Posted on 02/03/2012 2:19:38 PM PST by GregNH
Not unexpected. However, there has now been a hearing on the merits of the NBC argument. Will the plaintiffs appeal?
Exactly. I’m embarrassed for the judge.
Can anyone just ignore a subpoena in a Georgia administrative court? Or are there two sets of rules. One for dictators and one for the rest of us peons.
Can you imagine anyone else ignoring the hearing then submitting website images and then getting a ruling in their favor?
Can Candidate Joe/Jane Smith do this or only exotic halfricans?
Stunning tragedy for the framers....and for us. Obama aside. It leaves our country vulerable to the very kind of leadership our forefathers attempted to protect us from. Foreign interests.
Obama was relatively young when he took office. His fathers (natural and step) from foreign countries could have attempted to take over our government through their son. Their son’s allegiance would have been to them, not to America. It has nothing to do with where a person is born.
Thanks...I think :(
Uh uh....no suprise at all.
How on eartch can he rule in favor of a defaulting party who did not appear or even put up a defense or present counter evidence?
This smells awful.
I think they have a good chance at appeal. I think “we” need to leave Orly out of it. Although the judge ruled on the NBC issue and she wasn’t part of that.
Just commenting on your link. Thanks for providing same.
Judge says he denies all arguments but could not issue a summary judgement because Plaintiffs rejected it. They shot off their nose to spite their face.
Obviously this Judge was looking for reason to deny. Per the record and/or chambers, did the Judge wish tp proceed anyway for an additional excuse?
Well, I guess I was wrong by a week.
The plaintiffs stipulated up front that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Court ruled based on that stipulation.
Jindal born in Baton Rouge
Rubio was born in Miami.
But, don't get excited. The rules will change for them.
Look. I know you are an Obot. I’m sure you’re enjoying your victory.
Don’t bother posting to me.
A state administrative law judge on Friday flatly rejected challenges seeking to keep President Barack Obama from being a candidate in next month's Georgia primary.
In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has maintained a Hawaiian birth certificate that is a computer-generated forgery, has a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is not a natural born citizen.
Last month, Malihi heard testimony and took evidence in both challenges. At that hearing, a lawyer for Obama refused to attend, boycotting the proceeding.
With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification documents, Malihi said he found the testimony presented by lawyers of the so-called "birther" movement and their evidence "to be of little, if any, probative value and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs' allegations."
A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation, Malihi wrote. "None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony," he wrote.
The other claim contended that Obama was ineligible to run in Georgia's primary because his is not a natural born U.S. citizen because his father was never a U.S. citizen. But Malihi said he agreed with a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge.
Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen," Malihi wrote. Accordingly, Obama is eligible as a candidate for the upcoming presidential primary in March, the judge said.
More.....
The physical location of birth is half of it, not irrelevant.
Is it being set up for the SCOTUS. Lower judges don’t like to make decisions on major issues.
Then do it.
Because he is scared?
I read the decision. It reads to me as if the plaintiff had people offering expert testimony who did not meet the legal definition of "experts", so their testimony that the documents were forged/faked was given no weight. That is not unusual.
When you get down to the core NBC issue, the court faced it squarely. It noted that the phrase "natural-born citizen" was not defined in the Constitution, so it looked to normal legal principles of the time to determine how it was likely understood.
So the Court had to decide what would have been the most commonly understood meaning of that phrase at that time. It noted that English Common law was the default rule in the colonies, so it credited the English common law rule of "jus solis" (place of birth), over the continental, De Vattel rule of "jus sanguinas" (citizenship of parents). In essence, the determination that our legal tradition was founded in the English common law, not Contintental law, compelled the conclusion that if you're born in the U.S., you're an NBC.
Historically, that's almost impossible to argue. For example, the citizenship of the colonists themselves was determined by English common law. You were a subject of the King if you were born in a British colony. To assume they would have discarded the rule with which they were all familiar, and which applied to all the colonists themselves, in favor of another definition that had never applied in the colonies, without making that unusual choice explicit in the text of the Constitution, doesn't make much sense.
That's what it really all boils down to. English common law was the basis of our legal system, and continental law was not. You can disagree with that, and think it is a stupid thing to do, but you can't credibly argue that's not a fair interpretation of our legal history.
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.