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 ...
Remember Lia was going to talk to reporters and died suddenly?
It's Elk, not Elg. You're confusing this with a 20th century case and a Swedish woman.
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.
The Wong Kim Ark case was in conflict because of a treaty with China and the 14th amendment, not because of legislation.
Thank you so much. Yes, it’s bizarre how much doesn’t add up.
I found this old thread from Aug. 2010 with more info:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2566400/posts
“Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins[21] and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[4] Elk v. Wilkins established that Native American tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisdiction of the United States. Children born to these Native American tribes therefore did not automatically receive citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment if they voluntarily left their tribe.[22] Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier act of Congress, and all non-citizen Native Americans (called “Indians”) were subsequently made citizens by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.”
Once again - the history of Indian citizenship is complicated with a lot of case law. You need to take the time to do some research.
This is an aspect I hadn't thought through. We could file Amicus Briefs, but that is not the same thing as arguing the case ourselves. The State Attorney could just roll over and put up token resistance. I suppose you are right.
Exactly. And yet those who disagree cannot grasp the point. (If born on the soil is the rule, then why so many exceptions?)
Years ago when I was in High School, We had a hypnotist present a program in our Auditorium. I distinctly recall how he hypnotized a student volunteer to forget the number "7". After snapping his fingers and awakening the student, he asked the student to count to "10". The Student counted "1,2,3,4,5,6,...8,9,10." The Audience tittered. He asked him to do it again, again the student complied. "1,2,3,4,5,6,...8,9,10."
The Hypnotist asked him if he had done it correctly, the student replied "of course." The Audience Roared with Laughter! The Hypnotist asked the student to add 3+4, to which the student replied after a momentary hesitation, "6." Again the Audience Roared with laughter. The Hypnotists pointed out, "no, that's 3+3. What is 3+4?" The Student looked troubled, then said "8." Again the Audience Roared. The Hypnotist said "no, that's 4+4. What is 3+4?" The Student just gave him a blank look.
That is EXACTLY how these Obama Legitimacy supporters seem to behave when confronted with anything that doesn't fit what they wish to believe. Bad guesses and blank stares. As that student couldn't comprehend the number "7", neither can these people comprehend that their theory doesn't jive with the historical facts. There is some sort of mental block at work with these people.
Thanks for the notification of Justice Gray's dichotomy in Elk v Wilkins. I learned another piece. :)
What is the difference between “Indian” and “Native American”? And where did that quoted text in your post come from, sir scholar?
It only looks complicated to you because you do not understand it. The fact that Indian's children were not granted 14th amendment citizenship is proof that your Hard rule of "born on the soil" is missing something which you can't seem to comprehend.
It is amusing that you want to argue that historically, anyone born in this nation is a "citizen at birth" except for the following exceptions. Slaves. Indians. Diplomats.
The "rule" seems to have more exceptions than it does categories to whom it applies! :)
The funny thing is, none of this applies to the "Jus Sanguinus" method of determining citizenship. (by blood) All the categories of exception magically disappear, leaving exactly the groups of people who were historically granted citizenship and leaving out those groups who were not. It is elegantly simple when looked at in that manner.
While we're at it, how about I show you a New York State law that prevents citizenship from being acquired by the children of transient aliens?
Dear me! How could New York have passed such a law when being "born on the soil" is all that is required for citizenship? Someone should tell them that they were wrong when they passed that law back in 1845!
You also fail to address the issue that some Indian children were natural born citizens before the 14th Amendment because their parents had legally recognized ways to become naturalized American citizens.
The 14th Amendment had no effect on those Indians that were already American citizens. Elk v. Wilkins explains that only those Indians that were under a special jurisdiction were not made citizens - but those Indians belonging to tribes that paid taxes to the Federal government were citizens in accordance with the 14A.
So there were three citizenship possibilities for Indians right after the 14th Amendment:
1. Natural born citizens born to naturalized American citizens prior to the 14th Amendment.
2. Natural born citizens regardless of status of parents because they belonged to a tribe under American Jurisdiction.
3. Not an American citizen due to membership in a tribe not under American jurisdiction.
As for your New York law - isn't it still that way?
I am a legal resident of Rhode Island because I live here. I am also a US citizen.
In your example, it says that you have to live in New York to be a resident (citizen) of New York. Just like today. It says nothing about US citizenship though. So someone passing through New York when born is a US citizen but becomes a legal resident in the state where his parents eventually take him back to where they live. In your example, if that child of a transient alien was born in a neighboring state (thus becoming a US citizen) and then settled to live in New York, he would be a New York citizen according to section 5.2
I pulled it off of Wikipedia
So you are saying that because their parents "naturalized" and became citizens, their offspring were therefore citizens? And Here I thought you couldn't learn anything. :)
In your example, it says that you have to live in New York to be a resident (citizen) of New York. Just like today. It says nothing about US citizenship though. So someone passing through New York when born is a US citizen but becomes a legal resident in the state where his parents eventually take him back to where they live. In your example, if that child of a transient alien was born in a neighboring state (thus becoming a US citizen) and then settled to live in New York, he would be a New York citizen according to section 5.2
What you may not know is that Law from New York which I cited, was created as a result of the legislature's disagreement with the New York State court in Lynch v Clarke which ruled that because New York had no law on the subject, they would use English Common law to decide that anyone born in New York was a citizen.
As a Result, the New York Legislature decided they needed a law defining it so that the courts wouldn't try to use that English Common law crap. In creating the law, they specifically excluded the Children of Transient Aliens. In those days, In order for one to be a Citizen of the United States, you also had to be a Citizen of a State. (DUH.)
The Congress could set requirements for someone to be NATURALIZED, but the States decided who would be born citizens within their own borders, and Native-born/Natural-born citizenship was derived from that. If New York didn't recognize the Children of Transient Aliens as a citizen of their State, they had no basis to claim American citizenship either.
Even if you were recognized as a citizen of a state, that did not necessarily mean you were considered an American Citizen. Here is an example from the October 10, 1811 edition of The Alexandria Herald newspaper. This article was written by James Madison regarding a "James McClure" who was BORN in Virginia, but not considered a Citizen of the United States.
If your understanding of "born on the soil" = "natural born citizen" then why would James McClure's citizenship be in doubt in 1811? (A time a lot closer to the Founding era, and during which they ought to know the truth one way or the other.)
absolutely!
Coincidence… 1] hussein dunham meets secretly with supreme court 2] law clerk hired for judge carter shortly before Orly hearing 3] eric holder apparently seen entering judge land court house before hearing 4] Orly hawaiian hearing changed from before hussein’s arrival to after hussein leaves hawaii 5] Iranian valerie jarrett speaks in ATLANTA shortly before the iranian judge malihi hearing in Atlanta….hmmmm????Yes, in Boston also:
US PUBLIC RECORDS INDEX:
Michael M Malihi
Birth Date: 6 Aug 1959
Address: 4 Longfellow Pl Apt 2411
Boston, MA, 02114-2821 (1988)
30 Irving St Apt 3
Cambridge, MA, 02138-3038 (1986)
Question from Orly
did Malihi cross paths with Obama in Boston MA and in CA? They are two Muslim men of the same age. Obama is 50, Malihi is 52. Did Malihi study law atBoston Univeristy the same time as Obama studied law at Harvard? BU and Harvard are 5-10 minutes drive from each other. Was it a set up? Did Malihi just give a present of a life time to somebody, that he knew?
Any student of US history knows that the 1800’s were a time of intense struggle between the states and the federal government over where the lines between state and federal power were drawn. Your New York political code is a good example of the fight about where the power to create citizens lay. We know who won that fight, now don't we? The 14th Amendment mooted those laws - the states have not played a role in determining citizenship since.
Why do you think presenting the losing side of history helps you?
From what I knew -- and I actually had some of this stuff in law school about 20 years ago -- the common law rule was jus solis, to which some additional categories were added by statute. So when I just looked up what you posted, it seems that the British Nationality Acts you reference pertain only to children born overseas. They are a statutory addition to common law jus solis, not a change for those born in the country.
There are differences!
Amerigo Vespucci was an ITALIAN, from Florence.
Indian is the major country on the subcontinent.
Using either term to to describe the indigenous tribes and peoples of this continent was ever a folly. But what is the difference? Time. Two foolish names but each a folly of DIFFERENT generation, or rather it is the errata of an era of generations.
The greater error is this — that a usurper, most likely ineligible for the office, holds it and those who demand a hearing on the matter are mocked.
That is a folly of the current generation in power.
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.