Replies

"But we're not dealing with rational minds in this case. We never have."

Perhaps the only true statement in this piece.

It is sick what he did. It is almost like an Alinsky trick. The courts are corrupt.

The “Won” can’t be touched it is inscribed on the ark /s

Anyone running a count on how many “Judge (insert name here) is a cowardly traitor” threads there are following yet another birther courtroom defeat?

Who knew that the day would come when I'd go to Pravda to find 'all the news that is fit to print'...

The American Media is one big fraud. A Fifth Column that exists to subvert the US Constitution, overthrow traditional institutions founded on God's Law, and to support Democrats and their marxist allies.

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives

The story pretty much state the way I feel about Judge Malahi, but of course there are it’s detractors who believe Obama is the messiah.

I’ll believe this when it’s legitimately authenticated inside America.

More birther blather.

Natural born citizen has long been recognized as the US equivalent of ‘natural born subject’ - a phrase from English common law that included the children of aliens. In fact, some early state legislatures used the phrases interchangeably for years after the Constitution.

The Wong Kim Ark decision in the late 1800s discussed it in detail, and said:

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

Notice the rule that applied to natural born subjects continued to prevail in the US after independence, and UNDER the US Constitution.

In truth, until birthers figure out how to answer the WKA decision, they will continue to be demolished in court - as they have been in every single case. Even when the other side doesn’t bother to show up...

You light a flame and, man, do the moths appear.

The ignorance here is not on the part of the judge, the ignorance here is bring an action without hope of a good decision. And a total adverse decision. What pure ignorance, where did these so called attorneys get their degrees, off of a corn flake box.

Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

Damn right. nobama walked all over him. What a wimp. My dog has more guts than this judge.

We know so little about Bath-House Barry...
Seems we know even LESS about Malihi, but some people are trying to ferret out his past...

http://intangiblesoul.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/who-is-judge-michael-malihi/comment-page-2/#comment-461

Itis time for the USA to implement a Star Chamber like they had in Merry Olde England back in the 1600's:

Initially well regarded because of its speed and flexibility, it was made up of Privy Counsellors, as well as common-law judges, and supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. In a sense, the court was a supervisory body, overseeing the operations of lower courts, though its members could hear cases by direct appeal as well.
The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

It seems that it is possible for a birth certificate to disappear from state records. The state of NJ says that they have no record of my sister’s birth, despite the fact that she once had a copy of the birth certificate and lost it. She had to have presented it to get a SS #, marriage license, etc, but all of a sudden the document no longer exists.

‘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!

Traitors get dealt with, one way or the other. Even the good Lord had a traitor in his midst.

Even if the intent of the 14th Amendment were in fact to use the English common law definition of "natural born subject" as the Constitutional definition of "citizen," the following would still be true:

As conclusively proven in my essay, to be a natural born subject under British law based on jus soli, one not only had to be born on the soil of the realm, one's parents also had to be either citizens or aliens—and an "alien" in modern US terminology is a legal (permanent) resident (so the wrongful attempt to use the English common law semantics of natural born subject doesn't even get that right—also see below);
In strong analogy to English common law, the State laws in general (from the 18th century until even today) deny citizenship to those who, when born, had parents who were foreigners who had not been granted legal resident status, using the term "transient aliens" to distinguish them from 'resident aliens' or 'alien friends':
Political Code of the State of New York: “The citizens of the state are:1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls."
California Government Code Sections 240-245 Article 1. General: "The citizens of the State are: (a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls."
The 14th Amendment by its own text defines only the term "citizen," not the term "natural born citizen." The semantics of natural born subject includes both subject born (natural citizen) and subject made (naturalized citizen.) It would be logically incorrect to fail to incorporate the analogous distinction between natural and naturalized citizen into the semantics of the term citizen as used in the 14th Amendment, if the intent was in fact to make the word 'citizen' be analogous to the term 'natural born subject' as used in English common law.
To be a subject born, one must not only be born on the soil of the realm, one's parents must also be citizens of the realm.

There are those who claim that "natural born citizen" is strictly synonymous with "born a citizen," "citizen from birth" or "citizen by reason of birth." If that were true, then anyone who was a citizen either from the moment of birth, or because of the facts of birth, would be a "natural born citizen." That theory can be be disproven as follows:

All citizens are natural or naturalized. The two terms are mutually exclusive. There are no other options in the naturalness ontological dimension or perspective of citizenship that have been accorded any legally-significant status.
All citizens either become citizens at birth or else become citizens post-birth. Again, the two terms are mutually exclusive. There are no other options in the time-based ontological dimension or perspective of citizenship that have been accorded any legally-significant status.
No one argues that all natural born citizens are not also native born citizens. The dispute is about whether the reverse is true—whether all native born citizens are also natural born citizens.
Those born outside the US to parents who were US citizens are citizens from birth—by statute. So they are also "native born," because they are citizens from birth.
The Supreme Court has never ruled that those born outside the US are "natural born citizens." Nor can it be that the 14th Amendment defines anyone born outside the US as citizens at all. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that those born outside the US do not have natural citizenship: In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the Court ruled that the appellant's native citizenship (from birth, by reason of having been born outside the US to a parent who was a US citizen) could be removed from him by statute. Had the appellant's citizenship been natural, Congress would have had no authority to remove it, and the Court would have said so. So that proves that not all native born citizens are also natural born citizens. The terms are not perfect synonyms.
If "native born" and "natural born" were perfect synonyms, then even those born outside the US to US-citizen parents would be "natural born citizens," because as "native born" citizens they would also be defined to be "natural born citizens." But as all agree, "natural" and "naturalized" are mutually exclusive terms. Therefore, it would be a violation of the Law of Non Contradiction to assert that all those who are native born are also natural born, because that forces natural born to also include some citizens who are only naturalized citizens from birth.

The other issue in dispute regarding the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court's decision in Wong Kim Ark is whether any and all who are "born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are natural born citizens, as proven by application of semantics and logic to the syntax of and terms used in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, or whether the syntax and terminology allow some of those "born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be natural citizens while yet others are naturalized citizens.

Those who claim that the 14th Amendment declares all those "born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to also necessarily be Constitutionally-defined as natural born citizens by those words in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment base their argument on three assertions: a) natural citizenship and naturalized citizenship are mutually exclusive (not disputed,) b) in the phrase "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the conjunction or is exclusive disjunction, and c) therefore, the 14th Amendment is asserting that being "born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and being "naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are mutually exclusive.

The counter-argument: The conjunction or in English is usually used to signify inclusive disjunction, which means that the alternatives are not mutually exclusive. Although or in English can signify exclusive disjunction, it is uncommon for that to be the intent in the absence of auxiliary, modifying words or phrases in context that make it clear that the two alternatives are intended to be exclusive. But there is no reason in the historical record that indicates that the intent of those who authored and ratified the 14th Amendment was to Constitutionally assert that citizenship by birth in the US was mutually exclusive with citizenship by naturalization within the US. That distinction had nothing to do with the controversies that motivated the ratification of the Amendment. Citizenship in general was the issue, not whether or not anyone was or was not a natural citizen—by birth or otherwise. The same is true of the issue of record before the Court in Wong Kim Ark.

Although being a natural citizen and being a naturalized citizen are mutually exclusive, being born a citizen (a citizen from and by reason of birth) and being a naturalized citizen are not. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, the laws of Britain and of the several States absolutely included cases where those born in the country acquired citizenship, at birth, by naturalization, and not by the principles of natural law—as proven in my essay. There is no evidence that changing that fact was among the reasons or motivations for the 14th Amendment.

Even if the intent had been to change who was or was not a natural citizen, it is logically impossible for any positive law—even a Constitutional Amendment—to change who are or are not natural citizens—also as proven in my essay. The attempt to do so would violate the Law Of Non-Contradiction, because of the very definition of natural law. Positive law can be declaratory of natural law, but no law can make anything be what it is not. The law cannot convert lead into gold, nor prevent the Sun from rising in the morning.

The purpose of constraint predicates in the subject of a sentence is to denote or describe, not to mandate or prescribe. The purpose of the subject of a sentence is to identify or name the subject or topic of discussion, not to specify prescriptive mandates. It's the predicate phrase of a sentence that's supposed to do that. Based on its syntactical structure, the point and purpose of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment is to prescriptively define anyone and everyone who fully satisfies the denotational semantics of the constraint predicate expressions (set membership rules) in the subject of the sentence as citizens of the United States, and of the State in which they reside—and that's all.

The 14th Amendment does not say "All persons born as natural citizens or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. and of the State in which they reside." But that hypothetical version of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment must be perfectly synonymous with the actual text, if it is in fact true that all who are "born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," are also logically and semantically required to be natural born citizens by definition. Why? Because the assertion under discussion is precisely that "born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the very definition of a natural born citizen. It that's true, then adding the modifier "as a natural citizen" cannot possibly change the meaning, because the claim is that "born" already means exactly that in the phrase under discussion.

But the addition of the adjectival phrase "as natural citizens," modifying "born" in the hypothetical version of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, absolutely does change the meaning of the sentence. Why? Because that hypothetical version of the rule excludes anyone who isn't "born as a natural citizen in the US" or who isn't naturalized. So that version of the rule would have excluded all those residents of the United States alive at the moment the Amendment was ratified who either hadn't been naturalized, or who hadn't been born as natural citizens—which would have excluded every single former slave of African descent (who hadn't already been naturalized) from having been made citizens by the 14th Amendment!

But that just cannot be the intent! The most urgent purpose and intent of the 14th Amendment was to make citizens of those who were neither born as citizens nor naturalized as citizens, but who had in fact been born in the United States and subject to its its jurisdiction at the time. Therefore, it is categorically impossible that "born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to be perfectly synonymous with "natural born citizen," including and excluding all the same persons.

So, given the totality of the evidence and constraints regarding the interpretation and construction of the 14th Amendment, the correct reading is 'All persons are citizens of the United States who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof when born in the United States or when naturalized in the Unites States, or both' (inclusive disjunction.) That interpretation aligns perfectly with the known intent and motivation: To ensure that anyone who was or is either born in the US or naturalized in the US (or both) and where either of those events occur in the United States while the person is subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States and of the State in which they reside.

To summarize: All citizens are either natural or naturalized. The 14th Amendment is declaratory of the citizenship of all those who are natural citizens without needing the Amendment to be such, but who also satisfy the citizenship rules specified by the Amendment. But for those who would not be citizens but for the 14th Amendment, it makes them citizens by naturalization—by definition of naturalization, which is to deem or declare someone a citizen by positive law enacted by any political entity—such as a statute, or a Constitutional Amendment passed by Congress and ratified by the State legislatures.

Back to cleaning teeth for Orly

For later