Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen
BirtherReport.com ^ | 2/3/2012 | Kevin Powell

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 ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; ga; georgia; malihi; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700701-726 next last
To: Lurking Libertarian
As to the definition of NBC, no court will rule differently from Arkeney or the recent Congressional Research Service report. That is how the law currently defines the term.

That is how the people who work in the "Law" industry currently define the term. Their religion requires that they worship "Precedent." To explain "precedent" I will invoke the "Thunderbirds" Air Force team where each Wingman looks to the leader for guidance. Unfortunately in 1982 the leader couldn't pull out of a dive and the rest of them followed him straight into the ground.

THAT is how our legal system works. The Wong Kim Ark precedent has a built in Mechanical failure. Get it to crash, and all subsequent bullsh*t will crash with it.

601 posted on 02/04/2012 5:30:15 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
I think he informally “adopted” Barry only.

Who can say?

602 posted on 02/04/2012 5:31:45 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The Supreme Court has changed its mind many times. Brown v. Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, for example.

I carefully worded my statement to tacitly acknowledge that fact.

the definition of NBC in Minor was dicta; Ms. Minor was not seeking to become President.

Mrs. Minor was seeking for a ruling that, as a citizen of the US, the 14th Amendment forbade her State from denying her the right to vote, and argued that, if she had not been a citizen prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, then she had become one because of it.

But the court held that she was a natural born citizen even before the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and that that fact proved that the privilege of voting was not coextensive with citizenship, thus denying her claim. The fact that her citizenship was natural, and was not an act of naturalization effected by the ratification of the 14th Amendment, was one of the independent grounds by which the Court determined that voting was not coextensive with citizenship. That makes it a holding, and binding US Supreme Court precedent, per Ogilvie.

Second, Minor says there was no doubt that someone born in the U.S. to two citizen parents was a NBC and there was doubt as to whether someone born in the U.S. to alien parents was. That was not a definitive decision.

The holding in Minor states:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. …

The Court in Minor states in its definition that "natural born citizens" are distinct from "aliens or foreigners." That's actually a very important semantic distinction. To see why, it is necessary to understand the 18th-century common law meanings of the words alien and foreigner:

According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word "foreigner" can be used in a municipal context and in an international context. In a municipal context, anyone who is not a member of a community is a "foreigner" in that community. In an international context, anyone owing allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign is a "foreigner":

FOREIGNER. In old English law, this term, when used with reference to a particular city, designated any person who was not an inhabitant of that city. According to later usage, it denotes a person who is not a citizen or subject of the state or country of which mention is made, or any one owing allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign. (Henry Campbell Black, A Dictionary of Law, First Edition, 1891, p.506)

In 2009, the Berkeley Journal of International Law published a comprehensive historical analysis of the words "foreigner" and "alien", as used in English and American legal writings during the late eighteenth century. Research by Anderson Berry found that the word "foreigner", when used in an international context, has a general meaning and a specific meaning. In the general sense, anyone who was born in a foreign country or is a citizen or subject of a foreign country is a "foreigner". But in the specific sense, "foreigner" is used in contradistinction to "alien".

...the overwhelming majority of sources available to the drafters of the judicial bill [of 1789] define an "alien" as an individual who: 1) is foreign-born, and 2) resides in a sovereign's territory other than the one where he was born. A "foreigner" is defined as an individual who: 1) is foreign-born, or more specifically, is a foreign citizen or subject, or 2) is a foreign-born individual residing extraterritorially [outside the sovereign's territory]. (Berry, pp.337-8)

"Aliens" are persons who relocate permanently to one country, while they are still citizens or subjects of some other country. Presumably, aliens intend to renounce their allegiance to their country of origin and become naturalized citizens of the country of their new permanent residence. In contrast, "foreigners" are temporary visitors who retain citizenship and permanent residence in their home country and intend to someday return to their home country.

In the general sense, the eighteenth-century meaning of "foreigner" was not limited to persons born in a foreign country. If you are a citizen or subject of a foreign country, you are a "foreigner," regardless of your residence or place of birth.

So someone who is a citizen of the United States could also be a foreigner, if he or she retains or acquires foreign citizenship. Even if born in the US, a US citizen could be or become a foreigner simply by also having or later acquiring foreign citizenship. A US citizen—even from birth—could also have foreign citizenship from birth—either by having been born outside the US, or by having even one parent who is an alien or foreigner. So the fact that the Supreme Court has defined "natural born citizens" as distinct from "aliens or foreigners" excludes anyone from qualifying as a "natural born citizen" who has foreign parentage (because of the jus sanguinis principle of natural law, which by definition of natural law applies regardless of the laws of any country,) anyone who has foreign citizenship, or anyone who was not born in the United States.

Starting with the very next sentence following the first quote from the case given above, the Court then continues to discuss the fact that yet other persons could be citizens who don't qualify as "natural born citizens." To understand the message the Court intends to convey, it is important to remember that the issue on which the court was focusing was whether or nor the petitioner was a citizen regardless of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. The definition of "natural born citizen" was relevant solely because a) Article II, section 1 establishes "natural born citizen" as the strictest class of citizenship, and b) anyone who qualifies as a "natural born citizen" necessarily qualifies as a citizen:

… Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts [regarding citizenship, but not regarding "natural born citizenship"], but never as to the first [because anyone who qualifies as a "natural born citizen" is a citizen beyond dispute]. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

The Court notes in passing that those born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents, may nevertheless qualify as citizens. The fact it uses the word "citizens" in that clause instead of using the phrase "natural born citizens" categorically falsifies any claim that the Court intended to convey the idea that anyone born of non-citizen parents might possibly be "natural born citizens." The doubt the Court was expressing concerned whether or not such persons might even be citizens at all.

The Minor Court provided no name for the class of citizens "born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents," but did refer to them using the general term "citizens." Based on the legal principle of interpretation known as generalia specialibus non derogant ("the general does not detract from the specific,") the use of the general term "citizen" must not be conflated with the use of the specific term "natural born citizen," unless the text makes it explicit that such was intended.

The text in Minor not only states no such thing, it in fact states precisely the opposite. In addition to defining "natural born citizen," the opinion also separately defines the term "citizen," giving a different definition:

The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association…

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. [pg. 166]

It cannot be the case that any court that provides one definition for "citizen" but a different definition for "natural born citizen" intended to use those terms interchangeably. Nor can the fact be challenged that the Minor decision defines the term citizen as 'member of a nation, and nothing more,' but defines natural born citizen as 'born in the US, to parents who were US citizens—distinguished from aliens and foreigners.' The two definitions are not the same at all. One is general. The other is specific. Per generalia specialibus non derogant, the general must not detract from the specific.

In the above quoted paragraphs from the Minor opinion, the Court explicitly distinguishes two classes of native-born citizenship:

  1. Citizenship given to "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens…distinguished from aliens or foreigners"—"never" any "doubt" about the citizenship of this class;
  2. Citizenship (possibly) given to "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—who, since they are a distinct class from the first, must have at least one parent who was not a citizen; "as to this class there have been doubts"

There is also obviously (at least) yet a third class: Persons naturalized after birth, who cannot be "native born."

The Minor Court's opinion doesn't explicitly say whether the second class—those who are native-born but have at least one parent who was not a citizen—are naturalized citizens. There are and were laws that define such persons as citizens—for example, the 14th Amendment. But unless such persons are citizens by natural law, and not just by Constitutional or statutory law, they cannot be natural-born by definition.

But in any case, the Minor decision categorically excludes anyone who can be considered an alien or foreigner from being a natural born citizen. And, as shown above, anyone not born in the US, or anyone who has foreign citizenship, is either an alien, a foreigner, or both. And so are their children, because the natural law citizenship principle of jus sanguinis endows any such children with whatever citizenship either one of their parents has—unless the parent has renounced and relinquished any and all foreign citizenships, as all those who become naturalized US citizens are required to do. So that excludes anyone with an alien or foreign parent, where such parent has not become naturalized as a US citizen before the child's birth, from being a "natural born citizen" of the United States.

Third, several earlier Supreme Court decisions (see the footnotes in Judge Malihi's decision) had said that anyone born in the U.S. was a NBC, regardless of parentage.

Fourth, later cases are very much to the contrary; see Wong, and the cases cited in the Congressional Research Service's report.

You must not have read the text of those cited opinions. Either that, or you have the mistaken belief that:

Fifth, and most importantly, what you or I think is "null and void" doesn't matter; as I said above, "the law" means what the courts will rule tomorrow, and no court will say anything except that "Natural Born Citizen" means a citizen who wasn't naturalized.

Now that has some truth to it. However, the odds always favor that the courts will follow stare decisis—and the more prestigious the court, the more that that is true.

603 posted on 02/04/2012 5:45:56 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I don’t think it’s what they believe that is the reason they are silent. They’re all chickens***. They know. They know.


604 posted on 02/04/2012 5:49:44 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

This is a ruling by ONE Judge.

If we do not like his ruling, then it can be appealed to a higher Court.

This battle may be lost, but THE WAR CONTINUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


605 posted on 02/04/2012 7:05:03 PM PST by Graewoulf (( obama"care" violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND is illegal by the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
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 don't doubt this. One of the fogbow crew was posting something about "you won't like the outcome" as if he already knew what was going to happen several days earlier. There was a similar incident when Montana (or maybe another state) was looking at changing their ballot requirements to force the submission of a long-form BC to get on. He was citing something that he insisted had happened but was not posted at the site where it would have been posted.

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.

It would be funny, and actually appropriate, to see Kemp throw Judge Malihi under the bus. "Judge Malihi was supposed to perform the simple of duty of presenting me with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. He has failed in both circumstances, opting to express his own personal agenda. We are seeking his removal from office and will deny Obama to be on either the primary ballot or general ballot for lack of evidence."

606 posted on 02/04/2012 8:47:20 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“Any argument that someone is wrong because many others disagree with them”
It’s not that you’re wrong because just any many others disagree with you. It’s that constitutional law professors and judges disagree with you. You’re not an attorney, let alone a law professor or a judge, right? It’s more likely that it’s your opinion of who is a natural born citizen that’s mistaken not theirs. Who is more likely to be more skilled at interpreting the Constitution properly? You or the judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals?


607 posted on 02/04/2012 8:56:14 PM PST by tablelamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

“Aunt in Boston”
The aunt has been a legal resident with permission to work for two years.


608 posted on 02/04/2012 8:56:31 PM PST by tablelamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
no court will say anything except that "Natural Born Citizen" means a citizen who wasn't naturalized.

I forgot to respond to that clause in my first reply.

Actually, I agree with you. "Natural citizen" and "naturalized citizen" are mutually exclusive. You must be one or the other. You cannot be both. Nor is there any third option.

So how does that apply to the 14th Amendment?

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. And 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. That proves that not all native born citizens are also natural born citizens. The terms are not perfect synonyms.

So if Wong Kim Ark did hold that "native born" = "natural born," then even those born outside the US to US-citizen parents would be "natural born citizens." But if that's the case, then it's a violation of the Law of Non Contradiction, because it would force "natural" born to include those who are naturalized. But as we both agree, "natural" and "naturalized" are mutually exclusive terms.

The dispute is also about whether any and all who qualify as citizens per the 14th Amendment are natural citizens, or whether some are natural but others are naturalized.

Anyone who was alive but not a citizen when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but became a citizen at that moment, was not a citizen from birth. So that proves that not everyone made a citizen by the 14th Amendment was a native born citizen.

The text of the 14th Amendment proves the same point: The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause defines both a) those born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, and b) those naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, to be citizens of the US, and does so using a single sentence with a single phrase that is the subject of the sentence and a single phrase that is its predicate. The subject phrase is of the form "<A> and <B>", and the predicate phrase is "are citizens of the United States." That single predicate phrase, "are citizens of the United States," must intend to apply that exact same meaning of the word citizens to both noun phrases in the conjunctive phrase that is the subject of the sentence, since it's but one predicate phrase applied to but the one conjunctival phrase that is the subject of the sentence. Therefore, the semantics of the word citizens in the 14th Amendment must encompass both those born in the US (and subject to its jurisdiction) and those naturalized in the US (and subject to its jurisdiction.) That is flat-out impossible unless the intended semantics of the term citizen in the 14th Amendment is that of general citizenship, and is not intended to signify any other, more specialized meaning.

So yes, 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 statutue, or a Constitutional Amendment passed by Congress and ratified by the State legislatures.)

609 posted on 02/04/2012 9:07:30 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: tablelamp

The Aunt is an illegal alien who was ordered to leave the country.

Shes a fraud. She stole from taxpayers.

People like her and your ilk are destroying this country.

I predict there’s a zot in your future.


610 posted on 02/04/2012 9:14:34 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
First off, the definition of NBC in Minor was dicta; Ms. Minor was not seeking to become President.

The court used a definition of citizenship in her favor that would have made her eligible to run for president. Had this been Obama, they couldn't have done that because he was born in a class that had doubts and did not meet the characterization of natural-born citizen. Think for a moment. Had Virginia Minor sought the right to run for president instead of a right to vote, how would the decision be any different??

611 posted on 02/04/2012 9:30:30 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
“And as for Orly's expert witnesses, I'm wondering who challenged their expertise.”

No one has to challenge their expertise. The burden to establish that they qualify as experts lies with the attorney calling them. The standards by which that burden is met are typically jurisdiction-specific. In this case, Orly made no attempt to establish that her witnesses were experts. Based on past performance, I would suspect that is because she doesn't understand that she has to. In any event, having dealt with this issue numerous times myself, I can say it is unlikely any court would accept the experience of the witnesses proffered as meeting an expert standard.

612 posted on 02/04/2012 9:42:21 PM PST by tired_old_conservative (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

True, there is no iron-clad evidence that Barry was adopted by Soetoro, but it has been reported his half-sister Maya said her father had adopted Barry. There are also the Soetoro divorce papers of 1980 in which it is stated there are two children - one child over age 18 and therefore not requiring court consideration regarding support; the other a minor child who did require court consideration regarding support. Surely not indisputable evidence, but just as surely indicative that Lolo Soetoro had some kind of legal relationship with Barry. If Soetoro didn’t, there would be no reason for him to be mentioned in the legal documents as one of the children of the divorcing couple.

Although step-children in our country do commonly go by the step-father’s name without having been adopted, we don’t know that such would have been allowed in Indonesia, which at the time was in horrific political upheaval. Lolo could very well have been lying, but in the INS docs re: Lolo which were released last year under an FOIA request, he was trying desperately to get the INS to allow him to remain in the US. He was afraid of returning to Indonesia because of the political minefield there, and because the type of work he did [oil industry] would require him to be under direct control of the government. Since Indonesian law was that to attend Indonesian government schools children had to be Indonesian citizens, and considering the political climate, it seems unlikely Soetoro would risk repercussions to himself by doing something illegal. It would seem he’d be careful to not put at risk his chances of being allowed to return to the US for further schooling.

As for Barry having an Indonesian passport - I agree it was most likely the case, and that the 2008 ‘tampering’ of his passport file was part of his concerted effort to rid that file of the incriminating evidence of his coming back into the US on an Indonesian passport.

Another thing about Indonesia - it’s my understanding [can’t cite the Indo. constitution] that one cannot have an Indonesian passport without being an Indonesian citizen. the problem for Barry regarding potential scenario is that Indonesia did not permit dual citizenship. You couldn’t be an American citizen and possess an Indonesian passport. IF that is the scenario of Barry’s hidden past, the only way he could now be a US citizen is by having been naturalized after attaining legal age.

One thing IS for certain: it’s one huge, stinking mess of lies and of “potential scenarios” that anger and frustrate us no end!

You’re very quick and bright, and I always look for your comments.


613 posted on 02/04/2012 9:44:08 PM PST by GGMac ((lesson learned re Obie: parse every sentence, every word, every gesture, every photo))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Had Virginia Minor sought the right to run for president instead of a right to vote, how would the decision be any different??

The holding of Minor was that the 14th Amendment did not give women the right to vote. Therefore, the discussion of citizenship was not essential to the result-- Ms. Minor was found to be a natural born citizen, but not entitled to vote because of her gender. Had she been found to be a citizen but not a natural born citizen, she would have likewise not been eligible to vote; had she not been a cittizen at all, she would have not been eligible to vote. The discussion of her citizenship was not essential to the holding, and is therefore dictum.

That's not just me saying that; the court in Wong Kim Ark said the same thing; the court in Ankeny said it; Judge Malihi said it; the case in Virginia last month said it. No case after Minor has ever said that the discussion of citizenship in Minor is a holding or is binding precedent.

As I said above, "the law" is not what people on an internet forum say it is; the law is-- by definition-- what the courts say it is. No court will ever hold that someone born in the United States to parents lawfully here (whether as citizens or legal aliens) is not a natural born citizen unless their parents were foreign diplomats. You can take that to the bank.

614 posted on 02/04/2012 9:49:59 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
“As I said above, “the law” is not what people on an internet forum say it is; the law is— by definition— what the courts say it is. No court will ever hold that someone born in the United States to parents lawfully here (whether as citizens or legal aliens) is not a natural born citizen unless their parents were foreign diplomats. You can take that to the bank.”

That is correct.

615 posted on 02/04/2012 9:55:31 PM PST by tired_old_conservative (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: GGMac
IF that is the scenario of Barry’s hidden past, the only way he could now be a US citizen is by having been naturalized after attaining legal age.

If someone is born a U.S. citizen, they cannot, under U.S. law, lose that citizenship other than by a voluntary renunciation after age 18. Indonesian law can say that he lost his U.S. citizenship, his father and mother could have renounced his citizenship for him, he would still be a U.S. citizen under U.S. law.

616 posted on 02/04/2012 9:57:20 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

LOL! Thanks for a much-needed smile! And be sure to squint when you hit that sunshine!


617 posted on 02/04/2012 10:00:57 PM PST by GGMac ((lesson learned re Obie: parse every sentence, every word, every gesture, every photo))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K; freepersup

Free Republic opened to the general public in February of ‘97. If you had been lurking and reading since it first became available on the Internet, you would have been FReeping for “15 years,” not “almost 20 years.”


618 posted on 02/04/2012 10:08:43 PM PST by Chunga (Ron Paul is a fruitcakey jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The folks invoking Minor provide a stunning example of seeing what they want to see rather than what's there. By way of an analogy:

"There is no doubt that German shepherds are dogs. There is some doubt whether poodles are dogs, but that's not a question we need to be concerned with right now."

"See! The Supreme Court says there's 'no doubt' your poodle isn't a dog!"

619 posted on 02/04/2012 10:10:12 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Please look at the CONNECTION of Fogbow Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor with ‘kinfolk’ Michael Malihi. I think you will find your answer.


620 posted on 02/04/2012 10:10:14 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: tablelamp
“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.”

Alas, to the conspiratorial mindset, any and all things are possible. It's fixation is not on objective assessment, but on what it psychologically needs to be true; any intrusion by reality is dismissed as biased, misinformed, sinister, etc. It's a very old pattern in human history. At least this one isn't actually spilling blood, even if it is doing some damage to the conservative cause.

But you're solution is dead on. If people want Obama out of the White House, they need to stop bedwetting and cringing from make believe monsters and volunteer to work their precinct to get the vote out for the Republican nominee in November. That's the actual Constitutional option.

621 posted on 02/04/2012 10:10:47 PM PST by tired_old_conservative (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The holding of Minor was that the 14th Amendment did not give women the right to vote. Therefore, the discussion of citizenship was not essential to the result-- Ms. Minor was found to be a natural born citizen, but not entitled to vote because of her gender. Had she been found to be a citizen but not a natural born citizen, she would have likewise not been eligible to vote; had she not been a cittizen at all, she would have not been eligible to vote. The discussion of her citizenship was not essential to the holding, and is therefore dictum.

You need to actually read the decision. You don't seem understand the first thing about it. Nearly half of the decision is devoted to explaining the different ways one can become a citizen. Minor made an argument based on being a citizen under the 14th amendment, and the court unanimously rejected that argument because she fit the NBC definition. It was not simply dicta. What point does it serve to talk about her being born to citizen parents when it wasn't part of her argument??? Think about that a while.

That's not just me saying that; the court in Wong Kim Ark said the same thing;

No it didn't. The Ark court cited Minor to explain that the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. It upheld the Minor decision and affirmed that the NBC is based on having citizen parents.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...

Why does the court EMPHASIZE that Minor was born to citizen parents if NOT for how it fits the NBC definition??

the court in Ankeny said it;

The Court in Ankeny said a lot of things that just aren't legally supported. It contradicted itself by citing the exact reason why Wong Kim Ark and jus soli do NOT define natural-born citizenship:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

Ark was found to be a citizen via the 14th amendment. But only six years after the 14th amendment was ratified, the Minor court said it clearly did NOT define natural-born citizenship. They did this by rejecting Virginia Minor's argument. Now how and why did Ark cite Minor on this detail if it is NOT "essential" to the holding??

622 posted on 02/04/2012 10:11:57 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The guidance in Wong Kim Ark says this is NOT true. The courts in the 20th century seem to have forgotten this:
neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States

The Ark court had no problem with accepting that someone who might be born a U.S. citizen can lose their citizenship because his parents renounced it for him. If we want to follow Ark for "guidance" on NBC, then we need to follow it here too, right??

623 posted on 02/04/2012 10:15:36 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Your daughters are lovely and look gigglingly happy!

Do you FReep from the turret? :)


624 posted on 02/04/2012 10:19:30 PM PST by GGMac ((lesson learned re Obie: parse every sentence, every word, every gesture, every photo))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer; bushpilot1; LucyT; rxsid; Red Steel; DiogenesLamp; null and void; melancholy; ...
Please look at the CONNECTION of Fogbow Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor with ‘kinfolk’ Michael Malihi. I think you will find your answer.

Pinging a few names to Obama Exposer's comment, hope someone enlightens me, my brain can't go any farther tonight.

625 posted on 02/04/2012 10:27:41 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: GGMac

Is Lolo dead?


626 posted on 02/04/2012 10:30:22 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower
Is Lolo dead?

She's very much alive!


627 posted on 02/04/2012 10:34:46 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

WHAT IS THAT???? Is that what a Lolo is? Yikes!


628 posted on 02/04/2012 10:42:09 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

You mean Drool or someone else?


629 posted on 02/04/2012 10:44:05 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Your brain is just fine. Use it. I urge all of y’all to do it. A hint!

LorenC

I am now officially withdrawing from this website.


630 posted on 02/04/2012 10:53:24 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Why leave just when the fun begins?

Others here are much, much smarter and more on top of things than I am. I’m a mere hanger on, trying to get the gist of what’s going on.


631 posted on 02/04/2012 10:57:52 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

Yes - March 2, 1982, of liver failure. Age 52.

The Lolo pictured in the comment after yours will probably expire due to acute gel-loss following some kind of explosion - which from the looks of her could happen at any minute!


632 posted on 02/04/2012 10:58:35 PM PST by GGMac ((lesson learned re Obie: parse every sentence, every word, every gesture, every photo))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

Comment #633 Removed by Moderator

To: TheOldLady

Self-ZOT at #630, #633.


634 posted on 02/04/2012 11:58:09 PM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

Comment #635 Removed by Moderator

To: tablelamp; Jim Robinson

636 posted on 02/05/2012 12:29:50 AM PST by Bikkuri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; Fred Nerks

“Your brain is just fine. Use it. I urge all of y’all to do it. A hint!

LorenC

I am now officially withdrawing from this website.”

“ZOT the little weasel!!!”

To Fred: Well, how about that, eh? :)


637 posted on 02/05/2012 12:48:31 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
“ZOT the little weasel!!!”

Sung to the tune of "Zot Goes The Weasel"?

638 posted on 02/05/2012 2:40:33 AM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Google “Zeituni”. Reporting a fact gets a zot?


639 posted on 02/05/2012 4:56:56 AM PST by tablelamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
For an expert on the Constitution, you seemed to have missed a lot of case law on Indian sovereignty. Indian tribes are specifically mentioned three times in the Constitution so it is clear that they have a unique standing as opposed to Germans. The Indians were not considered under the jurisdiction of the US government - the Indian tribes were sovereign nations. It was recognized that they could be naturalized as US citizens:

“[Native Americans], without doubt, like the subjects of any other foreign Government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress, and become citizens of a State, and of the United States; and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people.
—Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, 1857”

And over the years other methods of Indians obtaining citizenship were recognized:

1. Treaty provision (as with the Mississippi Choctaw)
2. Registration and land allotment under the Dawes Act of February 8, 1887
3. Issuance of Patent in Fee Simple
4. Adopting Habits of Civilized Life
5. Minor Children
6. Citizenship by Birth (The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924)
7. Becoming Soldiers and Sailors in the U.S. Armed Forces
8. Marriage to a U.S. citizen
9. Special Act of Congress.

But Indians were never born US citizens until 1924.

As for slaves, states did in fact give citizenship to freed slaves. But according to the Dred Scott decision, no one of African descent, slave or free, was protected by the Constitution and could never be a citizen. In the eyes of the Supreme Court, according to the Constitution there were no black citizens, free or in bondage. Hence the 14th Amendment.

640 posted on 02/05/2012 4:58:14 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows
I thought zottee LorenC was a woman. Yeeks!

Oh, "LorenC" = "Lawrence?"
641 posted on 02/05/2012 4:59:01 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

So why do you bother with the courts then? Why do you get so worked up every time Orly posts about another “victory”? It appears that you agree with me that you will not get what you want in the courts so what is your plan B?


642 posted on 02/05/2012 5:02:14 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Indians on sovereign Indian land were not under the jurisdiction of the US government. There were numerous ways for them to be naturalized as US citizens but they could not be born US citizens until 1924.


643 posted on 02/05/2012 5:05:15 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady
Now I'm remembering the wedding party from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
644 posted on 02/05/2012 5:08:45 AM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: tablelamp; bushpilot1; Admin Moderator; 50mm; Old Sarge
tablelamp Since Feb 4, 2012

And how does a rank n00b have any idea what a "zot" is?

Are you a retread? What's your former handle?
645 posted on 02/05/2012 5:21:57 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

This is the expected outcome of a really stupid and arrogant lawyer. When the Defendants (Obama and legal team) failed to show for the hearing, the Plaintiffs (Taitz and Company) were offered a default judgement- a victory. But they refused the judgement because they wanted their “evidence” read into the record so they could feed their egos by claiming to have gotten damaging evidence into the record. Once the judge saw the weakness of the evidence- internet conjecture and opinions of non-experts, the judge ruled againt them.

This was a ridiculous move by Taitz. This is the equivalent to playing Black Jack, being dealt an ace of spades and jack of clubs but then asking for another card. She had a victory tied up in a bow, but was not satisfied. This was the sort of move you get when your attorney has an internet law degree. If anyone is going to be serious about this issue, money has to be raised and better attorneys hired.


646 posted on 02/05/2012 5:40:00 AM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tablelamp
It’s not that you’re wrong because just any many others disagree with you. It’s that constitutional law professors and judges disagree with you. You’re not an attorney, let alone a law professor or a judge, right? It’s more likely that it’s your opinion of who is a natural born citizen that’s mistaken not theirs. Who is more likely to be more skilled at interpreting the Constitution properly? You or the judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals?

Listen broken bulb, The Constitution was written in plain English. We can read. one does not have to be a "Scholar" or a "Lawyer" to understand it. "We The People" sound familiar?

647 posted on 02/05/2012 5:41:23 AM PST by GregNH (I will continue to do whatever it takes, my grandchildren are depending on me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: GGMac
...There is so much evidence from so many avenues that points to Canadian birth.

I seriously doubt that. If he was really born in Canada, there would be a paper trail there that could expose him. And Canada would have him by the short hairs. There is no evidence that he is beholding to them. If Canada could ruin him, that pipeline would never even have become an issue - It would have been pre-approved.

Instead, Obama was instrumental in getting his relative elected to the head of Kenya (that's a good clue right there)

He's quite certain he's bought off every official with access to Indonesian records,

He bows to muslim dicators,

He cowtows to socialist dicators,


Based on his actions, I'd say Obama is controlled by the most powerful and ruthless people in the world, and most likely this same group of people is the driving force that is fighting for the GOP to have no other choice in November than Mitt Romney.

I am now doubtful that Arpaio will come out with anything that is ruinous to Obama. He was offered a chance to put anything he had into official public record in this trial but he declined. This judge proved once again that nearly anyone can be silenced. Sheriff Joe is likely next.

648 posted on 02/05/2012 6:00:59 AM PST by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
You mean Drool or someone else?

LOL...that's the one.

649 posted on 02/05/2012 7:05:49 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

I wondered why he was let back in. He was outed but good. And I remain confused about Obama Exposer’s LorenC comment and why tableclamp is still here.


650 posted on 02/05/2012 7:21:08 AM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700701-726 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson