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 last
To: Obama Exposer; TheOldLady; humblegunner; Brown Deer
"I am now officially withdrawing from this website."


701 posted on 02/05/2012 10:38:45 PM PST by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

Remember Lia was going to talk to reporters and died suddenly?


702 posted on 02/05/2012 11:13:14 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Elg dealt with an Indian who had been born in Indian country and only later moved to a state.

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.

703 posted on 02/05/2012 11:21:01 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

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


704 posted on 02/05/2012 11:28:39 PM PST by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; bluecat6
Remember Lia was going to talk to reporters and died suddenly?

Yes! That's covered in the old thread I just posted the link to.
705 posted on 02/05/2012 11:33:35 PM PST by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
This will explain it to you:

“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.

706 posted on 02/06/2012 4:05:57 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
I remembered LorenC because I did a "going away" post for what I thought was "her." But no, I never visited the blog and don't otherwise remember the person.

Hey! I'm old. I forget stuff.   ;-)
707 posted on 02/06/2012 5:28:10 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
LOL! I've never seen you so happy, Sensei! [smiles]

FReepmail!
708 posted on 02/06/2012 6:02:47 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: edge919
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.

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.

709 posted on 02/06/2012 6:05:02 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: edge919
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."

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. :)

710 posted on 02/06/2012 6:16:52 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 698 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

What is the difference between “Indian” and “Native American”? And where did that quoted text in your post come from, sir scholar?


711 posted on 02/06/2012 6:27:34 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
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.

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!

712 posted on 02/06/2012 6:50:45 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Nice strawman. Since I just gave you two major exceptions to birthright citizenship, just how can I be arguing for a “Hard rule of “born on the soil””? The point you refuse to address is that slaves and Indians were two constitutionally unique exceptions. The case law including supreme court rulings explain exactly why they are unique in the eyes of the court.

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

713 posted on 02/06/2012 8:50:12 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: bvw
There is no difference - either from a legal or social perspective.

I pulled it off of Wikipedia

714 posted on 02/06/2012 9:11:38 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
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.

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.)

715 posted on 02/06/2012 9:34:41 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: GGMac

absolutely!


716 posted on 02/06/2012 10:11:42 AM PST by Mr. K (Were the Soviet-Era propogandists as gleefully willing as our Lame-stream Media?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Copied from Orly's site, not easy, some kind o a right click thing going on over there.

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?


717 posted on 02/06/2012 1:59:48 PM PST by GregNH (I will continue to do whatever it takes, my grandchildren are depending on me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Isn't the real question “why aren't those laws still in effect?”.

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?

718 posted on 02/06/2012 2:39:19 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: Chewbarkah
Thanks for the courteous tone of your post.

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.

719 posted on 02/06/2012 2:46:50 PM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

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.


720 posted on 02/06/2012 3:23:49 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
Those are things that need to be kept in the back of our mind. Without further corroborating evidence, they have only the outline of a possible theory. In any case, it doesn't address the problem of what needs to be done NOW.

Interesting though.

721 posted on 02/07/2012 6:19:55 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
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.

I am glad you said that! You are acknowledging that the 14th amendment created the "born on the soil" standard for the nation. Putting aside for the moment the fact that "subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" means something very different from what the Wong Kim Ark court alleged, the 14th amendment established that a "citizen" would be someone born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The problem for you is this. The meaning of "natural born citizen" Pre-Existed the 14th amendment, and therefore could not be a derivative of it. Whatever was the meaning of "natural born citizen" prior to the 14th amendment, it remained so after. Indeed, whatever the meaning was of "natural born citizen" in 1787, is the meaning that it still possesses today. The 14th amendment did not repeal article II's eligibility requirements.

But that is just MY opinion. Let us see what the Supreme Court had to say regarding this question. In 1875, (Minor v Happersett) while discussing the 14th amendment Chief Justice Waite said this:

[The 14th Amendment] does not 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.

That is about as clear as it gets. The 14th amendment "does not say" who shall be "natural born citizens"!

So I will grant you, the 14th amendment (created to bestow citizenship upon former slaves who had no birthright by blood) made anyone born in the United States and Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, (such as a former slave, but not an illegal immigrant) a "citizen" of the United States.That this is the same thing as a "natural born citizen" I explicitly reject.

The Congress discussed the term "natural born citizen" during the debates on the 14th amendment, yet the finished amendment conspicuously omitted the words "natural born." So did the Wong Kim Ark court.

722 posted on 02/07/2012 6:51:35 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
No - the 14th amendment did not create the born on the soil standard. That had always been the case. It short circuited state attempts to impose other standards of citizenship.

I think you need to move beyond Minor v Happersett - the justice system certainly has and all you are doing is falling further behind. Yours is a losing argument.

723 posted on 02/07/2012 10:13:45 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

Thanks. I claim no legal expertise, and am more interested in discovering the historical truth about what the authors of the Constitution actually intended (if this turned out to be in Obama’s favor, so be it). The interpretations and traditions of courts are definitely not immune to error or manipulation. My point ultimately is that the Founders would have most likely regarded Obama, Jr. as precisely what you have written: the child of a British citizen overseas, and thus a British nbs, thus not an American nbc. A post not far above that cites Madison’s comments on exactly such a case in 1811, corroborates this view.


724 posted on 02/07/2012 5:00:15 PM PST by Chewbarkah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: Chewbarkah
My point ultimately is that the Founders would have most likely regarded Obama, Jr. as precisely what you have written: the child of a British citizen overseas, and thus a British nbs, thus not an American nbc.

Actually, I think they would have regarded him as an American NBC as well because he was born in this country, regardless of whether Britain would have claimed him as a citizen as well.

I do not believe that any nation can have workable rules of citizenship based upon whether other nations consider that person a citizen. If someone qualifies as a U.S. citizen, then they are a U.S. citizen regardless of whether any other nations claim them or not. There is nothing in either British Nationality law or U.S. law that says claims of citizenship by other nations, under their laws, matter in the least.

Just as an example, the 14th Amendment clearly makes anyone born in this country a citizen under U.S. law. But under British law, a person born in this country of two British parents would be considered a British citizen. This hypothetical is always looked at from the perspective of the U.S. when discussing this issue, but try flipping it around.

Let's say two Britons are in the U.S., and give birth to a child. Under American law, that child is a U.S. citizen. But under British law, the baby is a British citizen. Does Britain then decide, "well, if you claim him as a citizen, he's not really a British citizen despite what our own laws say?" No, of course not. That child's citizenship status under the laws of Britain is determined by the laws of Britain, regardless of whether we consider him a U.S. citizen or not. Likewise, whether some other country claims someone as a citizen under their laws is irrelevant as to their citizenship status under U.S. law.

725 posted on 02/08/2012 9:38:54 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Oooh. Another internet virtual toughguy. I’m so impressed. Not.


726 posted on 02/08/2012 12:30:06 PM PST by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]


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