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 ...
Wong Kim Ark, Ankeny and Malihi decisions are unbeatable. Its 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 pdfs 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. Its time to accept hes 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, its probably time to support Obamas 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.
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??
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??
Your daughters are lovely and look gigglingly happy!
Do you FReep from the turret? :)
Pinging a few names to Obama Exposer's comment, hope someone enlightens me, my brain can't go any farther tonight.
Is Lolo dead?
She's very much alive!
WHAT IS THAT???? Is that what a Lolo is? Yikes!
You mean Drool or someone else?
Your brain is just fine. Use it. I urge all of y’all to do it. A hint!
I am now officially withdrawing from this website.
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.
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!
Self-ZOT at #630, #633.
“Your brain is just fine. Use it. I urge all of yall to do it. A hint!
I am now officially withdrawing from this website.”
“ZOT the little weasel!!!”
To Fred: Well, how about that, eh? :)
Sung to the tune of "Zot Goes The Weasel"?
Google “Zeituni”. Reporting a fact gets a zot?
“[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.
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.