Posted on 01/26/2012 12:44:24 PM PST by jmaroneps37
Update: Dean Haskins at Obama Release Your Records is saying that the Judge is entering a default judgement against Obama because he did not appear.
This could mean that Obama might not appear on Georgia’s ballot, although the Obama administration will certainly appeal. Today was an important day in the fight for truth. Despite Obama’s no-show, today’s court proceedings could have a great affect on the eligibility movement as a whole.
A blow by blow of the entire court proceeding was made by Craig Andersen of the The National Patriot. His article is found below. We will be updating this page with a synopsis of what today’s proceedings mean for the entire Obama eligibility movement and what results we might see.
In the meantime, read the following blow by blow account: Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney Jablonski was a NO SHOW as of course was Obama…..
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournalism.com ...
Your attitude is why these criminals do what ever they want without ANY concerns for the rule of law or the Constitution.
re: they were COUNTING anything that remotely resembled the one (DNC) candidate’s name.
Is this an attempt to “repeat a lie often enough, people will think it must be the truth”?
the Write in candidate in alaska was MORCOWSKY the RINO.
(yes i know i spelled it wrong, but that spelling on a ballot was approved.)
I shouldn’t have to put sarcasm in parentheses or indicate humor for the obvious.
However, in my personal opinion he should have been arrested (under criminal charges) a long time ago, tried for treason and shot. That is not sarcasm or humor.
Amen
Its a globalist thing, to think the supreme court could do that, I guess.
obumpa
Will the Supreme’s over-turn their prior ruling on natural born-citizen and merely require that a single parent be born in the United States?
Neither the Supremes nor Congress can change any law of the land stated in the Constitution, i.e. here, the natural born citizen requirement. The only means for changing the Constitution is by amendment - and that would be no easy trick. Simple example of why the “citizen parentS” must remain the criteria: if only one citizen parent was required, and Hugo Chavez married an american woman - their child could be president. With that basic premise, at every election the country would be at risk of one or both candidates having divided loyalty. That divided loyalty is what comes from being the child of one non-citizen - because the child is born citizenship in two countries, and that means the other country has a claim on you in many aspects. Most obvious: you could be called into military service by the other country.
The potential problems - and therefore the potential threat - of dual loyalty is precisely the reason the Founders required the president to be “natural born”: the fruit of two American citizens, and therefore without divided loyalty.
Our Founders were brilliant men!
Swensson is saying that the default judgment should include the exclusion of Obama from the Georgia ballot. He also said suits are occurring in many other states.
You can bet Obama's following this alot closer than his stooges in the DSM, who believe Obama.
Could Judge Malihi issue a judgment that yeah, this is all correct, but it's too late the American People voted Obama as President and that supersedes the Constitution? Judges have gone insane in this country. In Arizona, implementing Federal Law is illegal, while Sanctuary City's that refuse to implement Federal Law is not illegal.
My “attitude” is that the current system isn’t being used to keep judges in check and perhaps Gingrich has a point, that another route need be charted to cap these judges’ power.
Other saying natural born citizen in the Constituion, the criteria is ABSENT. That is why the USSC had to develop the criteria in case law. Therefore, they, and they alone (absent legislation defining the criteria) can change it.
Two different issues here. The Constitution says Natural Born Citizen and may only be changed by Constitutional amendment. How Natural Born Citizen is defined CAN be changed by the USSC.
...and no medical records.
“RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.”
I’m a little curious about this. Weren’t there TWO different DNC documents? Why wouldn’t they contrast these two instead of contrasting with the RNC?
Obama's law suits against states are outrageous. It is the support for illegal aliens and the out of control judges that pose a greater danger to this country.
So, they showed where the papers from the RNC certified that our guy was eligible, but the one for Obama did not. That's damning but it would be more so to show a PREVIOUS one from the Dems where it did. Several of them even. That way you would see how/if the Dems changed their wording specifically for Obama.
The current ‘system’ has been corrupted by the globalists who flaunt defiance of the rule of law and the US Constitution at every turn.
They have, by corrupting our education system, erased the idea from the mind of American citizens that they have a DUTY to protect the Constitution.
Citizens are mere producers or consumers in the globalist view and have no power on their own to do anything.
Yet the Constitution vests Americans with the power to do everything to control their lives and government.
The ‘route’ change needs to happen in the minds of the American citizens who are abdicating their duty to the globalists.
The judge is an administrative law judge and apparently he issues not a ruling in this type of case, but a "recommendation" and then, the final decision as to whether Obama's name appears on the ballot rests with the Secretary of State.
The judge does not issue any true ruling that is binding on anybody and it's the Secretary of State who is subject to the political pressure involved regardless of what the judge does recommend.
Further, the failure to appear does not automatically result in a default judgement, the judge can still rule on "the facts" as he sees them, not necessarily default to ruling in the plaintiff's favor because the defendant failed to appear.
I am suspecting this one also will be swept aside without a true ruling on the merits of the case. But I hope I'm wrong
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a...
Does the Constitution define "all" or do we know what that means?
Does the Constitution define "legislative" or do we know what that means?
Does the Constitution define "Powers" or do we know what that means?
Does the Constitution define "herein" or do we know what that means?
Does the Constitution define "granted" or do we know what that means?
Does the Constitution define "vested" or do we know what that means?
The Constitution is written in plain English, in the vernacular of the day. Specific terms can be looked up in historic essays and textbooks.
Further clarification can be found in the Federalist Papers.
You know, it just occurred to me. How did Obama win election to the State Senate and US Senate, he used dirty tricks to get candidates excluded from the ballot or forced them to withdraw. Now, it’s coming around again. I’d love to see Obama excluded from the ballot, it would serve him right.
It could have a snowball effect on the good citizens in other states.
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.