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.
Big difference.
“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.
Again:
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.
LOL
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.
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.