Posted on 02/04/2012 3:17:29 PM PST by rxsid
"A Rat Called Tandem.
[UPDATED: 2:12 PM - Cindy Simpson's top headline article at American Thinker is also a must read. Excellent analysis as usual.]
What happened in Georgia is what we refer to in poker as, “playing to a script”. It’s like something out of a Frank Capra movie. The citizens head to court to fix a Constitutional wrong, and the State court appears to be tough on the feds, standing up to them bravely flexing their muscles in the name of their citizens. Nice script. But it’s so very transparent.
Everyone needs to read Mario Apuzzo’s in-depth exposure of the blatant flaws in Judge Malihi’s holding, wherein you will experience a brilliant researcher exposing a truly defective legal opinion.
I only have a little bit to add. My remarks will be brief, and focused upon Judge Malihi’s sad failure to address the issue of statutory construction, which I explained thoroughly in my last report, The Dirty “little” Secret of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause Revealed.
Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.
But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)
And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.
Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:
“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Yeah, dude. Whatevah. Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just two weeks ago he said that was forbidden.
There is no use citing anything to you because you don’t understand how to read the law. Those that do know can see that you don’t. Those that are not sure how to read the law might actually believe you.
And that’s too bad because you don’t know what you are talking about.
What was the domicile of Sr. -Kenya or the US. I would argue Kenya since he was on a temporary visa when he stayed in the US. But it doesn’t really matter because neither the US or Kenya would have recognized that marriage to Ann.
Hashmi Versus Hashmi
http://webdb.lse.ac.uk/gender/Casefinaldetail.asp?id=45&pageno=3
Furthermore, any idea that a tribal marriage has to be licensed to be valid is just ludicrous. It was very easy to get married in the Luo tribe and that marriage was recognized under Kenyan law.
I submit that it might have been possible for Obama to fall on the mercy of the system in UK and actually get registered through special dispensation or court proceeding.
HOWEVER, I still see no law that made his citizenship automatic and retroactive.
I understand the law fully. So does Obama. He even admitted he was a British Subject at birth.
“That is incorrect. Based on what we know, Obama’s father was a Kenyan colonial citizen, i.e. a British citizen. Married or not, UK citizenship does not follow U.S. statuatory or naturalization citizenship. If one is born to a U.K. citizen, one is a U.K. citizen.”
This quote shows that you do not fully understand the law. Just quite pretending that you do.
You will need to let Parliament know your findings. And Obama. And everyone else born to citizens of the U.K.
That being said, you have yet to cite one statute. Would you at least try to do some research and post it here before you continue making yourself look like an argumentative antagonist?
This brings to mind the fact that if Barry was actually born in Kenya, then he might still be a UK national and/or a Kenyan national.
If, somehow, BHO Sr. bamboozled the Kenyan gov’t to accept Barry as a Kenyan citizen (hmmmm.. could that be the reason for the mysterious BHO Sr. trip to Hi in 1971?) we don't have proof that the citizenship was ever renounced.
We do have a claim by the Obama campaign that Obama was, in fact, a dual Kenyan-US citizen despite the bigamous marriage, and an associated claim that he never renounced his US citizenship in favor of his Kenyan citizenship. But Barry lies all of the time, so why would we believe that without investigating the Kenyan records? Oh, darn, they were scrubbed!
I have been posting about this for YEARS on this forum and was the first to bring it here.
Thankfully , many here followed my links and actually began to look at the law and have tried to understand the point.
You refuse to do so.
I Don’t care. I have been posting about this subject for so long that I don’t feel it necessary to go point by point by point. I have done it so many times before FOR YEARS. it gets old when people don’t want to really look at the law and be honest about it.
It just makes you look foolish when you refuse to educate yourself to the actual law.
But rock on.
You would be better served to look at the facts that might suggest that Sr wasn’t married to Kezia at the time - or at least the time lines don’t match up for some things. But in the end it likely wouldn’t matter since it appears to have been possibly CIA related.
The official story is that Kezia was married to Sr. Plenty of documentation. I doubt anyone would be able to prove otherwise.
Besides, it is all fruitless anyway.
Nothing will ever come of this - as I have said for a very long time - because the family was involved with the spooks.
He could have been born in Canada.
I think it is quite possible that the problem in all of this is that Barry went to college as a foreign student to get aid.
I really don’t think Sr is his father.
In the end, no one will do anything about any of it.
It will be talked about in the future as one of the grand mysteries.
At least now we know that Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen when he was born.
I have often posted the results of my ultra-scientific research, using the latest DNA kits. I have proven tbeyond any shadow of scientific doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is not only our President, but is also the God-Annointed....
The only question you should have as a loyal subject of King Barry is, "Since when does a King have to leave office?" It is a lifetime gig. The discovery of Prince Louis, Duke of Burgundy living in the Big Apple is most reassuring. He can be Heir to the Throne!
Pour me a Bourbon. Please.
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.