Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Atlanta Court date set for Obama eligibility hearing. Public invited!
http://www.examiner.com ^ | 1/11/12 | Patricia Walston

Posted on 01/16/2012 10:22:25 AM PST by Lucky9teen

A hearing has been set for January 26, 2012 for the purpose of hearing the complaint of David Weldon, a citizen living in Georgia, where he questioned the Constitutionality of President Obama being allowed on the Georgia presidential ballot.

On January 3, 2012, Judge Malihi denied the request from Mr. Obama’s attorneys to dismiss the case accusing him of not being qualified to be on the ballot; and therefore, ineligible to run for President this year in Georgia. They contend that since both of his parents were not citizens, that makes him ineligible.

After filing the complaint, Mr. Weldon, contacted Liberty Legal Foundation and requested their assistance. As of December, 2012, they have been representing him. The Liberty Legal Foundation, headed by Constitutional attorney Van Irion, assisted Weldon and prepared the opposition for the motion to dismiss.

According to LLF, “This ruling ensures that the Georgia court will be the first court to address the substantive Constitutional issue of eligibility. All other courts that have heard challenges to Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to hold office have refused to address the substantive issue and have dismissed on procedural grounds.”

Could this change in the court just be an opportunity to put an end to this once and for all? For sure, if the President does not win the case, it will end up in the Federal Supreme Court in Washington. But if the court finds against this petition, does that mean that the issue will be dead forever?

This case is not about President Obama’s birth certificate, or where he was born, but questions if he is a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution to be President.

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


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; naturalborncitizen; obama; orlytaitz; usurper
Some still may not think the eligibility issue is not relevant, but I think it is. And not just the Birth Certificate issue....but the fact that Obama's father was not ever a US citizen, thereby making Obama not a "natural-born citizen".

Who knows how far it'll go in the courts though...

1 posted on 01/16/2012 10:22:29 AM PST by Lucky9teen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Since just before the election I considered it the “self destruct” button manned by his string pullers, ready to be pressed in an emergency. I’d say we’re pretty much in an emergency situation right now - both the country and his party.


2 posted on 01/16/2012 10:27:31 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

If that’s the case, how would his string pullers benefit from that? Just curious...


3 posted on 01/16/2012 10:30:04 AM PST by Lucky9teen (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.~Thomas Jeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
Then we could turn this into a conspiracy theory whereas the $$$$ Power Players within the Democratic Party or Some Secret Organization could see a slim way out with this conveniently timed eligibility hearing and bearing a favorable outcome, run a person of choice against the Republicans... ;)

[sarcasm]


4 posted on 01/16/2012 10:35:30 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
Then we could turn this into a conspiracy theory whereas the $$$$ Power Players within the Democratic Party or Some Secret Organization could see a slim way out with this conveniently timed eligibility hearing and bearing a favorable outcome, run a person of choice against the Republicans... ;)

[sarcasm]


5 posted on 01/16/2012 10:35:30 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

We don’t have to prove Obama is not qualified.It is incumbent upon the office seeker to demonstrate his qualifications for office. The President has deliberately evaded this requirement. The President must be forced to obey the law and reveal his qualifications for holding the highest office in the land. Otherwise we are no longer under rule of law. Each citizen has a responsibility to require that this legal requirement not be avoided or sidestepped.

Next, I’d love to know which foreign powers are funding his (and others’) candidacy.


6 posted on 01/16/2012 10:37:19 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

—If that’s the case, how would his string pullers benefit from that? Just curious...—

Well, first, this is like a chess game where “they” are the masters and you and I are the jr chess players trying to kibitz their moves. IOW, we may not be privy to their long term strategy. Short term, I can see them concerned about obama making such a boo-boo as the SHTF that even those that think he is going to make their mortgage payments for them abandon him.

Most of what I believe is based not on what has happened the last three years, but on what the events of the last six years imply will happen this year. IOW, my comments are about the obama of September of 2012, not the Obama of January 2012. And I believe the two are very different people.


7 posted on 01/16/2012 10:43:16 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Make me a ticket and I will come! I pray the judge has courage to decide the case justly.


8 posted on 01/16/2012 11:00:36 AM PST by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
"Public invited!"

I hope every Tea Party member within 100 miles of Atlanta comes and crowds the courtroom and overflows into the streets.

9 posted on 01/16/2012 11:06:15 AM PST by eCSMaster (Democrats:always looking for someone else to blame)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster

On March 26, 1791, the first session of Congress passed a law defining children born of two citizen parents as “Natural Born Citizens” unless the father was never a resident of the United States.

The law was repealed January 29, 1795.

Here it is (note the definition a bit more than half way in):

FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 4. 1790
CHAP. III.—An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and Hours of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
APPROVED, March 26, 1790.
Repealed January 29, 1795.


10 posted on 01/16/2012 11:16:14 AM PST by LachlanMinnesota (Which are you? A producer, a looter, or a moocher of wealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Lawyers are taught from the first day of law school about precedence and and case law and the importance of it. If this judge has ruled to allow the case to proceed, I very seriously doubt that he will want to go against case law and make up a new ruling.


11 posted on 01/16/2012 11:19:17 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

I’d love to be there. We really need people to show up. It’s important to emphasize the Minor definition of natural-born citizen and that it was affirmed and upheld in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. It’s also very important to show that the latter decision made it clear that natural-born citizenship is NOT defined by the 14th amendment and that it cites Minor to emphasize this point in two separate places in the decision.


12 posted on 01/16/2012 8:32:58 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
Agree. It is up to the States to appoint electors. How they do so is set in 50 different laws. Every one should demand proof of eligibility before they appoint electors to any presidential candidate.

As I recall from other posts, GA set up the means to do so if challenged through an administrative court. Good for them!

I checked the law in my state of FL. It assumes the nominees of the political parties are Constitutionally qualified. I suspect FL is typical in this regard, a real shame.

13 posted on 01/17/2012 8:28:15 AM PST by Jacquerie (No court will save us from ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen
Quoting the article:

The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. But addresses the question regarding the qualifications of a person running for President of the United States.

The question is: Does the Constitution say that in order to be president one must be born of parents who are both US Citizens?

It's very important to remember the question before the Court. The answer to this question alone will set the stage for a precedent. Everything else is dicta which is the judicial equivalent of waxing poetic about a subject of concern to many people.
14 posted on 01/17/2012 9:28:13 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (PSALMS 37:28 For the LORD loves justice and does not abandon the faithful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

But isn’t it dicta in Minor v Happersett defining a natural born citizen where it states that a citizen is born of citizen parents?


15 posted on 01/18/2012 9:58:35 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

Minor v Happersett is about the Privileges and Immunities clause and state’s rights to set rules for voter registration.

The NBC information found in Minor v Happersett is dicta. Leo Donofrio is setting up birthers with a false premise.

Obama’s ineligibility is related to him coming back to America at a 10 with Indonesian Nationality and recapturing his US Citizenship through the Naturalization process.


16 posted on 01/19/2012 6:30:51 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (PSALMS 37:28 For the LORD loves justice and does not abandon the faithful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
But isn’t it dicta in Minor v Happersett defining a natural born citizen where it states that a citizen is born of citizen parents?

No, it IS dicta because the characterization and definition were specifically used to reject Virginia Minor's argument of being a citizen via the 14th amdendment, from which she claimed she derived her right to vote as one of the privileges and immunities of being a 14th amendment citizen:

The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.

The court used the NBC definition to explain that women had always been citizens and did NOT need the 14th amendment for rights as a citizen. The definition of NBC is critical to that argument:

But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
- - -
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
- - -
The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
- - -
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.

I left out some of the extra discussion so you can get right to the heart of the Minor court's arguments. Let's summarize:

A) Minor claims that women are part of "all persons" in the 14th amendment.

B) The court says we have a citizenship definition prior to and beyond the 14th amendment (characterized as NBC), which says "all children."

C) Minor's argument is defeated because women are already included as "all children," thus they do NOT need the 14th amendment to be citizens and to derive their rights, priveleges or immunities.

D) When Waite says there are "doubts" about the second class of citizenship (children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents), he's using it as a way to separate NBC as a class that is distinct from the 14th amendment (because that second class MATCHES the 14th amendment type of citizenship at birth).

E) If the 14th amendment could be used to define NBC, there's no reason for the court to reject Minor's argument or to bring up a class of citizenship based exclusively on citizen parents.

We know this is not just dicta, because more than 20 years later, Justice Gray applies this logic and acknowledges:

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.""

When construing the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court said it does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Its definition of citizenship matches the class of citizenship for which there was doubt. The first class of citizenship had no doubt, and it was specifically characterized as "natural-born citizenship" in order to satisfy what the term means in Article II of the Constitution.

The definition for NBC is not contained in the Constituiton nor in statutory law, but we have one class of citizenship characterized as natural born in a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court ruling. What compelling legal authority would allow that definition to be applied to anything BEYOND the children born in the country of citizen parents, when TWO Supreme Court cases refused to do so??

17 posted on 01/19/2012 10:14:06 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Quick correction. The first part of my reply should say: “It is NOT dicta “ ... sorry for leaving out the NOT.


18 posted on 01/19/2012 10:16:01 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Thanks for the clarification edge919!!


19 posted on 01/19/2012 1:37:56 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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