Skip to comments.Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen
Posted on 02/03/2012 2:19:38 PM PST by GregNH
We just spoke with plaintiff Kevin Powell and he reports Judge Malihi has ruled against the Plaintiffs and stated in his order that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore Obama is a natural born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
And this is what I warned people about. The notion that being born in a country makes one a citizen is ubiquitous throughout the legal profession. We may be right on the facts, but the Legal system is virtually united on their misunderstanding of the law. They can't even comprehend the argument against it.
It is but another reason that much of the system needs to be cleaned out root and branch.
That was a very stupid move on the part of the plantiffs.
They could have avoided Orly Taitz mis-directing the course of events by taking the summary judgement.
They won...they had it in hand and they totally blew it.
I understand their principle about having it judged on its merits but they never had a chance for that to happen!!!
And now we have yet another example of case law redefining natural born citizen.
People just need to get used to the fact that the idea of America is over and unfortunately there is going to be only one way to get it back.
based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born Citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
But lets cut to the chase. Chief Justice swore in Obama not once but twice. If this case ever makes it to the Supreme Court, do you honestly think he is going to say “you know, when I swore him in, I was ignorant of the law and of the Constitution and made a huge legal error.”? That is what must happen for all this to end up the way you wish. Do you really think Roberts would have sworn in a man he knew was not eligible?
The judge even stated that those subpoenas were not enforceable beyond the borders of Georgia.
That is right. When I married my first wife I adopted her 8 year old daughter, she has given me 3 grand daughters to date, there was the necessity to publish this in the newspaper of record
So there should be a newspaper record of this adoption in HI.
I believe the fogbrain crew had an involvement in this. I believe I had read that they were sending information to the Judge's staff, and one or more of them are known to be attorneys in the Area, so I have no doubt they mounted a back door defense for Obama and steered the judge towards their compiled "evidence."
I would hope the plaintiffs can explain this to the SoS. He could deny the conclusions of the ALJ if he feels it wasn't given a fair shake.
Had the ALJ given him cover, I think the Secretary of state would have supported a decision to keep Obama off the ballot. Since the ALJ didn't, it will be the SOS out there all by himself. I very much doubt he will decide to endure as much bile and vitriol as will be directed at him.
He's going to decide Obama is eligible. That is my prediction.
54sec “Where she was pregnant with barack at the time”
“Ann Dunham” Exhibition at East-West Center
NO. Roberts would not have sworn in a man he knew was not eligible. The Problem is, He did swear in a man who was not eligible, but Roberts didn't know this aspect of the law well enough to realize it.
It takes a great deal of research to look past the constant assertion that being born here makes someone a natural born citizen. Unless people have actually bothered to learn of the origins of Article II, and how the term mentioned therein was understood in that day an era, then they will simply not understand.
Falling down a hill is easy. Climbing up one is not.
Not one pic of “pregnant” Stanley Ann Dunham..
Mail your contribution:
ATTN: Ann Dunham Soetoro Endowment Fund
P.O. Box 11270
Honolulu, HI 96828-0270
Oh, brother... Really? God, that's pathetic. I don't even think a facepalm .jpg would be effective in conveying the idiocy of what you just wrote.
Yes. No doubt in my mind.
I would think they would remain silent on this issue in case they need to rule on it in the future.
"Why are major conservative legal organizations silent on the matter?"
Fear, and cowardice.
The idiot is the person who thinks someone would know everything about a document which encompasses a wide array of legal principles and have specific knowledge of a tiny little ambiguous jot of it that has been mostly forgotten for the last 200 years.
What makes you think Judge Roberts understands the 1787 meaning of the term of art "natural born citizen"? He is a product of the legal system, and as a result of this has many bad understandings of the law baked into his education.
Every since Roosevelt and Truman stacked the court system with liberal kooks for 20 years, the legal system has been full of idiots teaching kooky law.
This topic cannot be understood correctly without looking at the original source material, and I dare say few people have ever bothered to do it. Judge Roberts is very likely not among them. Obviously, since you can assert such a stupid thing as you just said, you also are very unlikely to have reviewed the source material, and are therefore probably waxing loud in your ignorance, and would be better served if you just shut up.
I’m pretty sure George Washington is a birther. Looks like you just paid a number of us on this thread (and others) a compliment. Insult fail-
I'm sure they can expound for hours on the beauty of the Commerce Clause, or how wonderful is the Freedom of Speech, or perhaps write an entire dissertation regarding the 14th amendments application of Federal restraint to the states, etc. because those are areas which are in the mainstream of constitutional study and thinking.
On the other hand, the meaning of "natural born citizen" is a tiny little backwater, little visited in case law or history, and survives more as a curiosity than as a focus of constitutional study. Without specific and rigorous study of this aspect of Constitutional law, a person will not grasp it's original purpose or meaning.
Only an IDIOT would not know this. Back to you.
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.