Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

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.

I have delayed responding to you so as to contemplate how an argument might be crafted to penetrate that layer of defensive denial surrounding you. You seem to be wholly content to believe in legal theories which grant (under a stretched interpretation) a technical compliance with some words, but allow for a total violation of the principle involved; That being to prevent unwanted foreign influence in the office of our chief executive.

That your interpretation yields "natural born citizens" who are completely unloyal "Americans" does not seem to cause you the least bit of concern. Likewise the notion that an interpretation that does not accomplish the explicit task for which it was designed, and therefore MUST be an incorrect interpretation, also holds no significance for you.

What I keep returning to is a conclusion that there is no reasoned path to your mind, and efforts to seek one out are destined to fail. I do however, have one last argument, though I doubt it will work either.

Let us consider the Israel to be akin to America, and let us consider some Jordanian born Palestinian to be the equivalent of a Nigerian Communist on temporary visa to America.

If the aforementioned Palestinian man visits Israel and has a child in Israel with an Israeli Palestinian, let's assume he is therefore (according to your reckoning) a "natural born citizen" of Israel. Let us further assert that his Father never became an Israeli citizen, and that his mother and subsequent Egyptian step-father taught their child the usual Palestinian Hatred of Israel that they seemingly all grow up with.

As the Child grows up, he abjure's his father's Muslim faith and becomes a devotee of Reform Judaism. (so he says) Due to a combination of the vote from the Entire Arab population of Israel and all the members of the Labor party and a Partisan Left-Wing Propaganda spreading Israeli Media which covers up all derogatory information about him, He stands a good chance of wining the Prime Minister's slot, where he promises to cut Israel's defenses by 50% and eliminate Israel's atomic bombs.

Would it be out of place to point out that this is NOT the sort of man to whom the founders referred when they created the "natural born citizen" requirement? Would they have regarded this man as acceptable within their definition?

Please don't assert that such would never happen, or that Israeli law doesn't work like ours, because those arguments are just attempts to dodge the question. Face the question forthrightly and simply answer, Is this what anybody had in mind when they defined "natural born citizen" for the purpose of keeping out foreign influence?

On the other hand, forget it. I know better than to attempt this, because you will simply not answer this question honestly. Silly me. Who uses honesty in a debate? Sure, the "natural born citizen" of Israel is perfectly legitimate, and no one should worry about how he grew up with a complete un-loyalty to Israel. What was I thinking?

Wrong. We are referring to a law which is designed to grant rights based on birth in a country. The rights of “subject” or “citizen” were much greater than the rights of an alien. Again, your theory is bizarre.

We are referring to a law which was based on the divine right of Kings to claim as subjects anyone born on his land. It is like pointing out that even though Christmas is a Federal Holiday, it is based on a tenant of belief in the Christian Religion. As jus soli is at origin a monarchical law, so is "Christmas" at origin a "Christian" holiday. One cannot legitimately claim a total separation between a practice and it's origin.

Your contention, as you sometimes contend that those who you disagree with were “ignorant” or “silly bastards.” Rather, there was disagreement about this, among many, some championing the right of expatriation in any situation, others who agreed that with the Revolution, inhabitants were free to choose American or England, but that in other circumstances it took mutual consent for expatriation. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists opposed expatriation from a nation, while Jefferson felt it was any man’s right. John Marshall was known to look favorably on “perpetual allegiance.” From Inglees v. Snug Harbor

That there was dissent among the founders on certain issues is incontestable. That is why they were initially divided between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. (I will take a moment to point out that the Anti-Federalists were absolutely correct in every argument they made against the Federalists, as demonstrated by the subsequent history of abuse by the Federal Government. Such a thing as the Civil War was pooh phooed by the Federalists as ridiculous and impossible! :) ) Again, some founders had consistency of principle, and others simply didn't see it.

He continued to reside in New Jersey after the passage of this law and until sometime in the year 1777, thereby making his election to become a member of the new government, and the doctrine of allegiance became applicable to his case, which rests on the ground of a mutual compact between the government and the citizen or subject, which it is said cannot be dissolved by either party without the concurrence of the other. It is the tie which binds the governed to their government, in return for the protection which the government affords them.

Isn't it funny that to become an American an immigrant has free will to become one, but to become something else he must have the Government's permission to leave? There's that consistency of principle problem again. In any case, John Marshall acknowledges that the compact between government and a citizen can be abrogated by Mutual consent, which is a tacit admission that it isn't the same thing as "perpetual allegiance" which cannot be abrogated at all.

Marshall, it may be noted, did not absolutely pronounce, reflecting the disagreements of the age in the absence of definitive law. In Murray v Charming Betsey he said

Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.,

Again, I read that to imply that it is possible for a citizen to do so. To suggest that one may immigrate to this nation and become a citizen, (thereby throwing off your former citizenship) but may not do it in another country is simply a blatant hypocrisy.

Joseph Story in Shanks v Dupont

The general doctrine is, that no persons can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens.

Meaning, "We respect your right to do it to OTHER countries, but not to us. " I'm not terribly impressed with Justice Joseph Story.

To distinguish from "naturalized," of course.

And why would they want to do that? Ostensibly to prevent "Foreign Influence." So how is this goal accomplished when we allow for a definition that does not PREVENT "foreign influence"?

I have recently began to wonder if the Naturalization act of 1790 was an explicit intent to address this very question. I have pondered from the very first time I laid eyes on it this curious passage from the act:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

What has always puzzled me was how you could have a Father of an American Citizen who has never been a resident in the United States? Even under YOUR interpretation of citizenship, the child would have to be BORN here to get citizenship, so under what circumstance would a child have been BORN HERE, but his father wasn't a resident? (Not bloody likely in my opinion.)

On the other hand, the law could be referring to an American Father having a child in another country, but acquiring citizenship through his father, except for one thing. How could a Father have American citizenship without having been a resident?

Well, he could have been the Child of an American who grew up in a foreign land, and was never a resident of this nation. His Father could have gotten American Citizenship by virtue of the naturalization act of 1790, and would pass it on to his son by virtue of the same act, except the act would specifically prevent this sort of"second generation" thing.

On the other hand, it could also be argued that this act was intended to regard those children of Immigrants as "natural born citizens" provided their father came here to live as an American. (Marc Rubio situation.) Somehow this last explanation seems the most plausible to me. This fits with other information sources regarding the desire of the Congress to get people to immigrate to this nation and become citizens. It only runs afoul of the idea that you cannot "make" someone a "natural born citizen" when they are not, and as a result they repealed those words in the naturalization act of 1795.

But their intent was clear; To regard those Children of people who immigrated to America as "natural born citizens" provided their Father's became American residents, and prohibiting citizenship if they did not.

Again, how does Barack Obama Sr fit into this picture? Why in the excluded group of course. That group that was specified as "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:"

The little sperm drop called Obama would not even be a citizen at all according to the understanding of the term in 1790. He would be a Kenyan Alien. (Sorry, I mentioned "Nigerian" in a previous message because when I think of Obama, all I can think of is SCAM. )

Yes, we have a non-Loyal, so called "american" in charge of our weapons. What an incredibly stupid thing for us to have done.

You seem to be wholly content to believe in legal theories which grant (under a stretched interpretation) a technical compliance with some words, but allow for a total violation of the principle involved; That being to prevent unwanted foreign influence in the office of our chief executive.

And you seem to ignore what the Founders were actually concerned about. Tucker (and others) speak of foreign influence and Tucker specifically mentions the Dutch revolt.

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country.

If you look it up, you will see that Holland was ruled for a time by Spaniards, appointed stadtholders by Spain, and the office – as Tucker mentions – became hereditary. So his (and other Founders’) concerns were not for those born of foreigners on US soil who are US citizens, but for foreigners born elsewhere who are not, but who might be naturalized only for the purpose of seeking the presidency. See what Joseph Story has to say on this:

It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.

This is well explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #68

these most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

Showing that the chief concern was not US citizens born of foreign immigrants, but rather concern about foreign governments trying to insert their own officials into the US government.

Your desire to second guess the Founders makes me question whether you believe in a so-called “living Constitution,” a position which is clearly not conservative. Such a position really means one can change the interpretation of the Constitution with circumstances to make it say what we want. That is a very dangerous path, allowing judges to decide the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean at a particular time, something all good Conservatives must oppose. Once again, if you don’t like what it says, amend it, but don’t claim it says what you want when it doesn’t.

I have a counter situation, in this country, to offer you. Suppose a child is born on US soil to two citizen parents (not particularly patriotic citizens, but US citizens none the less). They move to another country within a few months of the child’s birth, and the child is raised overseas, with whatever extreme ideas the parents hold. The child returns to the US an adult, at the age of 35. Fourteen years later, age 49, he runs for president. Now, undoubtedly this was not the sort of man the Founders would have envisioned as president. However, unacceptable as this man may be, he is legally eligible to run.

The Founders expected that the populace would know better than to elect such a person, and that those among us who do know better would do a good job of explaining why this person is unacceptable. And if the populace doesn’t know better (obviously didn’t in 2008), it’s our task to work within the law to turn him out of office by electing someone else, or even to amend the Constitution so it couldn’t happen again. It is not correct for us to claim the Constitution or the law says something it doesn’t. That merely opens the way for the other side to do the same, until the Constitution has no meaning at all. Not a far cry from libs who claim the Founders never envisioned gangs slaughtering each other and bystanders with firearms, so it’s Ok to prohibit privately owned weapons. Is that what you want? I don’t.

Ah, yes...here we go, with your snippet emphasized. @CH. XXXVI.] EXECUTIVE--ORGANIZATION. 277 CHAPTER XXXVI. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT--ORGANIZATION OF. § 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country.1 A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.2 A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government.3 By "residence," in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office.4 If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.

Once again you fail to add the whole and render the intent subjective.
@The Federalist Papers : No. 68Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

The only problem with their plan is that the electors of today have no idea what a natural born citizen is and they're little more than robotic party functionaries.

Ostensibly to prevent "Foreign Influence." So how is this goal accomplished when we allow for a definition that does not PREVENT "foreign influence"?

See post 611 to understand what the Founders were talking about when they mention “foreign influence.”

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Once again, I have to point out to you that the Naturalization act of 1790 specified children born beyond the Sea or out of the limits of the United States. Not of children born in the United States.

You’re reading a lot into it that simply isn’t there. The Act specified who may be naturalized, and the situation of those born to American citizens outside the United States. It specifically says so.

Which is not what the Act says, whatever you may want to read into it. The Act is specifically about children of American citizens born outside the US. So your idea of their “intent” fails on two counts – it wasn’t about children of non citizens, and it wasn’t about children born in the US.

Again, how does Barack Obama Sr fit into this picture? Why in the excluded group of course. That group that was specified as "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:"

If the child was born overseas. If you’re one who thinks 0bama was born in Kenya, this is a reasonable argument. If he was born in Hawaii, it is irrelevant.

The little sperm drop called Obama would not even be a citizen at all according to the understanding of the term in 1790. He would be a Kenyan Alien.

He might not have had any chance at being a citizen in 1790, as many citizenship rules specified “white.” But we’re working with the rules of 1961, not of 1790.

Yes, we have a non-Loyal, so called "american" in charge of our weapons. What an incredibly stupid thing for us to have done.

And this is something we can both agree on.

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.