Skip to comments.Superior Court asked to boot Obama from ballot (loss of constitutional rule of law)
Posted on 02/17/2012 8:28:43 AM PST by Seizethecarp
At issue is nothing less than the enforcement or loss of constitutional rule of law, he submitted to the court. The petitioners right to live in a constitutional republic will be lost if the clearest terms of the U.S. Constitution will not be enforced by the judicial branch of government.
He said if the judiciary does not take the appropriate action, it would confirm that the judicial branch is now unwilling to enforce the clearest and most basic requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
His appeal explains that Malihis opinion defies logic.
[His] conclusion runs contrary to common sense, violates venerable rules of constitutional construction followed by the U.S. Supreme Court since its inception, and violates the explicit holding of the Supreme Court case relied upon. Had the drafters of the Constitution intended all people born in the U.S. to be considered natural born citizens, the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary. Had the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended that amendment to alter the Article II definition of natural born citizen, they would have clearly stated so. Yet the term natural born citizen is not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment. The amendment also makes no reference to Article II. The [Malihi] ruling, therefore, violates rules of construction that the OSAH had itself relied upon just days earlier in the same litigation, the brief explains.
It explains Malihi also ignored a Supreme Court precedent in favor of a non-binding opinion from Indiana.
Contrary to popular opinion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. In a constitutional republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon constitutionally protected rights of a minority, the brief argues.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
ping to filing details for the Van Irion GA NBC issue appeal.
I think you ought to realize by now that none of these court challenges is going to remove Obama from office or prevent him from running again. Judges have great discretionary powers, and they will use them.
Someone actually still believes in the constitution; what a joke!
Solid legal argument in the appeal brief. It’s not going anywhere, but it’s solid and accurate.
IMO, it is folly to presume to know how any court will rule.
Malihi’s ruling was pathetic on its face. He resorted to citing dicta from an Indiana state appeals court. I expect the Democrap jurists in Fulton Co. to at least pretend to rely directly on a SCOTUS ruling to affirm Barry's eligibility.
I find it extremely telling that between the Ankeny court and Malihi, NO SCOTUS precedent subsequent to WKA has been cited to affirm that Barry is NBC...because there isn't any such case. Even the Ankeny panel stated that the WKA court did NOT declare WKA to be NBC, contrary to Obot claims.
go here www.mcnaughtonart.com and look at the video The Forgotten Man. In fact, if you will, put this in it’s own post for everyone to see. It’ll bring tears to the eyes of any patriot.
Try Rogers v Bellei
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.Jus soli means "born on the soil" (usual diplomatic etc. exceptions) = natural born.
Obama needs to be challenged at every opportunity. This is a commendable action even (or especially?) if it has little chance of success in our compromised legal system. Thanks for posting this.
I'd say that's a good bet. Minor v. Happersett has never said what birthers seem to think it says.
So, any judge can rule contrary to the Constitution of the United States?
IMO, Barry will absolutely be given a Mulligan for the 2008 election because at that time there was no on-point SCOTUS ruling that he was not eligible and the entire legal elite chose to “evade” the issue including SCOTUS because Barry was so “precious.”
On January 26, 2012 for the first time a hearing on the merits took place. Hatfield and Van Irion competently placed the Minor v. Happersett precedent holding before the court on a path that can get to SCOTUS. At least one of the two attorneys attempted to compel production of a copy of Barry's certified HI LFBC, of which two are supposedly in Barry's possession (Ha!).
Unfortunately, Dr. Taitz failed to competently produce evidence and testimony supporting her claims of forgery of Barry's identity documents, none of which have ever been produced in any court to date.
I do not for a minute believe that any lower federal court judges will uphold Malihi’s citation of an Indiana state appeals court to affirm Barry's NBC status. Some new corrupted interpretation of precedent will be found first. Then it will be up to Justice Kennedy, as usual, to arrive at the ultimate 5-4 ruling for or against Barry.
The second Amendment is there so the people have the power to remove a corrupt government.Of course the people were also never envisioned as becoming dependent on the government for their food,shelter,clothing,medical care,schooling,and being tucked in at night!
Yes, they have embraced a classic fallacy, the composition fallacy. On the order of
And they will all use them in the same direction. They will bend any precedent, ignore any rule, create new ones on the spot, and do whatever it takes to make sure THEY don't have to go down in History as the one who kept the first black Precedent off the ballot.
None of this is about law, this is all about covering their @ss.
What recourse do they have when the legislative branch becomes inept?
What can anyone do when there is no effective checks and balances in place?
Some speak of an impending Constitutional crisis. It's already here.
“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.”
This Rogers case is about whether a foreign born child with one US citizen parent (the father) is a US citizen at birth. The case ruling has nothing to do with Barry's NBC status, given his claimed birth in HI. If Barry was born in Kenya, this case could possibly apply to Barry's citizenship, but Barry would not be NBC under MvH if born outside the US.
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
Jus soli means "born on the soil" (usual diplomatic etc. exceptions) = natural born.
I like to cite Rogers v Bellei myself. It proves beyond a doubt that a "citizen at birth" is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen."
In any case, New York, California, et al have "modified the statute", so that place of birth doesn't apply to the children of transient aliens. Here is a copy of the New York law. (1845)
Now this seriously begs the question. How can someone be a "natural born citizen", if they are explicitly BANNED by State law from even being a citizen?