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 ...
Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you appreciate just how silly you sound? It's OK to admit that perhaps you were wrong - self honesty is a conservative value.
So an IT consultant is a Constitutional scholar in your world? I can see your problem.
They were IGNORANT of the two parent requirement of "natural citizenship", as are most people. Apparently Wong Kim Ark has convinced most of the legal profession that mere birth in the boundaries makes one a "natural" citizen, even though it didn't apply to Slaves or Indians till after the 14th amendment (1868) and the Indian Citizenship act(1924) respectively.
How people could ignore such glaring exceptions can only be explained by the herd mentality.
You are an idiot for thinking they know it completely and in it's entirety. Especially as regards those three little words. The backstory on that term of art is MASSIVE. Without specifically studying THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, a person will remain ignorant of the correct understanding, and that includes Federal Judges.
Just to demonstrate what I am talking about, You would think that if Jesus Christ were specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, most people would be aware of it. The Fact is, Most people are NOT aware of it. It is an oversight to most people, as is the correct meaning of "natural born citizen."
Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you appreciate just how silly you sound?
When imparting wisdom takes on the resemblance of casting pearls before swine, the swine will often think to themselves "how silly!"
It's OK to admit that perhaps you were wrong - self honesty is a conservative value.
It is not okay to wax on in ignorance, and lying to yourself is NOT a conservative value.
All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihis Decision that Putative President Obama Is a Natural Born Citizen
I think they were standing at the time. I'll have to check the videos from inauguration day to determine if they were prostrate, seated or standing at that exact moment of infamy.
You think they are that cowardly and craven? I disagree. "
What did you expect them to do?
So you honestly think they made their decisions based on ignorance? That there can be no other alternative? Are you even willing to entertain the notion that they in fact do understand the NBC very well and simply came to a different conclusion then you?
I would have expected them to raise the issue well before the inauguration. I would expect them to privately raise the issue with their conservative legal colleagues to generate a public groundswell. I would not expect them to roll over and ignore their oath to the Constitution.
Who in the entire legal system do you have faith in?
I see you are unable to process logical information. I doubt my assistance in solving your current confusion is going to help you long term, but here it is.
No, an IT consultant does not equate to a Constitutional scholar, but that isn't the salient point anyway. You asked why so many conservative intellectuals were avoiding the issue,(or some such) and the essay at the link offers a very good explanation as to why this is so.
The answer to the question you asked is "Cascade" and "Herd Mentality." Please try to keep up with the task of matching your questions to my answers.
Now that being said, an IT degree does not preclude someone from being a constitutional scholar, especially if they chose to be an expert on one particular aspect of it, such as the meaning of "natural born citizen."
There are those of us that have studied THAT particular aspect of the US Constitution six ways to Sunday, and even now we are still seeing the discover of new information regarding it.
“but the Legal system is virtually united on their misunderstanding of the law. They can’t even comprehend the argument against it. “
The entire legal community can’t be wrong while a few non-lawyers have it right. The answer is right in front of you. It’s the simple answer, not the complicated, contorted arguments of Taitz, Apuzzo and Donogrio. The Chief Justice would not have sworn in someone who is not eligible.
Wong Kim Ark, Ankeny and Malihi decisions are unbeatable. It’s time to accept the courts have decided based on the correct interpretation of the Constitution and the Law. The decision in Wong points to the 14th amendment: there are only two kinds of citizen in the US - natural-born and naturalized. A person who is born here is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be President. Simple. Straight-forward. Direct. No contorted explanations meant to exclude people who might not have been considered citizens before the 14th amendment. No analysis of pdf’s and halos or stamp, stamp, stamp. No cherry-picking of books, articles, or dissenting side of SC opinions.
Barack Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in Honolulu on Aug 4, 1961. Stipulated to by the plaintiffs in Georgia. It’s time to accept he’s eligible to be the President, that he IS the President. He might even get re-elected. Instead of spending any more energy on incorrect legal interpretations that fail every time, it’s probably time to support Obama’s opponent in the election and get him out of the White House the old-fashioned way: beat him at the ballot box.
It’s a stretch to claim Article VII, the subscription clause, where they wrote the date as “year of our Lord” is the Founders specifically mentioning Jesus.
I think they are avoiding the issue because they disagree with you. Because you are wrong. “Cascade” and “Herd Mentality “ are the typical rationalizations that any group that finds themselves consistently on the losing side cling to.
Any argument that English common law has no bearing on American legal traditions is demolished by the fact that millions of legal decisions in US courts have cited common law, and yet are held as valid and binding.
But English Common Law is not applicable to THIS issue: the Founders understanding of “natural born subject” (NBS) and by extension, natural born citizenship. English “common law” musing about NBS status were made obsolete in 1730, by the British Nationality Act of 1730. Acts of Parliament trump common law. The American Revolution started in 1775. The Constitution was written in 1787. The Founders’ thoughts on NBS arguably might have been influenced by the British Nationality Acts of 1730 and 1772, but not by common law.
If sophists want to persist with appeals to British law, then Obama loses, since English citizenship law that had superceded common law for 57 years by the time of the Constitutional Convention, stated that NBS was conveyed based on the citizenship of the FATHER only. This train of thought ends with Obama Jr as a British NBS, not an American nbc.
Wholely academic issue at this point, since power and politics have displaced logic and facts.
They didn't make any sort of "decision." To assert that they did would imply that they had weighed the facts of something. They simply floated along with the rest of the Country in Ignorance of a discontinuity.
That there can be no other alternative? Are you even willing to entertain the notion that they in fact do understand the NBC very well and simply came to a different conclusion then you?
No, because such a notion requires the rejection of all the historical evidence which has been accumulated on this issue. Occam's razor dictates that the far simpler explanation is the more probable.
That they could so blatantly ignore relevant documents and precedent can only be explained by a lack of knowledge regarding them. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they are unaware of the historical support for the Two Parent requirement.
Again I point out. Indians were "born" here, but were not even CITIZENS, let alone "natural born citizen" until 1924. Slaves were "born here" but they also were NOT CITIZENS until 1868.
You can twist it any way you want, but these two GLARING EXCEPTIONS demonstrate that being "born here" is NOT the defining characteristic of a Natural born citizen, or the Slaves and Indians would have been "natural born citizens" from the very beginning.
He who does not like getting burned should not light matches.
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.
Apuzzo nails it.
You must not be familiar with the last Supreme Court decision regarding Roe v Wade in which Sandra Day O'Conner (issuing the opinion for the majority) said "Stare Decisis." In case you are unfamiliar with it, it is a legal term which means "Shut the F*** up! Our ridiculous decision is FINAL, and we don't have to explain or justify it!"
Who in the entire legal system do you have faith in?
None of them. I have a little less cynicism regarding the 4 conservative judges, but I do not believe their primary concern is accuracy in apply constitutional law. They will do what they can, but their answer to Unseating the first black President? "Lord, let this cup pass from me."
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.