Georgia Judge Michael Malihi is a cowardly traitor

http://english.pravda.ru ^ | February 6 2012 | Mark S. McGrew

[philman_36]

Learn how to use a browser. Learn how to read.

You should heed your own advice.

James Madison says that Congress has such power.
I'm not asking you what James Madison said, am I? James Madison isn't the Constitution.

Then from whence does such authority derive? In other words, what specific Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power, much less the authority, to perform this function? It obviously isn't Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, since that pertains to naturalization, so where does Congress get the authority you claim it has?

[MamaTexan]

Congressional Law trumps Natural Law.
Congressional Law trumps The Law of Nations.

ALL HAIL the mighty State!

ROFLMAO!

That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791

The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted 23 Feb. 1775

----

Have you always belied that law is whatever government tells you it is?

[Mr Rogers]

The point made in WKA is that the Founder’s understanding of what NBC meant was determined by how they understood natural born subject - and all agree that NBS included the children of aliens. Thus, by original intent, a NBC includes the child of alien parents.

However, it could be argued that under the rules discussed in WKA, the parents had to be domiciled here legally, and not at the beckoning of a foreign government. Argued thus, then WKA would support the idea that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. However, I’ve never heard of a birther making that point in court. If they tried it instead of ignoring WKA, they MIGHT have better results.

If I was arguing the appeal of the Georgia decision, I’d point out that Ankeny is based on WKA, and that WKA included domicile and not being here at the request of a foreign government as critical parts of the meaning, and that the Georgia judge was thus misapplying the law.

[DiogenesLamp]

Anyone running a count on how many “Judge (insert name here) is a cowardly traitor” threads there are following yet another birther courtroom defeat?

I wouldn't call the judges "cowardly traitors". From my perspective they operate like the Volksgerichtshof and we are all Jews. They are not moved by fear, nor do they feel they are doing wrong. They are administering what they regard as "proper" law.

That they will not hear our arguments on merit is simple. Who in a Volksgerichtshof wants to listen to a Jew? "Birthers" are crazy. The Propaganda system tells us this, and also that our Great Leader is legitimate. Therefore, "Birther" evidence is irrelevant. Everything is irrelevant except that our Great Leader be permitted to go on about his business without being bothered by these pesky "Jews."

A much simpler explanation, no?

[DiogenesLamp]

I can't even keep track of the courtroom defeats.

Being defeated in a Roe Court is not a dishonor. The legal system has long had a flirtation with evil. Why should we be surprised that it has lately thrown off all pretense?

[MamaTexan]

Three types right there. Natural born citizen, statutory citizen and 14th Amendment citizen.

IMHO, the 14th Amendment doesn't create a separate type of citizen so much as it is just an extension of Congress statutory power pertaining to citizenship.

-----

as Congress can't make such a law as it isn't in their Constitutional powers

Exactly.

Congress has very defined lines of authority, but some people won't even entertain the thought that there are limits to what they can Constitutionally do.

And the ONLY type of citizen they can declare are NATURALIZED ones.

[MamaTexan]

You tell everyone how wrong they are without providing evidence.

When you get questioned, all you do is insult and belittle them.

-----

Non Sequitur...is that you?

[DiogenesLamp]

The fascinating thing to me is the Lucy and the football aspect. It seems every freeper lawyer who comments on this tells the NBC'ers the same thing - born in the US (usual diplomatic exceptions) has been held by the courts to mean natural born, and no court will find otherwise now just because some people want a shortcut to the hard work wining the 2012 election. Why they think a judge will find a different outcome this time is beyond me. And it just makes people look like the tin foil hat brigade to accuse every judge of treason for a judgment that was completely predictable given the plaintiffs entered the Hawaii COLB into evidence and stipulated 0bama was born in Hawaii.

There is reality, and there is the court's opinion of reality. Sometimes they coincide, and often they do not. The Court's opinion clashed with reality in the case of Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, and Lawrence v Texas. (et al)

That it should clash with reality in the case of eligibility challenges to the Fuhrer is hardly surprising, because the court system is an extremely slow learner. It is like a dull witted child that relies too heavily on what it has heard others say.

Trying to get the courts up to speed is difficult, because they already think they know everything. The one type of person that you cannot educate is a "Know it all", and that is an apt description of our Legal system. As Reagan said:

The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it is just that they know so much that isn't so.

Indeed, another apt description of the courts.

[DiogenesLamp]

What, the ignorant little moron discovered "fogbow" or perhaps one of the Dr. Conspiracy offshoots?

Borrowing a gun from someone doesn't mean YOU know how to shoot it. Go back and play in your sandbox.

[longtermmemmory]

in the 80’s under reagan the laws were relaxed to allow for claiming dual citizenship. (even hold a minor elected office in another country)

the catch is you would still be subject to the laws of the USA. (ie treason, aiding the enemy, import export laws, taxation etc...)

[MamaTexan]

The point made in WKA is that the Founder’s understanding of what NBC meant was determined by how they understood natural born subject - and all agree that NBS included the children of aliens.

That's a false assumption.

The Founders understood the concept of natural born SUBJECT all too well, and nowhere have you shown they agreed that the same criteria for a natural born British subject was to be applied to a natural born American citizen.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have been saying that on countless eligibility threads since they first started cropping up on FR in late 2008-early 2009, and all it gets me is accusations of being an "Obot." No, I don't like him, and I'm not going to vote for him, but if he was born in Hawai'i, then it is settled law that he is a Natural Born Citizen.

It's settled opinion of the lawyers. The actual "law" does not say any such thing. Were it to be otherwise, the 14th amendment would contain the words "natural born" just prior to the word "citizen."

[edge919]

The point made in WKA is that the Founder’s understanding of what NBC meant was determined by how they understood natural born subject

Your misreading what WKA says. It doesn't say this at all. It says that the birth provision of the 14th amendment needs to be understood "in light of" common law. NBC, it says, was excluded from the 14th amendment in a unanimous decision. It cited that decision for the definition of NBC and then affirmed that the holding is based on a strict combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis. The only reason Gray explores NBS is to define the citizenship provision of the amendment, which he concludes only applies to former slaves and resident aliens.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nobody cares what YOU think.

[Kansas58]

you are very wrong, and many of us feel obligated to point that out to you, and we have tried.

As far as “evidence” is concerned, I have provided plenty, as have others.

You do not understand the process of law, you do not understand the rules of evidence, you do not understand much of anything, thus your very flawed opinions.

Sometimes, your best friend is the person standing in front of you, waiving his or her arms and yelling “STOP”!

Conservatives who fall for this Vattel stuff are sheep being lead to slaughter.

Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth, and nothing else.

[DiogenesLamp]

You will NEVER win, this Birther case is very weak, and the Birther cases make us look really stupid!

It certainly makes YOU look stupid. Every time I see a response from you I think "Geeze, can that guy look more stupid?" Maybe you should avoid "birther" cases?

[Kansas58]

How many members of Congress agree with what YOU think?

How many judges agree with what YOU think?

How many law professors agree with what YOU think?

How many historians agree with what YOU think?

How many Electors, for Obama or for McCain, agree with what YOU think?

How many Election Officers, Secretaries of State, Immigration judges, INS employees, or State Governors agree with what YOU think?

(Zero on all counts!)

[Kansas58]

So, when you want to win an argument, you claim that God is on your side, at it is over, huh?

That is the act of a tyrant, not a thinking person.

Natural Law does not control every legal or political or Constitutional question.

In many cases, God does not care and it is blasphemy to claim otherwise.

[DiogenesLamp]

The facts before the Georgia court were pretty simple - some of the plaintiffs submitted the COLB and agreed that 0bama was born in Hawaii. Once that is agreed, the judge is going to follow over 100 years of precedent, and rule him natural born. Anyone who thinks differently is allowing his wishes to corrupt his thinking process.

And yet we are told the facts submitted in one case, do not bind a separate case, which Orly's was. Given that the authenticity of the image file downloaded from the Internet was disputed as proof in Orly's case, (the third of three) How can evidence submitted in the first two cases, affect the determination of fact in the third case?

Say what you will about how the law works, but you cannot dispute this inconsistency in the ruling. It isn't proof unless it is authenticated by the certifying Authority. An Image file is proof of nothing. Since a certified copy of the original didn't show up, the judge should not have claimed a fact not in evidence.

[DiogenesLamp]

I can always tell when Mr. Rogers posts a thread, and I don’t even have to read it! If it starts off being a bunch of long winded crap, you can bet the words “Mr. Rogers” will be written at the bottom of it.