Skip to comments.Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen
Posted on 02/03/2012 2:19:38 PM PST by GregNH
We just spoke with plaintiff Kevin Powell and he reports Judge Malihi has ruled against the Plaintiffs and stated in his order that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore Obama is a natural born Citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Oh, brother... Really? God, that's pathetic. I don't even think a facepalm .jpg would be effective in conveying the idiocy of what you just wrote.
Yes. No doubt in my mind.
I would think they would remain silent on this issue in case they need to rule on it in the future.
"Why are major conservative legal organizations silent on the matter?"
Fear, and cowardice.
The idiot is the person who thinks someone would know everything about a document which encompasses a wide array of legal principles and have specific knowledge of a tiny little ambiguous jot of it that has been mostly forgotten for the last 200 years.
What makes you think Judge Roberts understands the 1787 meaning of the term of art "natural born citizen"? He is a product of the legal system, and as a result of this has many bad understandings of the law baked into his education.
Every since Roosevelt and Truman stacked the court system with liberal kooks for 20 years, the legal system has been full of idiots teaching kooky law.
This topic cannot be understood correctly without looking at the original source material, and I dare say few people have ever bothered to do it. Judge Roberts is very likely not among them. Obviously, since you can assert such a stupid thing as you just said, you also are very unlikely to have reviewed the source material, and are therefore probably waxing loud in your ignorance, and would be better served if you just shut up.
I’m pretty sure George Washington is a birther. Looks like you just paid a number of us on this thread (and others) a compliment. Insult fail-
I'm sure they can expound for hours on the beauty of the Commerce Clause, or how wonderful is the Freedom of Speech, or perhaps write an entire dissertation regarding the 14th amendments application of Federal restraint to the states, etc. because those are areas which are in the mainstream of constitutional study and thinking.
On the other hand, the meaning of "natural born citizen" is a tiny little backwater, little visited in case law or history, and survives more as a curiosity than as a focus of constitutional study. Without specific and rigorous study of this aspect of Constitutional law, a person will not grasp it's original purpose or meaning.
Only an IDIOT would not know this. Back to you.
Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you appreciate just how silly you sound? It's OK to admit that perhaps you were wrong - self honesty is a conservative value.
So an IT consultant is a Constitutional scholar in your world? I can see your problem.
They were IGNORANT of the two parent requirement of "natural citizenship", as are most people. Apparently Wong Kim Ark has convinced most of the legal profession that mere birth in the boundaries makes one a "natural" citizen, even though it didn't apply to Slaves or Indians till after the 14th amendment (1868) and the Indian Citizenship act(1924) respectively.
How people could ignore such glaring exceptions can only be explained by the herd mentality.
You are an idiot for thinking they know it completely and in it's entirety. Especially as regards those three little words. The backstory on that term of art is MASSIVE. Without specifically studying THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, a person will remain ignorant of the correct understanding, and that includes Federal Judges.
Just to demonstrate what I am talking about, You would think that if Jesus Christ were specifically mentioned in the US Constitution, most people would be aware of it. The Fact is, Most people are NOT aware of it. It is an oversight to most people, as is the correct meaning of "natural born citizen."
Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you appreciate just how silly you sound?
When imparting wisdom takes on the resemblance of casting pearls before swine, the swine will often think to themselves "how silly!"
It's OK to admit that perhaps you were wrong - self honesty is a conservative value.
It is not okay to wax on in ignorance, and lying to yourself is NOT a conservative value.
All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihis Decision that Putative President Obama Is a Natural Born Citizen
I think they were standing at the time. I'll have to check the videos from inauguration day to determine if they were prostrate, seated or standing at that exact moment of infamy.
You think they are that cowardly and craven? I disagree. "
What did you expect them to do?
So you honestly think they made their decisions based on ignorance? That there can be no other alternative? Are you even willing to entertain the notion that they in fact do understand the NBC very well and simply came to a different conclusion then you?
I would have expected them to raise the issue well before the inauguration. I would expect them to privately raise the issue with their conservative legal colleagues to generate a public groundswell. I would not expect them to roll over and ignore their oath to the Constitution.
Who in the entire legal system do you have faith in?
I see you are unable to process logical information. I doubt my assistance in solving your current confusion is going to help you long term, but here it is.
No, an IT consultant does not equate to a Constitutional scholar, but that isn't the salient point anyway. You asked why so many conservative intellectuals were avoiding the issue,(or some such) and the essay at the link offers a very good explanation as to why this is so.
The answer to the question you asked is "Cascade" and "Herd Mentality." Please try to keep up with the task of matching your questions to my answers.
Now that being said, an IT degree does not preclude someone from being a constitutional scholar, especially if they chose to be an expert on one particular aspect of it, such as the meaning of "natural born citizen."
There are those of us that have studied THAT particular aspect of the US Constitution six ways to Sunday, and even now we are still seeing the discover of new information regarding it.
“but the Legal system is virtually united on their misunderstanding of the law. They can’t even comprehend the argument against it. “
The entire legal community can’t be wrong while a few non-lawyers have it right. The answer is right in front of you. It’s the simple answer, not the complicated, contorted arguments of Taitz, Apuzzo and Donogrio. The Chief Justice would not have sworn in someone who is not eligible.
Wong Kim Ark, Ankeny and Malihi decisions are unbeatable. It’s time to accept the courts have decided based on the correct interpretation of the Constitution and the Law. The decision in Wong points to the 14th amendment: there are only two kinds of citizen in the US - natural-born and naturalized. A person who is born here is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be President. Simple. Straight-forward. Direct. No contorted explanations meant to exclude people who might not have been considered citizens before the 14th amendment. No analysis of pdf’s and halos or stamp, stamp, stamp. No cherry-picking of books, articles, or dissenting side of SC opinions.
Barack Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in Honolulu on Aug 4, 1961. Stipulated to by the plaintiffs in Georgia. It’s time to accept he’s eligible to be the President, that he IS the President. He might even get re-elected. Instead of spending any more energy on incorrect legal interpretations that fail every time, it’s probably time to support Obama’s opponent in the election and get him out of the White House the old-fashioned way: beat him at the ballot box.
It’s a stretch to claim Article VII, the subscription clause, where they wrote the date as “year of our Lord” is the Founders specifically mentioning Jesus.
I think they are avoiding the issue because they disagree with you. Because you are wrong. “Cascade” and “Herd Mentality “ are the typical rationalizations that any group that finds themselves consistently on the losing side cling to.
Any argument that English common law has no bearing on American legal traditions is demolished by the fact that millions of legal decisions in US courts have cited common law, and yet are held as valid and binding.
But English Common Law is not applicable to THIS issue: the Founders understanding of “natural born subject” (NBS) and by extension, natural born citizenship. English “common law” musing about NBS status were made obsolete in 1730, by the British Nationality Act of 1730. Acts of Parliament trump common law. The American Revolution started in 1775. The Constitution was written in 1787. The Founders’ thoughts on NBS arguably might have been influenced by the British Nationality Acts of 1730 and 1772, but not by common law.
If sophists want to persist with appeals to British law, then Obama loses, since English citizenship law that had superceded common law for 57 years by the time of the Constitutional Convention, stated that NBS was conveyed based on the citizenship of the FATHER only. This train of thought ends with Obama Jr as a British NBS, not an American nbc.
Wholely academic issue at this point, since power and politics have displaced logic and facts.
They didn't make any sort of "decision." To assert that they did would imply that they had weighed the facts of something. They simply floated along with the rest of the Country in Ignorance of a discontinuity.
That there can be no other alternative? Are you even willing to entertain the notion that they in fact do understand the NBC very well and simply came to a different conclusion then you?
No, because such a notion requires the rejection of all the historical evidence which has been accumulated on this issue. Occam's razor dictates that the far simpler explanation is the more probable.
That they could so blatantly ignore relevant documents and precedent can only be explained by a lack of knowledge regarding them. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they are unaware of the historical support for the Two Parent requirement.
Again I point out. Indians were "born" here, but were not even CITIZENS, let alone "natural born citizen" until 1924. Slaves were "born here" but they also were NOT CITIZENS until 1868.
You can twist it any way you want, but these two GLARING EXCEPTIONS demonstrate that being "born here" is NOT the defining characteristic of a Natural born citizen, or the Slaves and Indians would have been "natural born citizens" from the very beginning.
He who does not like getting burned should not light matches.
Oh, brother... Really? God, that's pathetic. I don't even think a facepalm .jpg would be effective in conveying the idiocy of what you just wrote.
Apuzzo nails it.
You must not be familiar with the last Supreme Court decision regarding Roe v Wade in which Sandra Day O'Conner (issuing the opinion for the majority) said "Stare Decisis." In case you are unfamiliar with it, it is a legal term which means "Shut the F*** up! Our ridiculous decision is FINAL, and we don't have to explain or justify it!"
Who in the entire legal system do you have faith in?
None of them. I have a little less cynicism regarding the 4 conservative judges, but I do not believe their primary concern is accuracy in apply constitutional law. They will do what they can, but their answer to Unseating the first black President? "Lord, let this cup pass from me."
Of course they are, Drew! Dual citizens can be president!
And that's a good thing. If I buy stocks from companies in another country and get a dual citizen in the presidency from that country, I can make some serious money.
Mr. Odinga in Kenya must be skimming billions of our aid that his cousin sends to him. Its a good deal. We borrow from the Chinese, pay interest on the loan, and send it to Obama’s cousin. Where's the problem?
Since Feb 4, 2012
You reek of obot.
He will never be my President.
I am sorry I disagree with you. No reason to take it personally. I don’t.
Disregard - got my threads mixed up. Sorry.
Yes, when the Entire world believes the World is flat, Columbus cannot be correct.* When the Entire World has decided that the Earth is in fact round, and at the center of the Universe, Galileo must be wrong when he says that it is not. When the ENTIRE Scientific community says that Light is carried by Ether waves, the Albert Einstein must be mistaken when he says that it is not.
The answer is right in front of you. Its the simple answer, not the complicated, contorted arguments of Taitz, Apuzzo and Donogrio. The Chief Justice would not have sworn in someone who is not eligible.
Wong Kim Ark, Ankeny and Malihi decisions are unbeatable. Its time to accept the courts have decided based on the correct interpretation of the Constitution and the Law.
If this interpretation is correct, then why were Slaves and Indians not citizens? They were "born here" and they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", so why were THEY not citizens? When you learn to think for yourself, get back with me.
* This is a common misunderstanding of the facts. Many people believed the world to be round at this time, (1492) but this fiction is widely repeated (as is the belief that being born here makes you a "natural" citizen) and so serves the purpose of my point.
Who was being mentioned then?
Trying to get people to use their energy in a way that might actually accomplish the goal is “obot”?
The answer isn’t in the courts. It’s time to change strategy or have Obama for another 4 years.
“- self honesty is a conservative value.”
Aren’t we lucky to have Harlan1196 who signed up Jan. 28, 2012
explain conservative values to us?
Thank goodness he/she has arrived.
Oh, so NOW you claim to understand the answer? No more confusion about the "constitutional scholar" crap eh?
Given how erratic is your ability to follow the conversation up till now, I see no reason to trust your judgement as to anything else.
When you can explain to me why Slaves and Indians were not always "natural born citizens" then I might be interested in your opinion.
And all those insults directed at me - do they reflect conservative values?
I understand the values I embrace daily - I see nothing wrong with sharing them with you. You can take them or leave them.
Geeze, will you people never figure this sh*t out? Here is what James Madison (Father of the Constitution, you may have heard of him) had to say about this exact point.
The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions [of the several States] equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. [Virginia] drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committee of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
Your argument has been demolished. Take it out and place it on the trash bin.
Having a dual citizen president give us many benefits.
Just think of all the dollars we can borrow and then give away to “Home Countries” such as Kenya or Indonesia.
We can also bind our security to other nations.
I just don't see a down side to this, Drew, do you? Are these people all nuts or what?
Hey, I like going to work and having my president take a cut and send it to his home country. I'm fine fine with that. His people deserve some of my labor.
Why is everyone bitching about this Drew?
No - I understood the argument, I just rejected it as the ramblings of an IT consultant playing Constitutional scholar. It is a compelling argument only to the true believers.
Again, My apologies. In my rush to get out of here I have become careless.
“If this interpretation is correct, then why were Slaves and Indians not citizens? They were “born here” and they were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, so why were THEY not citizens? When you learn to think for yourself, get back with me. “
When you learn to read, try again. Slaves were considered property, and the Indians were discussed in WKA:
The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a “person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the clause in question.
That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was
not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;
that, by the Constitution, as originally established, “Indians not taxed” were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives in Congress and direct taxes were apportioned among the [p681] several States, and Congress was empowered to regulate commerce not only “with foreign nations” and among the several States, but “with the Indian tribes;” that the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes and were not part of the people of the United States; that the alien and dependent condition of the members of one of those tribes could not be put off at their own will without the action or assent of the United States, and that they were never deemed citizens except when naturalized, collectively or individually, under explicit provisions of a treaty, or of an act of Congress; and therefore that
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
And it was observed that the language used in defining citizenship in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, was “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 112 U.S. 99-103.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Woods, dissenting, were of opinion that the Indian in question, having severed himself from his tribe and become a bona fide resident of a State, had thereby become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, in reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, said:
Beyond question, by that act, national citizenship was conferred directly upon all persons in this country, of whatever race (excluding only “Indians not taxed”), who were born within [p682] the territorial limits of the United States, and were not subject to any foreign power.
And that view was supported by reference to the debates in the Senate upon that act, and to the ineffectual veto thereof by President Johnson in which he said:
By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is, by the bill, made a citizen of the United States.
112 U.S. 1114.
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
“You can do this the easy way or the hard way, but either way you’re doing this our way.”
Yes, they would be winning if they were just more polite.
I have, on the other hand, the opposite view. We might be winning if we behaved more like offended Muslims. Nothing like a good head chopping to get people to keep things in perspective.
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.