Thanks for the explanation. It seemed to me that Hatfield was asking for the burden of proof to be placed upon Obama, which didn’t make sense to me, because the burden of proof has always been on Barack Obama. No one ever forced him to prove it, and instead took it either on faith or turned a blind eye.
I can’t figure Orly out to be honest. Her tenacious focus on the Birth Certificate I believe to have played into Obama’s hands. As long as people are spending their time and efforts on THAT, they aren’t researching legal history. It is the Legal history and the LAW which is the real issue,
I hope and PRAY that Hatfield not only has Donofrio’s analysis of Minor v Happersett AND McCarthy v. Briscoe (429 US 1317 - NOT the appellate court case of 1977, but the SCOTUS case (in chambers) 1976 case. Between those two SCOTUS cases, Obama is nothing but a criminal. BY LAW an Usurper.
My happy thought of the day - Obama removed from the White House in chains, Michelle in chains and tears behind him looking at paying reparations to the American people for all the money they have stolen from us. Yep. Happy thought! :)
Obama WILL be disgraced. This WILL happen. Sooner or later, it WILL happen.
Its people like you with clear objective analysis into the law and process which are helping to make it happen!
Also we do, for ourselves and successors, declare, by these presents, that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province, and every of their children and posterity, shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects, within any of our dominions, to all intents and purposes, as if abiding and born within this our kingdom of Great-Britain, or any other of our dominions.
- - -
unto such our Loving subjects, natural born, denizens or others that shall be willing to become our subjects, and live under our allegiance in the said colony, upon such terms ...
The children of the subjects and denizens, born in Georgia, became natural-born subjects or denizens. The bolded part in the second paragraph above emphasizes they are talking about different classes of persons, not one class with multiple characterizations.
You’re welcome.
Yes, I think Hatfield is doing just what you said, and it is just that he is using valid legal procedure to do it.
IMHO administrative law is often complex and nebulous because the procedures are not always straightforward and obvious.
Personally I give Orly the benefit of a doubt. It has to be tough to be a successful lawyer in court when the opponent is very powerful. She is going after the most powerful man in the world, a challenge that most lawyers might instinctively duck on the principle that he who has the most money (or perhaps equivalently, the most power) wins. Has she made mistakes? I imagine that she herself would say yes. But no one and no process is perfect. This particular angle of attack was only recently opened (presuming the issue of Obama’s eligibility first came up around the summer of 2008), with Obama’s formal entry into the Georgia primary. The media portrays law as all about drama (perhaps a la Perry Mason) but in fact it might be more all about procedures and precedents, and beyond that, how a judge and the court clerks view procedures. I can still view Orly as being in the role of a sometimes innocently misguided but otherwise well-meaning loyal opposition, and with some measure of courage to continue even when met with unpopularity and criticism from her own side. She is also doing this by endlessly criss-crossing the country to appear at one or another hearing and taking the time to learn the laws of each state in doing so, and she has been doing it for almost four years. That has to be tough for anyone, much less an immigrant whose native language is not even English. As to the tenacity involving the birth certificate, it should not really be much of an issue to Obama to begin with. I would imagine Orly’s response would be along those lines... the whole Little League argument. The birth certificate is the first document that establishes the identity of an individual whose qualifications can be held in question. Due credit to Swensson who finessed the BC issue, but he did so with the hindsight that many previous direct attacks on Obama’s eligibility by Orly and others had failed. I am not a lawyer but I thought that the way he did it was very ingenious. So I think of the progess to date as more of a tag team effort. I might be right or wrong, just my $0.02...