Skip to comments.Obama Got Served
Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven
[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.
Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.
The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.
Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
This is exactly one of the major points of Sourcery's essay that I seized upon. It is exactly right. Congress cannot bestow that which is inherent. It is exactly like eye or hair color, it is an inherent trait of the person. That it exactly resembles genetic characteristics is no accident because it is imparted in the same manner; From Parents to offspring. I am glad that more of us are seeing this so clearly.
The founders also gave exception to those who were already alive at the founding of the nation. So your argument is ridiculous.
Can somebody just please tell me definatively what THE FREAKING HELL HIS REAL NAME IS?
What is taking so long?
The judge said he was going to give them a summary decision that morning, but they insisted on submitting evidence...
OK, I am glad it got, I am (not so0 cshocked that NO ONE in the media even ccovered this story...
So.. I think now the judge is going to become nationally famous- or is there some serious arm twisting going on right now?
Are they holding his kids hostage or something? Late night phone calls telling him what his children wore to school that morning? (I got one of those when I tried to expose local corruption)
'Citizen' isn't good enough. You have to be a Natural Born Citizen to be president (or VP). There's apparently still a question whether Rubio is one, or not.
Yes, the VP must just as eligible as the President.
Originally the judge asked for all submissions to be in by the 6th of Feb. He moved that up to the 1st, hence the confusion.
Read the citation you gave me.
Then read everything I have posted on this thread.
Have I ever “doubted” that a person born in this country, of citizen parents, was a Natural Born Citizen?
No, I have not.
I only present to you that your citation, due to the rules of the English Language, are not exclusive.
I am telling you that your “Case Law” which is now moot, anyway, does not LIMIT NBC to such cases at all, does it?
Your citation clearly allows for other forms of Natural Born Citizenship.
You are wrong.
Marco was born in the USA.
Arnold was not born in the USA.
“I thought the judge was supposed to render his decision by Feb 1st?”
The 2/1 date was the deadline for filing any post trial pleadings.
How can you define “Naturalization” if you are not sure of who NEEDS a Naturalization process and who does not need such a process, due to automatic Citizenship?
Besides, no Court case has ever challenged the right of Congress to define Citizenship, and Congress also has the power to interpret and define the 14th Amendment.
You have no Case Law to support your odd theories.
The Case Law you present is now MOOT due to Congressional action.
The Case Law you present also states, clearly in each decision, that the Constitution did NOT define Natural Born Citizen, so the Judge(s) had to resort to Natural Law or Common Law.
Congress has since defined and redefined Citizenship, as Congress clearly has the power to do.
My point is that Congress HAS changed Citizenship requirements, for those born on foreign soil, several times.
I have strong support for that position, as it is a FACT, and many of the nutty Birthers on this thread denied that FACT.
You don't seem to understand the rules of English. These "rules" are what makes the definition exclusive. The other thing that makes the definition exclusive is the context of why the definition was given. There's no point in singling out citizen parents unless it establishes a completely separate class of citizens separate from the 14th amendment upon which Virginia Minor made her claim to citizenship which is what the court did. That separate class was the ONLY class of citizens characterized as natural-born citizens.
Toward the end of the decision, the court says: "Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be." So when they defined natural-born citizenship, that set of criteria born in the country to citizen parents is what the law is. You're trying to say that a class of citizens for whom the court said there is doubt is what NBC should be. That's not what the court said, because there is doubt about them just being citizens. Resolving doubts might make them citizens, but it wouldn't make them natural-born citizens ... because there is only one set of criteria for which there is no doubt. That lack of doubt is what makes that class "natural-born." The citation does NOT allow for other forms of natural-born citizenship, else that characterization would not have been placed in the sentence immediately following the type of citizenship for which there is no doubt.
The other problem is that the source of their definition, which is clearly from the law of nations does NOT allow for so-called "other forms of Natural Born Citizenship." Read the law of nations. There's no other natural-born citizenship described or allowed for. Why would the court use a narrow definition if it is intentionally allowing for "other forms of Natural Born Citizenship"??? The answer: They wouldn't.
Thanks for the ping Star! These days it seems you can judge the importance or possible impact of the thread by who shows up to shout it down!
“So an anchor baby can run for president?”
I believe the parents must be intentionally subject to the law of the United States at the time of the birth (e.g., green card residents or at least a visa vs. illegal aliens and/or children of diplomats).
—Find an application for Passport, online.
They are on the Department of State website.
Those applications list several different citizenship dates and requirements during those dates.—
I could be wrong, but I think the requirements to be eligible to get a US passport and the requirements to be eligible to be President of the US are not one in the same.
Natural born includes those born of American parents on American ships in foreign ports, or on the high seas, or in American Embassies and Consulates, all of which are considered by the principles of ex-territoriality, as within the United States and under its laws.
Children born to American parents traveling in foreign countries are regarded as native born, instead of natural born.
You are correct.
At the time of Clinton's shenanigans I think there were some court decisions that postponed civil actions while he was in office. There certainly could be a legal argument that an administrtaive hearing should also be delayed while the President is on official business.
But the point is, Obama's team in their overwhelmingly arrogance failed to cite any legal reason for the subpeona to be quahed. They essentially just said: "We've decided this is stupid, so we are ignoring it." Big mistake.
Obama is now in contempt - and since they made no legal argument against the subpeona, I don't see how he appeals. From Wikipaedia:
A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:
Existence of a lawful order
The potential contemnor's knowledge of the order
The potential contemnor's ability to comply
The potential contemnor's failure to comply
Check, check, check and check. Obama's team could have raised grounds for appeal by claiming he was "unable" to comply, due to his official duties. But in their arrogance, they failed to even make that basic argument.
Natural born or native?
That is the differentiation.
“My point is that Congress HAS changed Citizenship requirements, for those born on foreign soil, several times.”
Congress has Constitutional Authority to write legislation to determine the procedure for obtaining citizenship through the naturalization process. This is done through revision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
Congress cannot define a Natural born citizen or establish a process for obtaining the Natural born citizen classification because it does not have the Constitutional Authority.
Marco Rubio is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Marco's status is the same as that of Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
I wonder if Rubio could get standing to get a court ruling on the matter? What if Rubio tried to put himself on the ballot, and was denied based on the above? Certainly he would have standing then to force the courts to make clear the meaning of "natural born citizen". And he could well catch the expresss train to the Supremes, since irreperable harm would be done to him if he were barred from a ballot.
Oh, its been addressed. So much so it resembles the feather pillows after Bella and Edward got done with them...
I have personally addressed it so many times I can’t even begin to count them. Divided loyalty is at the HEART of the matter when John Jay wrote to Washington during the Constitutional Convention.... it is the main reason he even addressed the issue to the future first President.
There are dedicated individuals who are SCARED TO DEATH of this issue ruling the day. It means their preferred a$$hole is headed for prison, and every God forsaken thing the cretin signed or did is struck from the record. Obama is erased from history as a POTUS, but instead recorded as an usurper who was caught and PUNISHED. There are too many useful idiots who have too much egotistically if not literally at stake to give up on the Kenyan worm.
You can’t fix stupid. You just cant. Particularly when the stupid want to STAY stupid. So it is up to us to inform those who just don’t have the information, the REAL information they need to come to the correct conclusions.
‘Your father, born of U.S. citizen parents, would be a citizen by birth regardless of where he was born. He would not need to be naturalized. He couldn’t be president, but I’m guessing he never wanted to. YOU, on the other hand would have no issue for NBC’
You have just stumbled into saying exactly what is meant - Dad was not born here in the boundaries - but I was! So THAT is the prime issue. Eh?
30 million murdered babies might disagree.
You are banging your head against a wall with these people.
I agree; I despise Uhbama but we cannot pick fights based on foolish falsehoods. All we do then, is look like fools and liars.
The only question I would ask is if Uhbama was really born in the US. Not that his father was not a citizen.
I do concur that we have some work in from of us. Iteresting that I am responding to post 308. (A favorite of mine.)
“no one alive at the time met the NBC requirement since none of their parents were USA citizens.”
Here’s another distinction:
They didn’t meet it BECAUSE THERE WAS NO USA!!!
I'm sorry, but Minor did not settle this question. It is the longstanding practice of the court to decide only those constitutional issues which MUST be decided to address the case at hand. Minor addressed the voting rights of a woman; the final sentence of the decision reads:
"Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we affirm the judgment.
Earlier in the decision the court made clear it was NOT defining natural-born citizen, as it was not necessary to do so to decide the case at hand: [emphasis added]
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Hehe, that was my first thought too!
You are clearly wrong.
You are wrong.
The United States has only two classes of Citizens:
Citizens from the moment of Birth
You keep saying that.
The attitude you project is not backed up by the veracity of the supporting information in your posts.
A) The last sentence in the decision is NOT the only part of a decision that is binding or stands as a legal precedent. The court also said, "Certainly, if the courts can consider any question settled, this is one. For nearly ninety years the people have acted upon the idea that the Constitution, when it conferred citizenship, did not necessarily confer the right of suffrage." In this question that THIS court settled, citizenship is a key part of the decision.
B)You misunderstand what the court is saying when it says it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Its only talking about the doubts of whether the second class of persons are citizens or not. The first class of citizens had no doubts, and that's why it alone was characterized as natural-born and distinguished from anyone who must rely on other means of becoming citizens.
You are just silly.
The Courts said, in the Citations given, that there was NO Constitutional guidance on NBC.
Therefore, the Courts used other authorities available.
Those authorities? Common Law!
Congress then enacted Legislative Law that TRUMPS common law.
Therefore, your Court case citations, ALL OF THEM, are MOOT!
Must be a sleeper.
Minor v. Happersett recognized at least two classes of citizens from “the moment of birth.” Only one was characterized as natural-born citizens.
Which means that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. The common law cited by the SCOTUS is a verbatim match of the law of nations. No law trumps that definition.
Congress, therefore, does have the right to define the term, as it has done several times.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth. The term has always meant the same thing, however the law/rules for obtaining automatic citizenship at birth have changed over time, several times.
something that was in place then, then went missing
Did Williams actually say this? I doubt it seriously. Williams is the very definition of ‘mugged liberal’.
The “Law of Nations” is weak, it has no weight at all except to inform and guide us as to the thoughts of SOME people at that time.
There was no other guidance, no other rule for the Courts to use, at the time of the rulings.
Now such rules, such guidance, in the form of actual legislation, does exist.
Also, the Court citations given do not specifically address Natural Born Citizenship as a “separate class” of citizenship, and different from “Citizen at Birth”.
We have two forms of Citizenship.
That case does not control anymore.
“The Social Security card looks like it was signed by a child. Probably when she got her first job.”
Stanley Ann Dunham was born Novembere 29, 1942 and the posted Social Security Number was issued in Washington state sometime in 1959 or 1960 (probably 1959). See link below for determining SSN issuance dates. So she was about 16 or 17 when it was issued.
I’m not a handwriting expert, but I would be VERY surprised if her signature changed that much. The posting of the SSN card with its signature and posting of the later signature was very interesting and informative.
I didn't say it was. But the only thing the court held with regard to natural-born citizens is that those born in the country of citizen parents are natural-born citizens. I've never heard a serious argument against that. But the court did not specifically hold that those born here to non-citizen partents AREN'T NBC. The only thing the court held is that, without doubt, as Virginia Minor was born in this country of citizen parents she was a citizen.
"B)You misunderstand what the court is saying when it says it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Its only talking about the doubts of whether the second class of persons are citizens or not.
On re-reading the case, I accept that the court in saying it was "not necessary to resolve these doubts" was referring to the second class of citizen. In this case, there is no doubt that Virginia Minor was a citizen under any possible definition of the term. That question, and the further question as to whether citizens, by being citizens, acquired the right to vote, were the questions to which the court addressed itself. The court did not address itself to defining NBC except to say that a person born in the US to US parents was certainly a natural-born citizen. It did not state that others were excluded from that class.It did not say that others COULD BE included in that class. It was not a question before the court and, hence, not decided.
You keep saying that without proving that it's true.
Where specifically, has Congress defined the term Natural Born Citizen? It isn't on a passport application and it isn't in Wikipedia, so don't go there...again.
If you want to prove your point then you're going to have to come up with something more than "because I said so" or "go look at an application".