The key word being "skilled".
Posted on 02/05/2012 11:36:44 PM PST by edge919
I just discovered this news release and hadn't seen it reported elsewhere. Our honorable Judge Malihi evidently has a tradition of being overruled by the Secretary of State. Could history repeat itself ... or maybe like the Obots have claimed, this judge is incompetent???
June 7, 2000: Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox today ruled that House District 29 candidate Randy Sauder will remain on the ballot as a Democratic candidate in the 2000 General Primary and General Elections. In an order signed today Ms. Cox ruled against a challenge to Rep. Sauder’s candidacy brought by petitioner Marston H. Tuck.
Secretary of State Cox rejected state administrative law judge (ALJ) Michael Malihi’s initial decision in the Sauder matter, which procedurally serves as a recommendation to Secretary Cox, the state’s chief elections official. Ms. Cox found flawed the ALJ’s interpretation of Georgia election law governing the qualification process for candidates, and endorsed the opinion and guidance of Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker.
She gives several points of law as to why she rejected the ALJ's decision. This one really stood out:
"First, accepting the view of the ALJ would mean that a candidate can determine his or her own qualifications ... "
Is this not deja vu all over again??
However, the purpose of any Resolution in the House or Senate is much like a Preamble, explaining law or legal findings or legislation that happens later or after said resolution.
The Senate and the House both have every right, in fact a duty, to interpret the Constitution, and they did so. Yes, it carries weight, and might even be used in Court references in the future, as an explanation of “intent”.
Did you try checking the sites that have bios for judges etc using the Wayback Machine? Maybe the took info off recently?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2118690/posts?page=1#1
OBAMA: Harvard Law Class Photos Missing
Harvard University Library ^ | 29 Oct. 2008 | self
Posted on Thursday, 30 October 2008 4:31:36 AM by Fort McCain
A search of the Harvard University Library digital image collection appears to reveal that group pictures of graduate students from 1988 through 2003 are missing from the collection. Obama was in the graduating class of 1991.
Link to search results:
However, Obama is shown in this picture, of the Harvard Law Review for 1990-91. He’s in the center. This is the only record in the database the comes up using the string “Obama”.
(see image at link)
Wasn't it a red herring that was used to try to divert the hounds onto a false path?
Hmm, I just tried checking J. Malihi’s bio, only one snapshot, in 2010, and just as nothing as now. I’ve hardly ever used the Wayback so maybe there are more sophistacted methods of using it.
You Obots can't seem to make up your mind. The common law is the ONLY thing that would make your Connecticut citation make any sense since it only talks about "natural-born Subjects." This country has citizens.
You would also see that the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, makes clear that citizenship issues, post Constitution, were still not clear-cut.
Right, but in the end he acknowledges both jus soli AND jus sanguinis criteria.
Duh, now I read to the end of the blog, author already tried the WM.
Give it up, phil. You need to just lie back, relax and bask in the warm glow that is Kansas58's obviously superior intellect. /s
Just out of curiosity, are you accusing me of planting a red herring? I was the only one that I know of who thought his name might be Hawaiian. I brought up the thought because the name sounds Hawaiian and I was wondering.
Please let me know for sure if you are accusing me of try to lead people astray here.
current page for Harvard Law Student Groups.
Bad link?
Not you...another poster iirc. Twice.
Thanks for clearing it up.
I was the only one that I know of who thought his name might be Hawaiian.
I don't see how you can say that today since I showed you the other day that somebody else was saying it. That is @you next to the "To", isn't it?
And that person may have been just as sincere as you and was asking an innocent question out of nothing more than curiosity.
First, I do not support Obama in any way.
I argue with you Birthers because I truly believe you are a serious threat to Constitutional Conservatism.
Next, though I have used the term “Common Law” frequently, we all seem to, the serious debates over Common Law definitions do make a distinction between English Common Law and the Common Law of the States.
It seems, by all accounts I have read, that the Founders paid particular attention to English Common Law which is close, if not identical, to my current understanding of Citizenship issues.
Also, the point must be made that, through the extensive recorded history of the Constitutional Convention, I have not been able to find, and many others have commented that they have not been able to find, even ONE mention of Vattel or the teachings of Vattel regarding Citizenship.
Can you please cite ONE statement, by any member of the Constitutional Convention, or any members of our first Congress, that supports your odd, unusual interpretation of Citizenship?
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth.
I can find several Founders who state that point, either directly or in so many words.
Please give us the name of ONE PERSON who had legal authority, as an early President or an early member of Congress, who supports your views, would you please?
Your mind is much quicker than mine is right now. I hadn’t clicked the links and just was going on my memory of bringing up the Haw’n sound.
My bad.
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.