He didn't donate
Click the Pic
Sign up to donate monthly
A sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
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)
You don’t have a problem with this judge’s legal reasoning?
LLS
Since you are asking about Jack Ryan, and I don’t know how Jack Ryan (and which Jack Ryan) relates to the thread topic, I’ll have to ignore the question.
Just wondering, do you carry water for 0bama pro bono, or do you submit monthly invoices for your ‘services’?
Theirs no 'answer' to it. It's being deliberately misapplied.
Wong Kim Ark petitioned the court as a native born citizen by right of the soil [jus soli], NOT a natural-born citizen by right of his blood [jus sanguinis].
The decision:
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
Wong Kim Ark
-----
is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen
Is as much a citizen.......He NEVER said Wong Kim Ark WAS a natural born citizen.
--------
Only Natural Law can bestow natural born citizenship because it is inherited through your bloodline.
And no man-made, positive law statute, policy, Act or Unconstitutional pResident can change it.
You really think that any court has even considered the facts? Lawyers are less than pond scum.
NO, I have no problem with the Judge's ruling!
You will NEVER win, this Birther case is very weak, and the Birther cases make us look really stupid!
It was stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii.
On the law?
Born in the USA = Natural Born Citizen!
Case closed!
Go to the link you provided. Look to the right and you'll see the screen name "Jack Ryan" as being the person who posted at Scribd what you've linked to.
Get the picture?
‘Course if the judge (any judge) had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the anti-birthers would be trampling everybody getting to the front of the celebration parade!
Listen precisely to what you`re attempting to argue. You are trying to tell us that the Founders made a clear and exact distinction, FOR NO REASON !
You expect a rational person to accept that a distinction is not a distinction, AT ALL.
The Founders found no need to extrapolate merely because everyone clearly understood the simple idea and fundamentals.
John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Vattel`s Law of Nations, “...natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. “
THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”
FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, “...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens...”
Keep telling us the CLEAR DISTINCTION is not a distinction.
Lawyers have argued (and won) District of Columbia v Heller, and McDonald v Chicago. Justice Scalia, for whom I have great respect, was a lawyer before his appointment as a Judge. So lawyers can be helpful or a complete road block.
The facts before the Georgia court were pretty simple - some of the plaintiffs submitted the COLB and agreed that 0bama was born in Hawaii. Once that is agreed, the judge is going to follow over 100 years of precedent, and rule him natural born. Anyone who thinks differently is allowing his wishes to corrupt his thinking process.
The Founders made a distinction between Natural Born and Naturalized.
PERIOD!
Natural Born means Citizen at Birth and nothing more.
I notice that you quote Congressional Legislation from 1795. Very well, that law has been stricken and changed several times.
Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment :
” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”
Keep your penumbras and emanations that also say the right to kill babies is also written there in the Constitution.
Traitors get dealt with, one way or the other. Even the good Lord had a traitor in his midst.
@Is that Sense of the Senate Resolution law?
Why do you refuse to answer my question?
I mean, @you tried to answer it yet still failed to do so.
However, the purpose of any Resolution in the House or Senate is much like a Preamble, explaining law or legal findings or legislation that happens later or after said resolution.
I know what it's purpose is.
Just answer the question...Is that Sense of the Senate Resolution law? Yes or no.
” ... that law has been stricken and changed several times.” With penumbras and emanations. Yeah, heard that argument before, “ Killing babies is written right there in the Constitution. Only an idiot can`t see it.”
When it some to the law the last stop on that train is the USSC:
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
” ...It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction,”
Perkins v. Elg’s (1939)
The USSC just cleared up the distinction for you.
CASE CLOSED
Orly said on her site that she filed an appeal, but didn't post the text. Are you saying that the linked appeal is fraudulent?
“Just wondering, do you carry water for 0bama pro bono, or do you submit monthly invoices for your ‘services’?”
I’m paid a flat rate of $500/month, plus $2/post. It’s steady work...
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.