He also claimed...
I retired as a Commander.
then later followed up with...
Best time of my career being in charge of 1st Division.
Posted on 02/17/2012 9:22:14 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an appeal with the Georgia Superior Court in the case of Weldon v Obama, one of the three Georgia lawsuits claiming Barack Hussein Obama to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States or to be included on the Georgia ballot. (1)
It is perhaps significant that the very act of filing the appeal was fought by the Superior Court clerk’s office which claimed that an additional $2 fee had not been included with Liberty Legal’s paperwork for the filing of separate motions.
Additionally, the Court Clerk invented numerous excuses to prevent the filing, moving from one to the next whenever it was pointed out by Liberty Legal attorneys that none reflected normal court operating procedure. According to Liberty Legal attorney Van Irion, the clerk’s conduct was, in the course of his entire legal experience, “unheard of.” (2)
As a side note, although the paperwork had been provided some 7 days earlier, the clerk’s office failed to inform Liberty that there was a problem. The clerk simply “sat on the petition” and the filing deadline of TODAY would have been missed had Irion not called to make certain the filing had taken place!
The appeal itself is based upon the claim that the “rights of the appellant [had] been prejudiced because the finding of the Secretary of State (was) affected by…error of law.” (1)
That is, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who approved Judge Michael Malihi’s Administrative Court decision, had done so in spite of (or due to) mistakes of law made by the Judge in deciding the case.
As Irion states in the appeal, the decision of the Judge “not only violates…
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Why not? Why does having a man like Osama Bin Laden for a father automatically mean the kid won’t turn out to be a fine American? What about the mom - you seem to be discounting her role in raising the kid.
What’s wrong with judging each man or women individually solely on their character and actions? We don’t have to lay the sins of the parents on their children.
Leave it to the judgement of the American people.
Leave it to the judgement of the American people.
Excuse me? Didn’t the American people vote for “Hope and Change” in 2008? And don’t think it will be easy getting rid of the criminal-in-chief in Nov with all the voter fraud that’s set to take place.
Hugo Chavez would be so jealous...
Whose judgement do you suggest we leave it to?
So it would be the “judgement” of the American people and not what is outlined in the US Constitution that should be the determining factor on whom is “eligble” to be President of the United States?
Is that the argument?
placemark
No. Of course the Constitution must be adhered to. I just don’t believe in the “two citizen parents = natural born citizen” argument.
And neither does the Supreme Court, the rest of the legal system, any conservative legal organizations, or any major conservative politician.
Whose judgement do you suggest we leave it to?
Certainly not yours...that’s why our founder’s established the country as a NATION OF LAWS, not men. If you don’t follow the U.S. Constitution then you are not following the law, despite the best intentions of those who pass judgement.
So when the Supreme Court reaffirms Ankeny and WKA, are we still a nation of laws?
Question for you - I am trying to figure out who first advanced the two parents definition - was it Leo Defronio? I know his name is associated with the idea but was he the first?
No. Of course the Constitution must be adhered to. I just don’t believe in the “two citizen parents = natural born citizen” argument.
And neither does the Supreme Court, the rest of the legal system, any conservative legal organizations, or any major conservative politician.
Here’s 2 conservative organizations for you...
Van Irion / Liberty Legal Foundation
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/
Larry Klayman / Freedom Watch
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/cases
I guess Alan Keyes was not a major conservative politician...
When did you join FR?
Why do you think the big ones like the Federalist Society and the Landmark Legal Foundation are silent on the issue?
Keyes claimed there is “persuasive evidence” that Obama was born in Kenya in 1961. And no - I personally don't consider Keyes a major conservative politician. When was last relevant on the political scene - he has been silent for a long time.
January 28th, 2012
What about anchor babies?
I mean, if we are going to allow one US citizen parent = natural born then why stop there? Really. Let the people be the judge as you stated. Why not just say, born on US soil = natural born?
I know what you are saying about the SCOTUS, legal system, etc.. and yes, it seems they are on your side on this issue.
I am not saying I agree with it, and I believe they need to address this issue once and for all, but I concede your point.
Does inaction on behalf of these authorities make it law? Do you personally believe this issue needs to be resolved?
Born on US soil = natural born is the present definition of natural born citizen. And when it comes Presidential eligibility I have no problem with it.
The anchor baby problem is a different issue because it is linked to illegal immigration. For that reason alone I would support a Constitutional amendment to prevent the children of people in the country illegally from becoming citizens. It would reduce illegal immigration and save us billions in tax dollars.
You mean like the when the authorities denied their rights and oppressed black people? Yeah, Democrats show up in the strangest places of authority sometimes.
Here on Free Republic too.
Alien Insurrection from planet fogbow!
Got tired of hanging out with like minds at fogbow?
The moms role? Drag him to Indonesia for several years, then park him at home with his Grandparents to raise him. (After they adopted him for obvious legal reasons.) Yeah, she did a bang up Job raising barry.
What’s wrong with judging each man or women individually solely on their character and actions? We don’t have to lay the sins of the parents on their children.
It is not about the sins of the parents, it is about compliance with what the law says. It says you have to be 35 years old. 34 won't do, despite the character and actions. it says you must have lived in this nation for 14 years. 13.5 is not enough, despite your character and actions. It also says you must be a "natural born citizen." Being born as both an English citizen and an American citizen at the same time is NOT a natural born citizen, and therefore you do not fit the explicit requirements of the law. No amount of Character or Actions will change the fact that someone doesn't fit the requirements.
Leave it to the judgement of the American people.
Yes, that worked out well this last time around.
It is my own personal opinion that anyone who has ever voted for a Democrat for President ought to be excluded from voting because they are either incurably insane, or irrationally stupid.
I would settle for non-government-paid taxpayers. That would take out a HUGE swath of their voters.
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.