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 ...
It’s obvious that “tablelamp” and other assorted re-tread fogbowers want our side to give up on courts, and “go for the ballot box” only. Why would that be? I can thnk of several reasons.
Georgia Ballot Challenge News
February 3rd, 2012
Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden vs. Obama - Judge Michael Malihi’s Final Order - Georgia Ballot Access Challenge - 2-3-2012
We caught up with Swensson/Powell’s counsel, Mark Hatfield, late this afternoon to get his initial take on the ruling. Here is what he stated obviously we are disappointed w/the decision, but there are a couple of items in the ruling that we are looking at. First, the Judge never made any ruling on who has the burden of proof even though he indicated in chambers prior to the hearing that making the determination of the burden of proof laid with Defendant Obama.” He went onto state “the Judge has a record of placing the burden on the candidate, but didn’t do so in this case.” Another point Hatfield made was the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in Arkeny elevates the Indiana case above the Constitution” while also noting the Judge ignored the Minor court in Minor v Happersett, a ruling that clearly defined natural born Citizen, established precedent. When asked about next steps Hatfield stated “we are going full bore and taking it up on appeal.
Here’s the thread:
Clueless or has specific motivations.
I want to know too.
There were a number of 20th Century SCOTUS decisions on revokation/ renunciation of citizenship, including Afroyim v. Rusk and several others.
good news and thanks for the ping!
And Joe Arpaio ain’t giving up, either!!!!
No - Indians were never deemed to be Americans. They were to be members of sovereign Indian nations. Hence the requirement to be naturalized as American citizens.
Again, you aren't getting the point. The CHILDREN of Indians were not granted automatic 14th amendment citizenship. Yet the CHILDREN of other "Sovereign Nations" were granted citizenship.
If the rule is "birth on the soil" then why did it apply to the children of European Nations, but not to the children of Indian Nations?
Obviously "birth on the soil" was not the deciding factor. I bet you still do not "get it."
Speaking as a long-time FReeper (who very much wants to see Obama out of office) and as a lawyer, I don't want to see time and money wasted on the eligibility issue, because no court will ever uphold the two-citizen-parent theory. It reminds me of the tax protestor websites, where people post elaborate arguments about how the 16th Ammendment was never validly ratified or about how "income" doesn't include pay for ordinary work. Interesting arguments, but they will never prevail in court.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
If anyone cares about the meaning and intent and simple English of the Constitution, your words are “we’re already in hell so let’s make ourselves comfortable”.
Yeah, the courts we have now - cesspools.
It isn’t that they don’t “get it”.
And this is a point which needs to be shouted from the Mountaintops! The courts WILL do what the people demand when the people get sick of their bullsh*t. I think it's way past time we put the fear of God and the People into some of these presumptuous bastards. The courts need to be reminded that they answer to US!
From the link above. Another, incredibly odd data point.
“A photograph of Lia shows her holding a monkey doll and wearing clothes given her by Madelyn Dunham, Obamas maternal grandmother, when Lia visited Hawaii for three months. The visit apparently was in 1971, the year Obama left Indonesia permanently.”
In 1971 we have:
a) Obama starting school on the first day supposedly in late August or September.
b) Obama flying alone from Indonesia to Hawaii.
c) Obama and SAD/S flying together from Indonesia to Hawaii in mid-October.
d) Obama newly found step-sister ‘visiting for 3 months’ in 1971.
So far...nothing seems glue together. The story line acts as if Hawaii was an hours drive away from Indonesia. Not thousands of miles away on the other side of the international date line.
I think ‘step-sister’ was created to help with the Lolo / Stanley Ann divorce statement. The divorce does not specifically name the children. But it indicates 1 older than 18 and one less than 18. That would be Obama and Maya. Unless this ‘newly found’ step sister is claimed to the unnamed child over 18.
The Indonesia years remain problematic. And when you bring up Indonesia the Obots tend to get really annoyed.
Yes, that's why I said the 20th century courts had forgotten about the part of Ark that I quoted. The idea of not being able to renounce a child's citizenship is relatively a new invention. Ark had no problem understanding that it could happen at the end of the 19th century.
No, actually I don't think would have been a good strategy. If Obama sues to overturn a judgment, it means he's arguing against the state. At best the state would only have a superficial interest in defending this on appeal. The better option is for skeptics and challengers to appeal where more evidence can be presented and the weakenesses of Ankeny can be attacked. Malihi may have done this issue a favor because he left open Obama's bona fides.
This is the one area that exposes a real weakness in Justice Gray's decision in Ark. Gray also wrote the decision in Elk v. Wilkins, and he had to fudge around his OWN precedent, which he did by saying:
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law) ...
So, all he does is say that the Indians have a "peculiar relation" to the National Government to avoid admitting that he did NOT apply to them his own so-called "fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country." The Indians were here BEFORE we had a "national government" ... did the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth OR the common law make them Natural-Born Subjects?? The answer to that question is obvious and it proves yet again that jus soli was not and could not have been the basis for the founders understanding of the term "natural-born citizens."
Elg dealt with an Indian who had been born in Indian country and only later moved to a state. At that time, many of those Indians didn't regard themselves as being "within the country," and in a very real sense, they weren't. Until the 20th Century, the Government dealt with Indian tribes through treaties, not by legislation. All through the 19th Century, many Indian tribes were at war with the United States Government. Indians born in Indian country were not then regarded as citizens because they were, in a very real sense, hostile aliens.
The Court's awkward language was a reflection of the fact that the U.S. Government officially claimed the legal right to rule over the Indians, but was still in the process of achieving control de facto. Once that was accomplished, Indians became citizens.
because no court will ever uphold the two-citizen-parent theory. It reminds me of the tax protestor websites, where people post elaborate arguments about how the 16th Ammendment was never validly ratified or about how “income” doesn’t include pay for ordinary work. Interesting arguments, but they will never prevail in court.
Well then why have the courts t4ried so hard to avoid getting the issue heard on its merits and making a decision? They have made decisions about the income tax, so let them make a decision about two parents ..no they are avoiding evading and just plane sidestepping the issue. I guess it isn’t as clear cut as you want it to be. We have a right to know, Jindal and others have a right to know if they are eligible...to say otherwise is Anti-American and anti-Freedom. I guarantee if we stop paying taxes until they make a decision, we will get one ASAP.
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.