an inhabitant until the 4th of October, 1776, when the legislature of that state asserted the right of sovereignty, and the claim of allegiance over all persons then abiding within its jurisdiction. By remaining there after the declaration of independence, and after that statute, the party had determined his right of election to withdraw, and had, by his presumed consent, become a member of the new government, and was, consequently, entitled to protection, and bound to allegiance. The doctrine in the case of Respublica v. Chapman, goes also to deny the claim of allegiance, in the case of a person who, though born here, were not here and assenting to our new governments, when they were first instituted. The language of that case was, that allegiance could only attach upon those persons who were then inhabitants. When an old government is dissolved, and a new one formed, "all the writers agree," said Ch. J. M'Kean, "that none are subjects of the adopted government who have not freely assented to it." The same principle was declared by the Supreme Court of this state, in Jackson v. White
According to Kent, the 'natives' were the adults who elected to renounce the Monarcy and take allegiance with the new nation of the United States and as so went their allegiance, so went that of their wives & children.
Looking into the legal definition of the terms that are used by the early scholars that were taken from the law of nations also helps us to understand what the original intent of the founding fathers of the meaning of natural born citizen was is also a task one cannot divest themselves of.
tacit: Implied, inferred, understood without being expressly stated
assent: An intentional approval of known facts that are offered by another for acceptance; agreement; consent
Children at birth can not speak their consent to be a citizen and as it was in England and all nations at the time of the adoption of the constitution, it was the father who gave the consent for the child to be a citizen unless the child be born out of wedlock and if the father made no claim to the child prior to the child coming of age..
[A]s the child ascends from the father, so does his citizenship through tacit assent] as stated by Kent. Therefore the children become citizens of the society in which their fathers are citizens.
Did you click on the “Epic Fail”? You might find it interesting.
That is because the bible uses the term "native" in reference to those born of the blood. They were merely using terms they heard in church every week. But alas, most churches no longer teach from the Scripture Messiah Yeshua taught from as they did back then, thus the laws of nature set forth by YHVH have been washed over by human ideology.
And yet almost everybody in America knows that Juan is John and Jorge is George.
Do you think that it's because Republicans in our modern times had those names and illegal immigration is a "watering hole" topic?
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Farrand's Records, Volume 1
bottom of page 437 & continued on page 438: "In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers--Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford: that the States being equal cannot treat or confederate so as to give up an equality of votes without giving up their liberty"
LOL, English sure did bring a lot of false baggage to the table. My study of the bible through Hebrew came from my study of the history/heritage of the founders and what they studied. Until then, I had been a good little Lutheran ELCA sheeple. But I really kicked my studies into high gear when the pastor said Hebrew was of no significance. Our founding fathers begged to differ with him. Who knew French & Hebrew were the official languages of the schools back then. And yes while Latin was also required for jurisprudence studies, they also knew that the language of their "God" of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob was Hebrew & nothing else.
You don’t like the way the law works? Fine, change it. But don’t claim it isn’t the current process.
The two things they read the most...the Bible and the law.
So if you ever (God forbid!) get indicted for income tax evasion, you don't want your lawyer objecting to the Government's witnesses and making motions to suppress evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment? You would prefer that he stand up and say, "your Honor, my client admitted to me in confidence that he underpaid his taxes, so I join the counsel for the prosecution in asking that my client be convicted and sentenced to five years in prison"?
And once again, I will not leave it to you to interpret God's will. I won't answer that one again.
Busy for some hours, will address later.
Cite me ONE founder who was without flaw. Sure, Wilson was not a great business man in that he used all his money to purchase land to further the cause for his nation. Money the govt never returned to him & money he never sought to regain. It's called patriotism, you know that which is stated in the Declaration as “we pledge to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor”. A document is written in Wilson's penmanship & which he also a signer of. Thus Wilson lived up to his pledge! So if that is all you have, then you certainly need to do some inner refection. And at the least, some more study of the founders themselves. Me thinks you had also do better than to cite random websites who are biased in how they portray a person.
Next to Madison, Wilson was the most revered member of the constitutional convention for his legal expertise & demeanor. If it hadn't been for Wilson, Pennsylvania wouldn't have signed onto the ratification of the Constitution. But had you actually studied the history of the convention, you would have known that.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=287&id=1157&option=com_content&task=view
Slight difference. Those who sought to impose Christianity on others often did by force of arms, and there was no easy renunciation. I don't recall the US forcing anyone to remain a citizen if they didn't want to.
One is natural, the other is an imposition to those who may not wish to be a part of that land.
Sorry to say, I find this ridiculous. Go argue with the courts, who I suspect will have little sympathy for such a bizarre theory.
"Further, that would not be a matter of natural born or the version of some on your side, citizen at birth, but not natural born. In your theory, either would be grabbing allegiance, so no distinction."
Ah, but a characteristic of our citizenship is that you can renounce it if you wish.
I believe that's exactly what I said - anyone who doesn't wish to be an American citizen can renounce it. So it isn't "grabbing" or "forcing" anyone's allegiance.
The English Common law of jus soli, upon which you say ours is based, does not permit the renunciation of allegiance to the sovereign. Your ties of soil bind you to his land. You are trying to argue that we accepted the one part of this law, while at the same time rejecting the other part. A rather inconsistent aspect of the principle, don't you think?
Actually, no. Look at the discussion and court cases around the issue. From the law.justia.com site on "Expatriation"
The history of the right of expatriation, voluntarily on the part of the citizen or involuntarily under duress of statute, is shadowy in United States constitutional law. Justice Story, in the course of an opinion,1264 and Chancellor Kent, in his writings,1265 accepted the ancient English doctrine of perpetual and unchangeable allegiance to the government of ones birth, a citizen being precluded from renouncing his allegiance without permission of that government....The Expatriation Act of 1868 starts out "Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people..." So yes, the "perpetual allegiance" principal was first held to apply, then addressed and the right of expatriation was officially recognized. In contrast, I don't recall any statue proclaiming that jus soli was invalid.
An 1868 statute specifically recognized the right of expatriation by individuals, but it was directed to affirming the right of foreign nationals to expatriate themselves and to become naturalized United States citizens.1267
And I remind you again of the Rogers V. Bellei quote:
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.. Finally, to bring us back to now, for the purpose of getting 0bama off the ballot - with all the precedent, it's not going to happen. What is controlling is what the law is held to be, not what you wish it was.
"Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . .You are very free with the insults, and also with trying to obfuscate Kent's plain statements. Perhaps you should check later additions before you throw around accusations and insults.
You really shouldn't bring forth out fo context information that which is likely to shoot you in the foot. It really shows how ignorant you really are. So, what did the court(Justice Gray) say about expatriation in regards to citizenship & how citizenship is acquired?
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Decided November 3, 1884
Page 112 U. S. 98
MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court...The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
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,
and The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually...
It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed. 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992...
The Act of July 27, 1868, c. 249, declaring the right of expatriation to be a natural and inherent right of all people, and reciting that in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship, while it affirms the right of every man to expatriate himself from one country, contains nothing to enable him to become a citizen of another without being naturalized under its authority. 15 Stat. 223; Rev.Stat. § 1999...
Now mind you, Gray was quoting Justice Waite in the Minor case in regards to acquiring citizenship. The act of Expatriation is one of a personal nature. It has to be done freely by the indivdual and no one else. Thus a parent can not strip that which was acquired by nature. Obama claims he was born subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948 and Treaty of 1883, thus he was born a Brit. Now if there is some new treaty since 1948 that states the children born in the US to British subjects do not acquire British nationality at birth, I would most welcome reading it.
653 F.2d 285 (citation) Laurence J. TERRAZAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alexander M. HAIG,* Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellee. No. 80-2292. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued May 11, 1981. Decided June 30, 1981. http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/653/653.F2d.285.80-2292.html
There is a reason Obama will not release his passport or college records along with the originals of his mother. A renewal of hers from 1967 will simply not suffice. Especially since she removes her son from her passport in that application and lists him with a different surname. The records must be very damaging in that they will show that after coming of age, Obama chose to retain a foreign citizenship. Hence, he expatriated himself.
I prefer to get my information from the actual author, not those that twist the authors words long after they are dead. You should try it sometime.
Several sites had similar histories for your hero. Of the several I sampled, all gave him credit for his work on the Constitution - the Univ of Penn site said: “Wilson argued for a strong national government, the concept of implied powers, and dual sovereignty of the states and the central government,” but none felt he was a notable jurist.
It appears in your last italicized paragraph you are merely confirming what I said about expatriation. You stuck in several irrelevant paragraphs beforehand, however. If you continue, I will cease to answer as you appear to be trying to obfuscate and waste time to no purpose.
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.