Posted on 02/03/2012 5:14:27 PM PST by Red Steel
Greetings,
As you know we were expecting word out of Georgia today and we got it. Late this afternoon Judge Malihi issued his ruling against all four Plaintiffs.
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”.
Click this link to read Judge Malihi's ruling - http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html
We will be following this in detail and will keep you abreast of activities as they unfold.
Remember, this isn't a race instead we are running a marathon.
Sincerely, Helen Tansey Director
Same thing.
Not according to any court or any case law in the country. MvH has never said what birthers seem to think it said.
Yep. Birthers lost to a couple of empty chairs. Tells me everything I already knew about the birther argument. Looks like we're going to actually have to vote Obama out of office in November. Orly Taitz isn't going to save us.
What the judge wrote was:
“In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor Court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this Court agrees. The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.”
To repeat for you, since you have missed it repeatedly for years:
“The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.”
That means the Minor court accepted that X was part of NBC, but left open if Y was - which means they did not attempt a definition.
“The judge only takes issue with whether it was an exclusive definition, which is actually proven by reading the whole Minor decision and not Ankeny’s misinterpretation.”
What Minor wrote was:
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
That leaves no doubt in any sane person’s mind that Minor did NOT attempt a full and conclusive definition.
“The assistant vice-chancellor in New York ignored Supreme Court precedent from Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbour that disproved his belief. There’s a reason why this case is NOT quoted as precedence.”
Actually, it was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in WKA. Nor did Snug Harbor deal with the issue of a person born in the US with alien parents. It dealt with the American ante nati - those born in disputed territories during the war. That is why a rational person doesn’t apply Snug Harbor to the Obama situation. It simply does not match, as it did not match the situation of Lynch in the 1840s.
“If John Inglis, according to the first supposition under this point, was born before 4 July, 1776, he is an alien unless his remaining in New York during the war changed his character and made him an American citizen. It is universally admitted both in the English courts and in those of our own country that all persons born within the colonies of North America whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent state and the acknowledgement of their independence.
The rule as to the point of time at which the American ante nati ceased to be British subjects differs in this country and in England as established by the courts of justice in the respective countries.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/case.html
This phrase from Snug Harbor shows the ‘natural born’ wording used at the time was not linked to Vattel or ‘natural law’: “It is universally admitted both in the English courts and in those of our own country that all persons born within the colonies of North America whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain were natural born British subjects...”
Birth created NBS, not parentage. And ‘natural born’ referred to the well known legal phrase used for hundreds of years in english law, not to a book by Vattel.
I hoped Georgia would rule Obama ineligible. However, it seems the birther argument is so weak that it doesn’t even hold up when the other side doesn’t bother to go to court.
Obviously, our entire political system, the courts, the conservative and Marxist media, law enforcement, and our highest military are utterly corrupt. An oath means nothing to them. Millions of our citizens are willing to vote for a Marxist with a completely unknown history.
So...The thing to do is prepare for when the SHTF, because it is inevitably coming. The only glue that has held our nation's experiment in self-rule together is the basic morality, honesty, and good will of the citizenry. That glue is no longer there.
God will turn His face from this country and no one should be surprised? Why would God save a nation that:
1) Murders infants in the womb, some having their skulls crushes seconds before their first breath.
2) Sends 85% its children to godless government socialist-entitlement schools. Just to cooperate in the godless classroom the child must think and reason godlessly. How could it be otherwise?
What would be your strategy?
Sadly, you are correct. Just look and the number of replies the American idol threads accumulate compared to the eligibility threads. Remember, this is on a forum where the mission statement is to protect and defend the Constitution.
Sickening.
And, neither will God. ( see post #45.)
“What would hold up in court ( or elsewhere)? / What would be your strategy?”
I don’t think a birther argument is going to go anywhere in the courts or Congress. It is not a totally illogical argument, but it is a weak one. And at this point, I honestly think it is DEAD. Agree with the NBS=NBC argument or not, from 2008 on, the USA will allow someone born in the USA of foreign parents to be President.
So the only strategy I see is fighting to remove Obama at the ballot box. I think this is going to be a very hard election to win, in spite of his dismal performance. Look at what Mitt did to Newt in Florida. If you have a huge cash advantage, and the media kisses your butt, you are very hard to beat.
In the general election, Obama will have hundreds of millions in foreign money - just as he did in 2008, and no one even investigated him for it. The media will be a fully behind him as they were Mitt in Florida, and I honestly think the GOP establishment would PREFER Obama in office.
So beating Obama in 2012 ain’t going to be a cakewalk. I expect a brutal fight against an opponent with every advantage. And if Mitt win the GOP nomination, I may decide it doesn’t matter. Look at what Mitt’s friend and political bedmate did in NJ. He nominated liberal activists to the Supreme Court in NJ in the name of diversity - because NJ NEEDS a faggot on the high court!
I’ve always held my nose and voted for folks like Bob Dole & McCain due to the impact of judges, but Christie has convinced me the establishment GOP no longer cares about anything. So if Mitt is the nominee, I’ll probably work hard to get Jesse Kelly elected in southern Arizona (http://www.votejessekelly.com/issues#debt).
Sorry to sound so negative. I’m coming to the conclusion that America abandoned God, and now He is turning us over to the judgement we deserve. Greed, envy, killing infants and butt-plugging men seems to be the goal of America any more. Without revival, spiritual revival, I see no hope for America.
Birthers?
I've read the section of Minor in question, and it is almost an aside--a given--that the founders, even though they (stupidly) did not define natural born citizen, everyone understood its meaning. And, if Minor has no application, why did Justia bend over backward scrubbing all references to it in the run-up to the '08 election?
Go ahead and defend the mystery man Obama (or whatever his real name is), I know he's a criminal fraud.
The goal is to defend the Constitution ( Article 2, Section 1). If Obama is a a natural born citizen he has every right to be there.
So....Evidently you are willing to give up and let the Constitution,(Article 2, Section 1) be destroyed.
Drip by drip the Constitution is eroded.
Well, one a 'carrot'; one a 'stick'. . .either used to acheive same desired result.
The Minor court did NOT say children born in the country to citizen parents were "part" of the NBC definition. He clearly said they WERE the NBCs. Go by the words that are written, not what you want them to say.
That leaves no doubt in any sane person’s mind that Minor did NOT attempt a full and conclusive definition.
... of whether persons born in the country to anyone other than TWO citizen parents could be CITIZENS. There's no doubt they CANNOT be natural-born citizens because that characterization was applied in a self-limiting, self-distinguishing manner. Why did the court emphasize ANYTHING about citizen parents if not for how it defines NBC??? What would be the point??
Actually, it was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in WKA.
You need to read closely. I said "quoted" not cited. I did that for a very specific reason. And the citation was done to illustrate an extreme view of the law, which the SCOTUS did not fully adopt.
Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.Nor did Snug Harbor deal with the issue of a person born in the US with alien parents. It dealt with the American ante nati - those born in disputed territories during the war. That is why a rational person doesn’t apply Snug Harbor to the Obama situation. It simply does not match, as it did not match the situation of Lynch in the 1840s.
Snug Harbor DID deal with a person born of alien parents. Don't lie about the decisions.
If they adhered to the British Crown up to the time of the treaty, they were deemed aliens; ...This phrase from Snug Harbor shows the ‘natural born’ wording used at the time was not linked to Vattel or ‘natural law’:
- - -
If the grand assize shall find that Charles Inglis the father and John Inglis the demandant did in point of fact elect to become and continue British subjects and not American citizens, the demandant is an alien, and disabled from taking real estate by inheritance.
Nonsense. Read the damn decision:
It appears to me that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219,
Under this decision, which Ankeny flubbed, Obama is a British subject at the moment of his birth, NOT a natural-born citizen. Judge Malihi used bad law, his own ignorance and the ABSENCE of any legal proof to presume Obama should be on the ballot.
Snug Harbor dealt with the American ante nati - those born in disputed territories during the war. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
As for Minor - I’m right & you are wrong. That is why you lose EVERY CASE! Because y’all are nutjobs! You cannot even read a paragraph and understand it, and then you wonder why the courts don’t take you seriously. You can post your lies and craziness 10,000 times, but you cannot win a single argument in court - not even when y’all are the only ones who show up.
Minor uses the term NBC two times, and uses it as the equivalent of citizen and native. But you say it was a formal definition. Well, you say what you want, but no court will ever agree with you. Not because the courts are dishonest, but because you are too damn stupid to read a single paragraph, let alone two:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
What you're lamenting is irrelevant. It STILL recognized that jus soli was NOT enough by itself to make someone a natural-born citizen. And it cited Vattel for saying that citizenship naturally follows the condition of the father. The same principles were cited again in Shanks v. Dupont. Second, by arguing about ant nati, you're admitting there are multiple ways to classify citizens at birth. You're arguing against yourself.
Minor uses the term NBC two times, and uses it as the equivalent of citizen and native.
Rogers, evidently you have a lot of trouble even counting. NBC is used FOUR times, not just twice. Second, it also defines natives as those born in the country to citizen parents.
Not because the courts are dishonest, but because you are too damn stupid to read a single paragraph, let alone two:
Rogers, what you've cited supports me. Read the first paragraph. It talks about ADDITIONS to citizenship. No one argues that there aren't two ways to add to the citizenship, but keep in mind, it's adding to pre-existing citizenship. That means there was a third way to become citizens for those who were already citizens. Second, just because there are "two ways" doesn't mean there aren't subclasses under each way to add citizens. The second paragraph talks about two such subclasses and only ONE was characterized as natives and natural-born citizens.
I visualize an “offer he can’t refuse” as being an offer to let him retain his life or the lives of his family members.
Indeed; and when the 'promise' is a threat. Yes, found myself wondering; how many children; grandchildren and wondering if any of their pets; had yet to disappear. Imagine; going against this self-ordained, power vacuum.
Which is why; those who say "IT can never happen here"; are wrong; so very wrong.
'IT' happens, folks.
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.