Posted on 02/05/2012 2:16:29 AM PST by edge919
Looks like you were right about the approval:
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?l=100450406112
“A year ago, the ABA committee vetted Mercer University law professor Daisy Hurst Floyd for the opening, but Obama didn’t nominate her. Now the administration finds itself without a nominee at the start of an election year, historically a tricky time for getting a judicial pick through the Senate.”
The plaintiffs were offered a default ruling. They turned it down, insisting that evidence be submitted and the case be decided on the merits.
The case was not decide on it's merits.
I don't know. Not a lawyer. If I were I probably still would not know. But if we watch the actions of SOS Kemp we may soon know if he thinks an appeal will fail.
When you offer "expert" witnesses, they need to have some credentials. The law is pretty clear on this. Orly's "experts" had no qualifications other than the willingness to say what people wanted to hear.
So they presented their evidence , the Defendents didn’t even make a showing and the Judge decided against the plaintiffs.
Makes sense to someone I see.
“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”Donofrio goes on about that quote, and the trickery engaged in by Arthur:
This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.Chester A Arthur's Dad did DID become an officially naturalized US Citizen, but only after Chester was born. THAT is what Chester hid.On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.
In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman.
See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/
>>...So if I understand the ruling correctly, all these children after attaining the age of 35 and having resided in the US for a period of 14 years are eligible to hold the office of POTUS...<<
It would depend upon how one defines “Natural-Born-Citizen” as it appears in Art.II. Is it defined the way it was commonly held and accepted during the time of the framing of our Constitution -or- do you define it as a few judges in clear defiance of common-sense have done?
My point: The courts could legalistically re-define anything commonly-held today (ie: “marriage”). It does not make it true outside of the courtroom in the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately, too many of us (citizens and politicians) accept court rulings that defy common-sense at face value out of some perverted belief that the courts are superior and infallible. Hence, there’s not much we can realistically do about it.
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
From the DISSENT of WKA...that would be the LOSING side.
I had read what you quoted before.
I was simply excerpting the footnotes in the case as cited in the Indiana Appeals court.
Not being an attorney I am often corrected about things that seemed clear to me that by the law were incorrect.
Question?
With all the brilliant legal minds in the U.S., why has no one come forward with a solution to uncovering Obozo’s hidden past?
We all know it is out there, but removed from private view.
I did understand that your post was wholly quotes from the GA Administrative Judge’s opinion.
MacKay answered that in 1841. See http://www.econlib.org/library/Mackay/macEx.html
The chapters labeled “11. The Slow Poisoners” and “14. Popular Admiration of Great Thieves” seem apt, but the whole work is an education.
Yes, an excellent read:
“Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm
I first read it in a library up in KS during a long weekend alone during a business trip.
Tried to find a hard copy but was unsuccessful. Finally found it on project Gutenberg.
U.S./?? dual citizens worldwide are nodding yes to this Georgia decision.
Maybe my dual citizenship brother-in-law will move back to the US and become POTUS someday like Obama. I’m gonna advise he become a constitutional lawyer so his qualifications are clear. /s
I think he will put Obama on the ballot. He punted his decision to the court inferring he would stand by its recommendation. He is off the hook and now has cover by giving weight to the Maliki decision.
This would permanently fracture the Democrat party and cripple their electoral college strategy.
Stripping the Democrats of California electoral college votes would be huge. We just need a Mexican with an American BC. He could appeal to all Mexicans in his native language with promises to cede California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to Mexico. If the rules have changed, we need play by them. So be it.
The problem is that this does NOT follow the legal precedents that were cited. The Supreme Court only used English common law to prop up the 14th amendment, not to define natural-born citizenship. That had already been exclusively and decisively defined in Minor v. Happersett. That unanimous decision made it clear that natural-born citizenship was outside the province of Congress. This was the question that Ankeny said was left open, but was in reality, fully addressed by the Minor court. A 20th century nationality act is irrelevant. It does not and cannot override the Constitution.
Rogers, you’ve got a major problem when the dissent is the only thing that comes close to saying what you want the Wong Kim Ark decision to say. Fuller is not talking about anything in the majority opinion. He’s only speaking in historical terms, which is true. Fuller also lamented that children born abroad to citizens would NOT be citizens according to the 14th amendment because they weren’t naturalized in the United States. Nothing in the majority opinion says ANYTHING about either of these issues. We can only go by what it says, not what you want it to say.
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.