Superior Court asked to boot Obama from ballot (loss of constitutional rule of law)

World Net Daily ^ | February 16, 2012 | Bob Unruh

[Seizethecarp]

“At issue is nothing less than the enforcement or loss of constitutional rule of law,” he submitted to the court. “The petitioner’s right to live in a constitutional republic will be lost if the clearest terms of the U.S. Constitution will not be enforced by the judicial branch of government.”

He said if the judiciary does not take the appropriate action, “it would confirm that the judicial branch is now unwilling to enforce the clearest and most basic requirements of the U.S. Constitution.”

His appeal explains that Malihi’s opinion defies logic.

“[His] conclusion runs contrary to common sense, violates venerable rules of constitutional construction followed by the U.S. Supreme Court since its inception, and violates the explicit holding of the Supreme Court case relied upon. Had the drafters of the Constitution intended all people born in the U.S. to be considered natural born citizens, the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary. Had the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended that amendment to alter the Article II definition of natural born citizen, they would have clearly stated so. Yet the term ‘natural born citizen’ is not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment. The amendment also makes no reference to Article II. The [Malihi] ruling, therefore, violates rules of construction that the OSAH had itself relied upon just days earlier in the same litigation,” the brief explains.

It explains Malihi also ignored a Supreme Court precedent in favor of a non-binding opinion from Indiana.

“Contrary to popular opinion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. In a constitutional republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon constitutionally protected rights of a minority,” the brief argues.

[DiogenesLamp]

“Try Rogers v Bellei

“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.”

A further point I would like to thrash out with you is this. A "natural born citizen" is either a "title" or a condition. If it is a "title" then it can be pronounced by an administrative body, (such as Congress or a state legislature) if it is a condition, it is not susceptible to the pronouncements of any legislature.

I argue that it is a condition, not a title. Given that the term is made up of two adjectives modifying the noun "citizen" I would suggest that it is descriptive of a particular kind of citizen, and is therefore a condition, not a title.

An inherent condition cannot be modified by statute. A dog is either born with two legs or it is not. As Lincoln said, "Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."

[El Sordo]

Ya know what bugs me about all this pushing of Minor?

Aside from the fact that it does not say what Birthers want it to say, the Birther gang doesn’t seem to be aware of what they are setting themselves up for.

Minor was a case that stated women could not vote. Can you imagine the fun MSNBC would have with that?

“Chris, the latest argument from the Right is that Minor vs. Happersett, a Supreme Court Case denying women the right to vote, also means that a man born in Hawaii cannot be President if his father is from Africa. What do you say to that?”

“Well Rachel, this just goes to show how the GOP wants to turn back the clock to the days before women’s suffrage. To the days of Jim Crow. To attack women’s rights, to attack civil rights….”

Frankly I am surprised that this hasn’t happened yet. Maybe they are saving it for closer to the election.

[Jabba the Nutt]

I believe the Georgia Secretary of State has already stepped in to review this Judge’s ruling.

[Harlan1196]

You realize that code was blown away by the 14th Amendment?

And that American citizenship was a federal issue, not a state issue? If this law had been challenged it would have been deemed unconstitutional. However, that did not happen because of the Civil War and was then rendered moot by the 14th Amendment.

Your NY Code simply documents the fight over how states and the federal government would share power. Before the 14th amendment states had a say in who was a citizen and what rights they had. The states have not had a say in citizenship since the 14th.

[itsahoot]

Unfortunately, Dr. Taitz failed to competently produce evidence and testimony supporting her claims of forgery of Barry's identity documents, none of which have ever been produced in any court to date.

Yep it is all that stupid Orly's fault, sadly this immigrant is the only lawyer that seems to be willing to fight for our Constitution. Our lawyers shamefully attack Orly the defender, and then set on their collective a$$. A Pox on them all,

[phockthis]

PING

Not sure if you have seen this

[DrDude]

I have a question regarging the entire case. Hopefully someone can explain it to me. Since Obama never appearred in court AND did not comply with the production of a Birth Certificate, how does the court determine he was vorn in Hawaii?
He has never provided a BC to the court hearing this case. Is this court using the Plaintiffs exhibit of the fake BC as evidence? Didn’t lawyers stipulate Obama was born in Hawaii? Can anyone explain how this could happen in a court of law.
The argument that we must produce our BC to get a Drivers Licence or be enrolled in school would now be changed. Can anyone just refer to something they put on their website as proof?

[LucyT]

.

Ping

Article, check out comments, esp # 27.

Thanks for the ping.

.

[LucyT]

.

Ping

Article, check out comments, esp # 27.

Thanks for the ping.

.

[GregNH]

First of all Governor, it is an “administrative court” not a court of law. There is a huge difference. It is created by the GA Executive branch and under that branches authority. It’s purpose is to adjudicate issues arising from application of administrative policies and statues. It’s decisions are not law.

Now under GA law the decision of the SoS can be appealed, and in this case has been. I think you will see that GASC is going to say that the legal arguments against the administrative law judge are going to be tossed because they have no legal standing, only the decision of the SoS can be appealed. So I believe that there maybe a window of opportunity to introduce “real evidence” in a “real court” if the GASC decides to hear the case.

[NoGrayZone]

Very intriguing. Perhaps we should ALL try it and use barry as an example, as well as the court rulings.

Might get interesting.

[Seizethecarp]

“Since Obama never appearred in court AND did not comply with the production of a Birth Certificate, how does the court determine he was vorn in Hawaii?
“He has never provided a BC to the court hearing this case. Is this court using the Plaintiffs exhibit of the fake BC as evidence? Didn’t lawyers stipulate Obama was born in Hawaii?”

In the appeal, IIRC, Hatfield complains that Jablonski evaded the Jan. 26 Malihi hearing but then sent a photocopy of the WH pdf LFBC to SOS Kemp and copied Malihi and Malihi seemed to have relied on it.

Also, either Hatfield or Irion put up the LFBC image in court and asked a witness and/or the court to take note of the birthplace of BHO Sr. as being a village in Kenya. That same image shows Barry as having been born in HI, of course. The main issue in this appeal will be the definition of NBC in the MvH case and Barry's UK subject father, not the birth location of Barry.

[DrDude]

That info helps me understand some of this. I still don’t understand how anything can be accepted unless it is a certified copy. With all the college transcript issues, the SS #, passport, etc... issues, I don’t see how not providing a BC gets him a hearing let alone a winning decision.

Not aure what the PING LIST is but I would like to know how to gwt on it.

[autumnraine]

This has been *my* question from back in 2008!

If ANY OF US had shown up to the DMV for a replacement Drivers License and when asked for proof of birth (meaning an original birth certificate which they ASK FOR AND WE ALL HAVE TO OBTAIN WHEN LOSING A DRIVERS LICENSE) we gave a URL of a scanned copy of said birth certficate... we would be LAUGHED OUT OF THE DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

And yet we can all hold the office of POTUS without as much as a blink of an eye (as long as we had a “D” by our name)

Hell, apparently the “R”s don’t care about it either...

Anyway, it’s more frightening than anything.

[bluecat6]

I still would like someone to challenge him using what most Americans would fully understand - ‘little league’ requirement.

If you were born in Hawaii AND your over 35 all you need to show is a real, authentic document WITH A REAL RAISED SEAL FROM THE ISSUING ORGANIZATION. That is all. Just like any 8 year old has to show up with in spring to play ball.

When they fail to produce this simple element that most American males have had to show just to play ‘little league’ it should be become clear how bad the fraud is.

[DrDude]

That info helps me understand some of this. I still don’t understand how anything can be accepted unless it is a certified copy. With all the college transcript issues, the SS #, passport, etc... issues, I don’t see how not providing a BC gets him a hearing let alone a winning decision.

Not sure what the PING LIST is but I would like to know how to get on iT. Is it a notification system.

[wintertime]

You are likely right, but the effort still must be made.

Why?

So....History can permanently record the names of the cowardly traitors who **refused** to honor their oaths taken before God to defend the Constitution.

[Lmo56]

We all know that WKA merely confirmed that Ark was a citizen, but DID NOT confirm that he was a natural-born citizen. That has NEVER been resolved.

But let us hear what United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) had to say about the INTENT of the Fathers of the 14th Amendment.

He emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment. Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.

Quote from Justice Black:

“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.”

During a debate regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

Bingham also stated:

“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.”

And:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”

[MHGinTN]

Oh, it’s worse than just not caring much, they’re consciously violating their oath to the Constitution and thus their oath to US. The ‘rule of law’ is no more, it is now the rule of federal oligarchy.

[DrDude]

I agree completely. To take it further, Obama has never proven he is 35 years old. Has anyone ever asked a court to determine eligibility based on age. The certified BC would have to be provided. IMHO