Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Georgia Obama eligibility decision: legally incorrect and ethically indefensible
Coach is Right ^ | 1/09/2012 | Doug Book

Posted on 02/09/2012 9:10:05 AM PST by Oldpuppymax

On February 3rd a much anticipated decision was issued by Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi, recommending that Secretary of State Brian Kemp allow Barack Hussein Obama to appear on the state ballot as a candidate for President.

Given previous rulings by Judge Malihi in the Obama case, many had assumed things might go badly for the acting president.

Yet the judge’s 10 page decision could hardly have done more to accommodate defendant Obama and his attorney, especially in light of their having ignored court orders, subpoenas and the hearing itself.

And many of those who have reviewed Judge Malihi’s decision find it to be supported by neither fact nor law.

Of the statements made by the judge in his decision, the following are among the most objectionable to legal observers:

1.) “This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.” (1) p3

In actuality there was NO evidence “presented at the hearing,” in response to subpoenas or submitted pre-trial upon which Judge Malihi could base his decision, as Barack Obama provided nothing, either in documentary or verbal form. Yet Malihi states “the following FACTS are considered: 1.) Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2.) Mr. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth…” (my caps) (1) p6

From what evidence placed in the court record did Malihi obtain these “facts?” No one seems to know.

2.) “The Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny [sic] persuasive.” (1) p7

Ankeny (misspelled throughout the decision by Malihi) was a 2009, Indiana case brought by two plaintiffs who claimed Obama was not qualified to be president on the same grounds as used by at least one plaintiff in the Georgia case...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: barackobama; georgiaeligibility; michaelmalihi; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 02/09/2012 9:10:22 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

ping


2 posted on 02/09/2012 9:13:00 AM PST by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Maybe you misspell Arkeny to let the rest of the world know you’ve got a gun to your head and either way, your signature or your brains will be on that ruling.


3 posted on 02/09/2012 9:17:26 AM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
Given previous rulings by Judge Malihi in the Obama case, many had assumed things might go badly for the acting president.

I can't imagine anyone of any intelligence believing that the ruling would have been any different from the one that Malihi handed down last Friday.

4 posted on 02/09/2012 9:19:17 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Reminds me of Reba’s words.

He was on his way home from candletop
Been two weeks gone and he thought he’d stop
At webs and have him a drink for he went home to her
Andy wo-lo said hello
He said hi what’s a doing
Wo said sit down I got some bad news that’s gonna hurt
Said Im your best friend and you know that’s right
But your young bride aint home tonight
Since you been gone she’s been seeing that amos boy seth
He got mad and he saw red
Andy said boy don’t you lose your head
Cause to tell you the truth Ive been with her myself

Andy got scared and left the bar
Walking on home cause he didn’t live far you see
Andy didn’t have many friends and he just lost him one
Brother thought his wife mustve left town
So he went home and finally found the only thing
Daddy had left him and that was a gun
He went off to andys house
Slipping through the back woods quiet as a mouse
Came upon some tracks too small for andy to make
He looked through the screen at the back porch door
He saw andy lying on the floor
In a puddle of blood and he started to shake

The georgia patrol was making their rounds
So he fired a shot just to flag em down
And a big bellied sheriff grabbed his gun and said
Whyd you do it?

The judge said guilty in a make believe trial
Slapped the sherrif on the back with a smile and said
Suppers waiting at home and I got to get to it

They hung my brother before I could say
The tracks he saw while on his way
To andys house and back that night were mine
And his cheatin wife had never left town
And that’s one body thatll be found
You see little sister don’t miss when she aims her gun

That’s the night the lights went out in georgia
That’s the night that they hung an innocent man
Don’t trust your soul to no back woods southern lawyer
Cause the judge in the towns got bloodstains on his hand


5 posted on 02/09/2012 9:21:43 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
"...for wherever violence is used, and injury done, though by hands appointed to administer justice, it is still violence and injury, however coloured with the name, pretences, or forms of law...war is made upon the sufferers, who having no appeal on earth to right them, they are left to the only remedy in such cases, an appeal to heaven."
-John Locke
6 posted on 02/09/2012 9:27:31 AM PST by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html

The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/

James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives


7 posted on 02/09/2012 9:30:08 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
From what evidence placed in the court record did Malihi obtain these “facts?” No one seems to know.

On the contrary. It has been pointed out several times. One of the attorneys entered a copy of 0bama's birth certificate into evidence, using it to support that BHO Sr. wasn't a citizen. None of the other attorneys present objected.

8 posted on 02/09/2012 9:39:36 AM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

You are right.

Anyone with a brain knew the “fix” was in.


9 posted on 02/09/2012 9:39:41 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey

If this country is to be saved, it will be “ the appeal to heaven” that saves it. Nothing else has the power to overcome the great evil that is about.


10 posted on 02/09/2012 9:39:55 AM PST by Josephat (The old claim your evengelizing people who haven't heard the gospel, but go to a Catholic country tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

Irion was the only attorney in that case and he presented the evidence. How do you stipulate that the facts in your own evidence are correct? Stipulations are for those who DIDN’T present the evidence, and Obama did not stipulate in court that the facts on the “birth certificate” were accurate. None of the other attorneys were a party in his case so they didn’t even have an opportunity to contest it, as you well know.

Furthermore, where is that birth certificate right now, that Irion submitted? When did Malihi see and feel the seal on it? When did Irion validate the chain of custody - explain how he got that certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate, and who all had had custody of it before him?

Malihi invalidated Orly’s “expert witnesses” because they were not properly certified. And he argued that even a paper copy of a Passport Office document was not legally probative. So tell me what steps either Irion or Malihi did to authenticate any birth certificate for Obama that was presented as evidence. Show me in the procedure where the provenance of the document, the custody of it, the authenticating features such as a raised seal, etc were dealt with at that hearing.


11 posted on 02/09/2012 9:54:34 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Judge Malihi’s ruling in this case sets a VERY, VERY, VERY bad legal precedent. He has now paved the way in GOLD and PLATINUM for ANY defendant in a legal proceeding to arrogantly ignore the court’s requirements and walk away with a ruling in their favor.

IOW, the rule of law has been turned on its ear because a defendant NO LONGER has to offer ANY testimony or evidence in order to receive a judgement in their favor.

The way that the law operates in the US is predicated not only on the written laws, but the result of legal proceedings that establish precedents for future cases.

In this one proceeding, the judicial system in America has been trashed and completely dismantled.


12 posted on 02/09/2012 9:54:34 AM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I felt kinda bad before the hearing because I said I had a really bad feeling about what was about to transpire.

And then when the judge said he was going to enter a default judgment I made pineapple cream and coconut cream pie for my family to celebrate that there was an honest judge in America after all.

I think I’ll make another batch of pies so we can vomit them up this time. Like Malihi vomited up justice.


13 posted on 02/09/2012 9:58:23 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

That post should be framed in gold all over the country.

I’ve spent a lot of time wrangling with these lawless critters and feel very confident to say that the lawlessness is so entrenched in EVERY foundation of this country that nothing short of a miracle of God can save us at this point.

The boa is wrapped around this country’s neck and its squeezing already has our eyes bugging out. Unless the Lord sees and has mercy on us, we are dead. We need to repent and beg for a miracle - for a rescue that is beyond anything we could do for ourselves.


14 posted on 02/09/2012 10:03:25 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

Malihi didn’t need probative evidence because his decision was based entirely on “judge’s knowledge”.

Obama is dependent on a sharia ruling in order to even be on the GA ballot.

There is a pattern emerging recently that confirms reports from earlier. I posted about it at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2843995/posts?page=88#88 .


15 posted on 02/09/2012 10:06:12 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

That the complainants would choose the jurisdiction, choose the judge and then insult him after losing the case doesn’t speak all that well of the strength of their case, or the quality of their counsel.


16 posted on 02/09/2012 10:08:07 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

That the complainants would choose the jurisdiction, choose the judge and then insult him after losing the case doesn’t speak all that well of the strength of their case, or the quality of their counsel.


17 posted on 02/09/2012 10:12:00 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Malihi didn’t need probative evidence because his decision was based entirely on “judge’s knowledge”.

One of us is missing the point. Malihi's ruling has the weight of a legal ruling in a court of law and, as such, has established a new legal precedent. We can go back and forth about sharia law and other such topics (which I consider to be strawman arguments), but they have no impact on this ruling.

Even though Malihi is considered an administrative law judge, he is still a member of the judiciary and his rulings have the same effect as that of any other court.

IOW, this isn't about Obama, this is about the obliteration of our judicial system by a judge who ruled in favor of a defendant who neither presented a defense nor bothered to appear as instructed by the court.

18 posted on 02/09/2012 10:20:39 AM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, when you enter a document into evidence, you are agreeing as to its validity unless you state at the time to the contrary. In this situation, Irion was using the certificate to make his case.

So at least one plaintiff agreed to the validity with no objections from the other attorneys present as to the validity of the document. Perhaps one of the freeper lawyers could enlarge upon this?

On the other hand, the rules are that expert witnesses must be certified as expert.


19 posted on 02/09/2012 10:21:53 AM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy

Ankeny is an anagram for “Kenyan”. Things that make you go hmmmmm.


20 posted on 02/09/2012 10:33:07 AM PST by tablelamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

Both points are valid. Malihi just used a sharia standard of evidence (none needed) to give Obama a favorable ruling, which is also bad precedent.

If people realize that it is a ruling allowed by sharia rather than by US judicial standards, it will help people realize where all this is coming from and where it is headed.

Those who have no problem with this legal evidentiary standard are supporting the same kinds of things that sharia has allowed all over the world. This isn’t just some tee-hee stupid “birther” issue. This is about whether we LITERALLY allow judges to make up their own “facts”.

I’ve said elsewhere that in order to bring attention to the ridiculousness of this precedent, Georgians should post birth certificates, driver’s licenses, medical licenses, etc online under the names of Mickey Mouse, Daisy Duck, etc and then show those images on their laptops whenever anybody asks for documentation. If any GA state entity refuses to accept the laptop image the person - under the name they are claiming - should sue GA for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment - for allowing Obama to use a computer image of an alleged vital record but not allowing Daisy Duck to do the same.

So I am not disagreeing with what you’ve said about it being a terrible precedent. I think Malihi should be made to lie in the bed he’s made, so it can be soundly scoffed and nullified.

I’m just expanding on it to say that the evidentiary standard Malihi used is the same one used to stone women to death and steal property from Coptic Christians in Egypt (etc ad nauseum) without any evidence other than “judge’s knowledge”. And if we allow it here - even if in a case that people want to mock, call racist, or whatever - it plants an acorn that WILL grow into that full-blown tree.


21 posted on 02/09/2012 10:33:54 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Why, if Democrat judges have to start relying on laws and ethics to make decisions, that’ll kill the Democrat party. They won’t stand for any of this laws and ethics baloney.


22 posted on 02/09/2012 10:35:20 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

There were no other attorneys in the case. Jablonski was not there, and neither Taitz nor Hatfield were parties to Irion’s case.

The standard for the probative value of a HI document in a state other than HI is that it have the authenticating marks - namely, the raised seal and certifying statement. When in that hearing did Malihi feel the raised seal on Obama’s birth certificate?


23 posted on 02/09/2012 10:36:28 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Josephat
If this country is to be saved, it will be “ the appeal to heaven” that saves it. Nothing else has the power to overcome the great evil that is about.

I feel the same way. I pray every day for divine intervention. The congress is being held hostage by this administration. Something's got to break.

24 posted on 02/09/2012 10:37:04 AM PST by jersey117 (Perry 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
"Anyone with a brain knew the “fix” was in."

There is a pattern of behavior that repeats. The judge is sympathetic, the judge makes supportive statements, the judge sets a future date for the decision. The date arrives and the judge's 'Evil Twin' walks into the court and to the total surprise hands down a ruling that is opposite from everything that the 'Good Twin' said before.

25 posted on 02/09/2012 10:50:21 AM PST by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
If people realize that it is a ruling allowed by sharia rather than by US judicial standards, it will help people realize where all this is coming from and where it is headed.

You are dead on - I missed the point!!!And, your patient (and excellent) explanation makes me understand that not only was Malihi's ruling a bad precedent, his use of sharia evidentiary standards make this an outrageously horrible legal precedent!!!

I’ve said elsewhere that in order to bring attention to the ridiculousness of this precedent, Georgians should post birth certificates, driver’s licenses, medical licenses, etc online under the names of Mickey Mouse, Daisy Duck, etc and then show those images on their laptops whenever anybody asks for documentation. If any GA state entity refuses to accept the laptop image the person - under the name they are claiming - should sue GA for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment - for allowing Obama to use a computer image of an alleged vital record but not allowing Daisy Duck to do the same.

This is BRILLIANT!!!!! I L-O-V-E IT!!!

I have wondered many times here what it will take for America to come to its senses and put a stop to what is happening? Where is our sense of outrage?? And, when are we going to realize that the rot and corruption in our country has reached such a level that we can no longer correct it at the ballot box?? That ship left decades ago!!

If we do not seize the opportunity to retake control of our government, we will regret it to the end of time!!

26 posted on 02/09/2012 11:05:09 AM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - Another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon

It was an obvious set-up.

The Judge ignored his own Subpoena and ignored the fact that the lawyer never bothered to show up.

I can’t helkp but wonder what would happen if you or I ignored a subpoena and had a lawyer that didn’t show up.

I agree that either someone got to the Judge or he played a game with us.

The least that should have happened was the Judge tell the SOS that he could not make a Judgement as there was no defendant to appear, and leave it up to the SOS.


27 posted on 02/09/2012 11:09:35 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

That would be another way that Georgians could bring out the ridiculousness of what just happened: mimic Obama’s behavior and if the result isn’t the same then sue the State of GA for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Some murder case should try it just for kicks, since they’d have nothing to lose anyway. Have people who are subpoenaed just not show up. And then if the judge slaps a contempt charge on anybody, sue them for violating the 14th Amendment.


28 posted on 02/09/2012 11:38:36 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

That would be another way that Georgians could bring out the ridiculousness of what just happened: mimic Obama’s behavior and if the result isn’t the same then sue the State of GA for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Some murder case should try it just for kicks, since they’d have nothing to lose anyway. Have people who are subpoenaed just not show up. And then if the judge slaps a contempt charge on anybody, sue them for violating the 14th Amendment.


29 posted on 02/09/2012 11:39:08 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

“.....The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:....”

Dude (or Dudette/Dude-it, whatever applies), if you were being paid by the hour for your postings on this subject, you will probably among the “One Per-centers” based solely on your posting effort this year.


30 posted on 02/09/2012 11:56:36 AM PST by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Kansas, your Swift link goes to a page on Madison. Swift (if your citation is accurate) is entitled to his opinion. The Supreme Court did NOT cite that opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

And then your Madison quote doesn’t say place of birth is the ONLY criterion of allegiance. It’s probably why in the very next sentence he says “Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.” Birthright and ancestors means that Madison thought jus sanguinis was important as well as place of birth.


31 posted on 02/09/2012 12:05:21 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
You just don't get it.

YOU HAVE NO CASE!

Most conservatives ignore you.

Most conservatives are embarrassed by you.

A few of us are trying to help you face the facts, but you have more love, it seems, for those who refuse to even engage you on this nonsense.

You are wrong. You have had your case eviscerated by legal experts, frequently.

You have absolutely no one on your side, with any authority whatsoever.

However, when this is all pointed out to you, all you do is shoot the messenger.

This is, of course, why you are ignored by the vast majority of conservatives.

32 posted on 02/09/2012 12:09:03 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

The fact that one of the attorneys entered a copy of Obama’s BC into evidence doesn’t mean a thing!! It could have been a crayon drawn BC for all the weight of factual evidence it carried as to Obama having been born in Hawaii!!!! It was NOT an original BC. And as long as originals are said to exist, only they can be presented as proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. At least one of the plaintiff attorneys subpoenaed the original BC and Malihi ruled the subpoena must be honored. Had it been and an original brought to the court as evidence, Malihi could have used it for his factual claim that Obama was born in Hawaii.


33 posted on 02/09/2012 12:12:54 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: edge919
The Madison quote is important PRECISELY because:

1. Madison makes clear, in a case where even radical birthers agree on the Citizenship of the person involved, that more guidance from Congress would be helpful in the definitions of citizenship. In other words, Madison, Father of the Constitution, makes CLEAR that Congress can define BOTH Naturalized and Natural Born CITIZENSHIP!

2.) Madison says, clearly, that we need to go NO FURTHER, in this particular case, than to show that the person in question was born on United States soil.

Madison's opinion is much stronger the writings of Vattel.

Madison KNEW THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS.

The Frenchman, Vattel, can not and would not know the intent of the Founders.

“If birthers could read, they wouldn't be birthers”

34 posted on 02/09/2012 12:15:53 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
It would be the job of the opposition counsel to protest the admission of evidence.

HERE? Your own legal genius submitted the “evidence” so you have no real reason to object.

The Judge was free to accept what was admitted by the petitioner, period, without protest from opposition counsel for Obama, who was not there anyway.

It would have been OBAMA’s job to protest any evidence presented by opposition counsel.

35 posted on 02/09/2012 12:25:57 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Anyone with a brain knew the “fix” was in.

The fix is in for all of the elites. When will all realize that this country is a banana republic.

36 posted on 02/09/2012 12:32:16 PM PST by Digger (If RINO is your selection then failure is your election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
1. Madison makes clear, in a case where even radical birthers agree on the Citizenship of the person involved, that more guidance from Congress would be helpful in the definitions of citizenship. In other words, Madison, Father of the Constitution, makes CLEAR that Congress can define BOTH Naturalized and Natural Born CITIZENSHIP!

Well, no, there's nothing in this passage that says this at all. It's certainly not in the quote you posted.

2.) Madison says, clearly, that we need to go NO FURTHER, in this particular case, than to show that the person in question was born on United States soil.

... which was immediately followed by saying Smith based his claim on his birthright. He later says in the same speech: "If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature." The only ties of nature that made Smith a member of the society was through his parents.

Madison's opinion is much stronger the writings of Vattel. Madison KNEW THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS. The Frenchman, Vattel, can not and would not know the intent of the Founders.

A) Nothing here says anything about natural-born citizenship. B) It shows that Madison was rejecting the common law that would have otherise made Smith a natural-born subject with perpetual allegiance to the crown. C) Madison says only that Smith is a citizen:

So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.

37 posted on 02/09/2012 12:39:14 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
The Judge was free to accept what was admitted by the petitioner, period, without protest from opposition counsel for Obama, who was not there anyway.

The judge said that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs had no probative value, so it would be a contradiction to use that evidence to say Obama was born in Hawaii.

38 posted on 02/09/2012 12:44:08 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
"We need to repent and beg for a miracle - for a rescue that is beyond anything we could do for ourselves.

But you might be surprised what a people can do for themselves when they have the blessings of the Almighty. Perhaps the prayer should be for God to use his people to accomplish when they can't do for themselves.

Just a little matter of including God in on the planning stages.

39 posted on 02/09/2012 12:44:54 PM PST by Eastbound ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jersey117

Maybe we should set a time when all Freepers and their friends and families can all pray the same prayer. We should, perhaps, start with prayer suggestions. Anyone?


40 posted on 02/09/2012 12:52:55 PM PST by Josephat (The old claim your evengelizing people who haven't heard the gospel, but go to a Catholic country tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Learn English.

Madison was making a different point than what I am making.

Madison, in fact, was making the point at that time that more guidance was needed, from Legislative bodies on the matter. (At that time, the States still did have some rights and duties over citizenship matters.)

Madison admits the person in question made a different argument than he would have made, since BIRTHPLACE settled the issue already.

41 posted on 02/09/2012 12:53:41 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

Even as I pray for God to do a miracle I keep doing whatever I can because if God could speak through a donkey then even I can also be used by Him to accomplish His purposes. I know that this donkey could accomplish nothing by herself, though, so the most important ingredient of all is the Lord.


42 posted on 02/09/2012 12:56:29 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tablelamp

thank you tablelamp! very illuminating


43 posted on 02/09/2012 1:01:28 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

So you’re saying that a judge can accept and call probative anything he wants?

Somebody accuses you of murder and makes a photoshop of you with bloody hands and smoldering gun with the dead body. The judge convicts you of murder based on that lone piece of “evidence”. Is that good, according to you?

Because if it is, then you are primed and ready to accept sharia without a blink. You’re already totally bent over into position for what you’re gonna get.

And no, I cannot believe that any “conservative” would say what you’re saying.


44 posted on 02/09/2012 1:02:45 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jersey117

Maybe we should set a time when all Freepers and their friends and families can all pray the same prayer. We should, perhaps, start with prayer suggestions. Anyone?


45 posted on 02/09/2012 1:10:42 PM PST by Josephat (The old claim your evengelizing people who haven't heard the gospel, but go to a Catholic country tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

So if Irion had only presented an online image of the KENYAN birth certificate we’d be rid of Obama right now?

Why or why not?


46 posted on 02/09/2012 1:22:51 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Madison, in fact, was making the point at that time that more guidance was needed, from Legislative bodies on the matter. (At that time, the States still did have some rights and duties over citizenship matters.)

It wasn't about "some rights." He said this was exclusively based on South Carolina's laws and constitution, meaning it had NOTHING to do with the U.S. Constitution.

I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South-Carolina, so far as they can guide us, and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature so far as they are applicable to the present case.
Madison admits the person in question made a different argument than he would have made, since BIRTHPLACE settled the issue already.

He didn't say it was a different argument. He was arguing on behalf of Smith who was being challenged on the basis of NOT being eligible for the House. His challenger, Dr. Ramsey, argued that Smith was a British subject by jus soli reasons. Madison's argument was that Smith's birthright was established by his ancestors who settled the colony and that there was a primary allegiance to the colony or society because.

I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society.

- - -

I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign:

47 posted on 02/09/2012 1:29:31 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
That's the right attitude, butterdezillion! Now stand at the ready until God issues an ultimatum to the Judge. Pray that the judge will see the error of his ways and recant, repent, and recall his turncoat ruling. Expect the best but prepare for the worst.

Where there is no rule of law, the people prevail.

48 posted on 02/09/2012 1:33:39 PM PST by Eastbound ( 3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides; Kansas58
House just let me say this about that ... Kansas58:
Most conservatives ignore you.
Most conservatives are embarrassed by you.
House just let me say this about that ...

I've been with most conservatives, I hang with them all all the time too. Not a one of them is ignoring you. They are ALL proud of you.

49 posted on 02/09/2012 1:35:49 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Oh?

Name one conservative elected official who agrees with you?

Name one conservative leader who agrees with you?

Name a conservative organization which supports your cause?


50 posted on 02/09/2012 1:55:51 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson