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

Skip to comments.

Appeal of Obama eligibility decision filed yesterday
Coach is Right ^ | 1/17/2012 | Doug Book

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 ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: barackobama; certifigate; eligiblitydecision; libertylegal; michaelmalihi; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-317 next last
To: Bud Krieger; Harlan1196

“What about anchor babies?”

According to the WKA decision, the parents need to be in the USA legally:

“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.”

“In amity” means in friendship with the government. The 14th used the phrase: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”. It meant the same thing.

It would be interesting to see a birther try a court case arguing that Obama Sr was either not here in amity (I believe he was deported or encouraged by the US government to leave) or that he was here temporarily at the bidding of a foreign government, and thus did not fall under the WKA ruling:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”


51 posted on 02/17/2012 3:43:44 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Because I accept the logic within WKA concerning the evolution of the British common law term NBS to the American term NBS.

I reject the Vattel argument for many reasons, the big one being that until 2008 no one ever seriously argued that Vattel was used to define American citizenship. I have studied US history for years - lets just say that Vattel is not a name that pops up very often. Show me some serious legal articles in the past 50 years that talk about Vattel and NBC and then we will talk.

52 posted on 02/17/2012 3:44:11 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
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, it was Aristotle. (322 BC, which was 2334 years ago.)

Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?

...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;

...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.

...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;

Look it up yourself. Aristotle, Book 3, Section II, First Sentence.

Of course, the founders would have no knowledge of Aristotle because they were ignorant bumpkins, barely able to do Advanced Mathematics and speak French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew and English. :)

The one person that the Founders HAD certainly read was Emerich de Vattel, and his book "Droit des Gens". (The Founders read French quite well, thank you very much.)

He basically said the same thing as Aristotle.

53 posted on 02/17/2012 4:03:46 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
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.

If I could show you that Barack Obama Sr. was in the United States Illegally, (I can) would that change your mind about Barry's legitimacy?

Barry is the son of an Illegal entrant into the United States.

54 posted on 02/17/2012 4:07:11 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Because I accept the logic within WKA concerning the evolution of the British common law term NBS to the American term NBS.

Did you happen to notice that the Wong Kim Ark court did not discuss the WAR of 1812? The most salient event of the Nation's history after the War of Independence, fought entirely over the issue of what is a "natural born American" and what is a British Subject, and not a single mention of this watershed event in their decision? Forgive me if I favor the opinion that the Court might have missed a few bits and pieces.

I reject the Vattel argument for many reasons, the big one being that until 2008 no one ever seriously argued that Vattel was used to define American citizenship. I have studied US history for years - lets just say that Vattel is not a name that pops up very often. Show me some serious legal articles in the past 50 years that talk about Vattel and NBC and then we will talk.

The last 50 years are not relevant to the point. Only the First 50 years are. That is when people certainly KNEW what the term meant. I can show you serious legal articles, but most of them are 90 years old or older. I could show you one recent article by a well known Constitutional Legal Scholar that says a "natural born citizen" has two American Parents, but you probably won't find it convincing, seeing as how your mind seems to be fixed on the common fallacy.

If you want to look at stuff that disproves your belief, I can show you dozens of things. But for now, I would like to show you the opinions of two Highly respected Conservative Commentators and Scholars regarding this issue.

George Will

And

Ann Coulter.

55 posted on 02/17/2012 4:22:32 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Buffoons on display!

You have no case.

Therefore, no reasonable, knowledgeable attorney will help you.

None of you know what you are talking about, but you insult and flame anyone who tries to point out how futile and ridiculous you look!


“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: 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

56 posted on 02/17/2012 4:31:40 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Loosen your kneepads, obamanoid.


57 posted on 02/17/2012 4:32:24 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Nothing will change the mind of an obamnoid working FR for sh!ts and giggles don’tchaknow.


58 posted on 02/17/2012 4:33:45 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Bud Krieger
Your question is silly.

Charles Manson
BTK
The Una-Bomber

They could all have children who might, some day, be President by your odd logic!

The VOTERS need to prevent such things, quit looking for some magic wand, to do it for you!

59 posted on 02/17/2012 4:37:17 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196; All

My Senator, Jerry Moran, thinks that simple, majority vote legislation can fix the anchor-baby problem.

“— subject to the jurisdiction thereof” -—

If an illegal immigrant couple crosses our border, from Mexico, and then they decide to split up, after having a child in the United States -—

What American Court will decide custody of that child?

Is that child truly subject to full “Jurisdiction” of American law?

I think not.

Congress should define those rules, Congress has every right to define those terms, under the law.


60 posted on 02/17/2012 4:44:02 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196; All

My Senator, Jerry Moran, thinks that simple, majority vote legislation can fix the anchor-baby problem.

“— subject to the jurisdiction thereof” -—

If an illegal immigrant couple crosses our border, from Mexico, and then they decide to split up, after having a child in the United States -—

What American Court will decide custody of that child?

Is that child truly subject to full “Jurisdiction” of American law?

I think not.

Congress should define those rules, Congress has every right to define those terms, under the law.


61 posted on 02/17/2012 4:44:02 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196; All

My Senator, Jerry Moran, thinks that simple, majority vote legislation can fix the anchor-baby problem.

“— subject to the jurisdiction thereof” -—

If an illegal immigrant couple crosses our border, from Mexico, and then they decide to split up, after having a child in the United States -—

What American Court will decide custody of that child?

Is that child truly subject to full “Jurisdiction” of American law?

I think not.

Congress should define those rules, Congress has every right to define those terms, under the law.


62 posted on 02/17/2012 4:44:07 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Answer these questions, please:

1. Did anyone prove Obama’s eligibility in the Irion case? If so, what probative evidence of eligibility was entered into the record?

2. Did anyone prove Obama’s eligibility in the Hatfiled case? If so, what probative evidence of eligibility was entered into the record?

3. Did anyone prove Obama’s eligibility in the Taitz case? If so, what probative evidence of eligibility was entered into the record?

4. If any of these attorneys had entered into the record the online Kenyan birth certificate and it remained uncontested by Obama since he and his attorney both showed contempt for the court and didn’t even show up, would Malihi have HAD to accept it as probative? Why or why not?

5. Why did Malihi ignore both Hatfield’s motion to have the burden of proof determined, and all the attorneys’ motions to have Malihi certify the record so that a different judge could decide whether Obama and his lawyer were guilty of contempt of court? If Malihi was negligent on those things, why should we trust that he acted in good faith in ANY of his dealings?

Let’s skip the childish taunts and just get down to the facts of this case. I’ve cited the statutes, rules of evidence, etc, and the only argument your “side” seems to come up with is, “You’re stupid.” Really, really childish way of side-stepping the substantial issues.

And after having looked at your profile, I hope you realize that being part of the Republican establishment doesn’t give you a lot of street cred on this issue at all. The R establishment has trampled the Constitution in so many ways it’s not even funny. Politicians are bought and sold just like slaves used to be bought and sold. You may consider it a real winning point that the politicians and judges have mocked and/or ignored this issue, but for those of us who are aware of all the fraud and how complicit our supposed “public servants” are in all the fraud, that fact is just proof that our government needs a good housecleaning.


63 posted on 02/17/2012 4:54:44 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
George Will and Ann Coulter BOTH think that the Birther arguments are silly.

You do realize this fact, don't you?

64 posted on 02/17/2012 4:57:21 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
George Will and Ann Coulter BOTH think that the Birther arguments are silly.

You do realize this fact, don't you?

65 posted on 02/17/2012 4:57:25 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I can't stand Obama.

However, I won't stand by and let stupidity go unchallenged.

The Birthers have NO CASE and are represented by legal morons.

66 posted on 02/17/2012 4:59:44 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I can't stand Obama.

However, I won't stand by and let stupidity go unchallenged.

The Birthers have NO CASE and are represented by legal morons.

67 posted on 02/17/2012 4:59:44 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
Actually, I LIKE most of your questions and I really do wish that someone would ask Obama these things.

However, the questions that would hurt Obama the most, politically, will NEVER be asked because the other Birther stuff, like this NBC stuff, is drowning out the more important questions about Obama’s past.

68 posted on 02/17/2012 5:04:33 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

America is a common law country - the only thing that matters is the case law.

Lets talk about American law.


69 posted on 02/17/2012 6:13:44 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Your analogy of my question is silly.

There is a distinct difference between electability and eligibility.

My question was solely focused on eligibility.

Any offspring of any ( name your sycopath ) US citizen and another US citizen , born in the US, is a Natural Born Citizen by birth and can rightly so qualify to run for President of the United States. ( If all other criteria is met per the US Constitution).

Whether or not if they can get elected to the office is a completely different matter.....


70 posted on 02/17/2012 6:14:03 PM PST by Bud Krieger (Another President , another idiot......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

America is a common law country. Case law and precedent is what matters. WKA is presently the law of the land. It doesn’t matter what you think they got wrong or what they left out. It is the law of the land and its present interpretation is encapsulated in Ankeny.

WKA addresses the first 50 years - that long discussion of the evolution of the common law term from NBS to NBC is addressing the legal framework in which the Founders were familiar with.


71 posted on 02/17/2012 6:18:23 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike; Berlin_Freeper; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; Bikkuri; Plummz; ...


WHO WILL ASK, AND WILL HE ANSWER?

The more discerning voter has reasonable doubt that the last election was legitimate because of a questionably ineligible candidate on the ballot. This suspicion can be alleviated by obtaining the answers to twelve questions which Barry Soetero, aka Barack Obama, has never PERSONALLY answered.

72 posted on 02/17/2012 6:23:35 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Speaking of morons, you sure do stutter a lot!


73 posted on 02/17/2012 6:29:53 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

You mean the “birther stuff” that Mr Failure to Appear is afraid to litigate in court?

“The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”


74 posted on 02/17/2012 6:31:01 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

ok...so one day, the son of Osama decides to run for office, and being an upstanding, honest sort of guy, he makes no bones about who his father was, or where he was born. He is also quite proud of being a mohammadan, and when he introduces himself, he says Hi! I’m what-his-name Osama and I’m a muslim, and I hope you will vote for me...

And that’s all there is to it really. You wouldn’t suspect him of being a Russian spy, or ask for his birth certificate, would you?

But if he placed an obviously forged abstract of a birth certificate on the Net, and sealed all his records, you might just begin to wonder...who is this man? Is he really an arab?

You see, IMO, the people who vote for the son of Osama have a right to know who he is. But thinking about it, it’s not likely the son of Osama would try it, because even he knows he couldn’t run for President because his parents weren’t born in the US.

So it’s not because his father is terrorist number one that stops him. He would still get votes, if the Democrat Party chose him as their candidate, thinking that maybe this will keep the muslims happy...

(The GOP wouldn’t, is my guess, but I’m an aussie, so what would I know?)


75 posted on 02/17/2012 7:22:58 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

But his mother was an American citizen so your point is irrelevant.


76 posted on 02/17/2012 8:03:59 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Pardon me (no, I’m not sorry) I want to jump in here and ask you, what proof have you SHE was his mother?

Go on, be honest, the answer is NONE.


77 posted on 02/17/2012 8:35:15 PM PST by Fred Nerks (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

78 posted on 02/17/2012 9:48:26 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

oh my goodness...you don’t suppose she might have been the ‘wife from whom he is separated who lives in the Philippines’...do you?


79 posted on 02/17/2012 10:11:30 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“In amity” means in friendship with the government. The 14th used the phrase: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”. It meant the same thing.
Please explain how you have come to the conclusion that they mean the same thing?

It would be interesting to see a birther try a court case arguing that Obama Sr was either not here in amity...
Why do that when it's so much easier to show that natural born citizenship can't be passed from a transitional alien to their offspring.

...(I believe he was deported or encouraged by the US government to leave) or that he was here temporarily at the bidding of a foreign government...

The man was not here "at the bidding" of any government. Individual people helped him with his tuition and scholarship, not any government. He was given a student visa under @USC 8 which grants student visas to visiting alien students. Any child born to an alien while present in the US on a student visa, no matter who the mother was, would also fall under USC 8, as that Title falls under Congress' Constitutionally granted powers on @establishing uniform rules of naturalization, and under no pretense of the imagination could the progeny of an alien be considered to be a natural born citizen.

Your portrayal of the situation is abysmal, but not unexpected.

80 posted on 02/17/2012 10:36:39 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“Why do that when it’s so much easier to show that natural born citizenship can’t be passed from a transitional alien to their offspring.”

Then try that argument, rather than arguing that there must be two citizen parents. No court will ever rule that two citizen parents are a requirement, because it isn’t true. However, being here in amity, domiciled, was a requirement - according to the Supreme Court.

Arguing he was here as a rep of a foreign government is a weak argument, but at least it doesn’t reject the law and pretend something else is the law.


81 posted on 02/18/2012 4:59:24 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Venturer; Qwackertoo
"Most of us will not live long enough to see the whole truth come out."

I cannot believe that, presuming that the country survives as a free, constitutional republic for another ten years. Then again, ask me that question on 21 January 2013. . .

82 posted on 02/18/2012 7:10:46 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; phockthis
Roberts flubbed the oath because he choked on it. He knew what he was about to do on national television in front of millions was an abomination and complete abdication of his constitutional responsibility, and he couldn't do it with a "straight face".

We've become addicted to Big Government. Our government has turned into a monster that is no longer afraid of us. The oligarchic powers-that-be may very well find that they have been gravely mistaken in that assumption before too much longer. . .

83 posted on 02/18/2012 7:24:06 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Then try that argument, rather than arguing that there must be two citizen parents.
Surely even you recognize the idiocy of your statement. Having an alien parent is arguing that there aren't two citizen parents. DUH!

No court will ever rule that two citizen parents are a requirement, because it isn’t true.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

However, being here in amity, domiciled, was a requirement...
Upon whom is that a "requirement"?
Being in the US on a student visa with no intent to immigrate is not being domiciled in the US.

...according to the Supreme Court.
In which case?

Arguing he was here as a rep of a foreign government is a weak argument...
Nobody is making that argument, nor would they ever do so, because everybody knows that he wasn't here in that capacity as he was merely attending college as an alien and the government, in their "amity", required him to get a student visa in accordance with USC 8, the laws governing...aliens.

84 posted on 02/18/2012 7:24:45 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“Nobody is making that argument, nor would they ever do so, because everybody knows that he wasn’t here in that capacity as he was merely attending college as an alien and the government, in their “amity”, required him to get a student visa in accordance with USC 8, the laws governing...aliens.”

Then you are screwed in court, because there is no requirement to have 2 citizen parents. That simply is not what the Founders or the ratifying states thought NBC meant. And the Supreme Court has already said so, which is probably why they didn’t take any cases prior to Obama taking office.

Guess it is time to defeat Obama at the ballot box, instead of pursuing another 100 LOSING cases in court.


85 posted on 02/18/2012 7:32:44 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Then you are screwed in court, because there is no requirement to have 2 citizen parents.
Poor Mr Rogers. You can't even understand a document that was written so that even a common man could understand it.
That must surely mean that you are an uncommon man, that being someone even less intelligent than a common one.

That simply is not what the Founders or the ratifying states thought NBC meant.
And yet, once again, you come here valiantly trying to convince people that "the moon is made of cheese" because you say so.

And the Supreme Court has already said so, which is probably why they didn’t take any cases prior to Obama taking office.
There you go again. You know that none of those cases ever made it to the Supreme Court for them to "say so". And if you know of a case that has been before the SCOTUS on the issue of presidential eligibility I would sure like to read that decision.

Guess it is time to defeat Obama at the ballot box, instead of pursuing another 100 LOSING cases in court.
Guess it's time to keep Obama from ever getting on the ballot in the first place and stop him before he further ignores Constitutional eligibility requirements.

86 posted on 02/18/2012 7:58:20 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

WKA discusses the meaning of NBC at great length. I know you don’t like it, but every court will follow what WKA said. And thus, you will never, ever win by arguing that a NBC requires two citizen parents - because WKA said it does not.

It is over. No matter how many hundreds of cases you submit, you will always lose. Even when the other side doesn’t show up.


87 posted on 02/18/2012 8:02:39 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
WKA discusses the meaning of NBC at great length.
Minor defines NBC in a short, concise manner.

Blah, blah - blah, blah, blah - blah.
Thanks for sharing your multiple opinions.

88 posted on 02/18/2012 8:19:40 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Are you seriously suggesting that the military and law enforcement not be allowed to vote? They are “government-paid” you know.

Personally, I’d be content if only people with a perfect score on the SAT were allowed to vote.


89 posted on 02/18/2012 8:30:26 AM PST by Doc Conspiracy (Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

The burden of proof really doesn’t matter in this case. The plaintiffs showed by a preponderance of the evidence, that Barack Obama was eligible. Presented in court on January 26 were:

1. Barack Obama long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii (Taitz, Irion)
2. Indonesian school registration form showing he was born in Hawaii (Taitz)
3. US Passport showing he was born in Hawaii (Taitz)
4. Allen FOIA for Soetoro with State Department memo to the file that Obama was born in Hawaii
5. Allen FOIA for Obama Sr. with handwritten note from August of 1961 stating Obama II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4. 1961. (Hatfield)

The Court, seeing all of that unrefuted (the Court found Taitz’s experts “unqualified”) evidence, and recognizing that the eligibility theory arguments of Hatfield and Irion were junk as a matter of law, was able to conclude based on the law and the preponderance of the evidence that Barack Obama is eligible.

Even if Obama had the burden of proof, his opponents made the case for him.


90 posted on 02/18/2012 8:30:57 AM PST by Doc Conspiracy (Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy
The burden of proof really doesn’t matter in this case.
I would beg to differ. Are you condoning ignoring Georgia's statutes which place the burden of proof on candidates seeking federal office?

Things must be getting serious as the spurious arguments just keep on coming.
So how could Malihi use any of that "evidence" in support of his decision when he said the "evidence" had no value.

What does "considered" mean?

91 posted on 02/18/2012 8:37:04 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: treetopsandroofs

That’s a straw man argument. No one has made NBC mean “citizen.” No one is arguing that and no one is suggesting that (except in straw man arguments like yours).

What NBC means is “born a citizen” (in contrast to “naturalized citizen”) and you can look that up in any good textbook on the Constitution. Even the birther-beloved Minor v. Happersett decision said that there were only two kinds of citizen, born and naturalized.


92 posted on 02/18/2012 8:47:11 AM PST by Doc Conspiracy (Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy
BTW, did Malihi refute Minor v Happersett's definition of NBC and explain why or did he merely pass the buck?

@Farrar/Welden/Swensson/Powell v Obama - Judge Malihi Final Decision - Georgia Ballot Challenge - 2/3/2012

93 posted on 02/18/2012 8:51:42 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy
What NBC means is “born a citizen” (in contrast to “naturalized citizen”) and you can look that up in any good textbook on the Constitution. Even the birther-beloved Minor v. Happersett decision said that there were only two kinds of citizen, born and naturalized.
Are all born citizens always natural born citizens?
94 posted on 02/18/2012 8:54:48 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy

There are three kinds of citizen.

Natural born, native, and naturalized.

The culture war on America has been so successful few are left with the cultural knowledge to refute your false claims.


95 posted on 02/18/2012 9:02:53 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; DiogenesLamp; philman_36; Flotsam_Jetsome; Red Steel; edge919; GregNH; Doc Conspiracy

Doc Conspiracy happy dance ping...


96 posted on 02/18/2012 9:03:29 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Native and natural born are interchangeable.

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence...”

St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

“Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”

Lynch, 1844. Notice it assumes native born can have two citizen parents.

“”Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States...” - from Perkins v Elg

“But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below...declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.” - Perkins v Elg

““Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State;”

State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)


97 posted on 02/18/2012 9:14:32 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Native and natural born are interchangeable.

No they are not.
Native born = 2 alien parents
Native born = 1 alien parent plus one citizen parent
Native born = 2 citizen parents
Natural born exclusively = 2 citizen parents


So if you say native born without identifying the exclusive link to 2 citizen parents, then you can mean any of the other non natural born combination. Your comment supports the communists who put Obama into power. They rely on an undiscerning public to let them run roughshod over the rights of citizens to a Constitutional republic.
98 posted on 02/18/2012 9:34:34 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
George Will and Ann Coulter BOTH think that the Birther arguments are silly.

You do realize this fact, don't you?

I regard you as an idiot, So I don't bother communicating with you, or considering your opinion.

99 posted on 02/18/2012 9:40:24 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy

Judge Malihi stated the evidence submitted had no probative value. A “preponderance” of non-probative evidence would not prove Obama was born in the United States.


100 posted on 02/18/2012 9:45:15 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-317 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