Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Superior Court asked to boot Obama from ballot (loss of constitutional rule of law)
World Net Daily ^ | February 16, 2012 | Bob Unruh

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 petitioner’s 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 Malihi’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last
Will Malihi's blatant judicial nullification of the SCOTUS NBC definition in Minor v. Happersett be allowed to stand?
1 posted on 02/17/2012 8:28:48 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT

ping to filing details for the Van Irion GA NBC issue appeal.


2 posted on 02/17/2012 8:31:39 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

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.


3 posted on 02/17/2012 8:42:00 AM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Hahahahahahahaaaa....

Someone actually still believes in the constitution; what a joke!


4 posted on 02/17/2012 8:50:15 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Solid legal argument in the appeal brief. It’s not going anywhere, but it’s solid and accurate.


5 posted on 02/17/2012 8:53:48 AM PST by Buckeye Battle Cry (Not Romney - Not ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
“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.”

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.

6 posted on 02/17/2012 9:04:27 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

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.


7 posted on 02/17/2012 9:16:31 AM PST by Terry Mross (Difference between a conservative / liberal-obvious. Difference between a rep and a dem? None)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
NO SCOTUS precedent subsequent to WKA has been cited to affirm that Barry is NBC...because there isn't any such case.

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.
8 posted on 02/17/2012 9:19:41 AM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

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.


9 posted on 02/17/2012 9:25:39 AM PST by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius, (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Will Malihi's blatant judicial nullification of the SCOTUS NBC definition in Minor v. Happersett be allowed to stand?

I'd say that's a good bet. Minor v. Happersett has never said what birthers seem to think it says.

10 posted on 02/17/2012 9:27:48 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
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.

So, any judge can rule contrary to the Constitution of the United States?

11 posted on 02/17/2012 9:27:48 AM PST by Know et al (The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with a voter: Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry
“Solid legal argument in the appeal brief. It’s not going anywhere, but it’s solid and accurate.”

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.

12 posted on 02/17/2012 9:31:46 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Know et al

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!


13 posted on 02/17/2012 9:31:56 AM PST by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
I'd say that's a good bet. Minor v. Happersett has never said what birthers seem to think it says.

Yes, they have embraced a classic fallacy, the composition fallacy. On the order of


14 posted on 02/17/2012 9:35:33 AM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
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.

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.

15 posted on 02/17/2012 9:40:09 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
What does a people do when the court system refuses to abide by their oath to uphold the second amendment?

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.

16 posted on 02/17/2012 9:41:23 AM PST by Know et al (The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with a voter: Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379#


17 posted on 02/17/2012 9:50:52 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KGlBHyVeYU


18 posted on 02/17/2012 9:53:14 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
“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.”

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.

19 posted on 02/17/2012 10:16:41 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
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.

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?

20 posted on 02/17/2012 11:02:04 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
“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.

A further point I would like to thrash out with you is this. A "natural born citizen" is either a "title" or a condition. If it is a "title" then it can be pronounced by an administrative body, (such as Congress or a state legislature) if it is a condition, it is not susceptible to the pronouncements of any legislature.

I argue that it is a condition, not a title. Given that the term is made up of two adjectives modifying the noun "citizen" I would suggest that it is descriptive of a particular kind of citizen, and is therefore a condition, not a title.

An inherent condition cannot be modified by statute. A dog is either born with two legs or it is not. As Lincoln said, "Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."

21 posted on 02/17/2012 11:13:44 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Ya know what bugs me about all this pushing of Minor?

Aside from the fact that it does not say what Birthers want it to say, the Birther gang doesn’t seem to be aware of what they are setting themselves up for.

Minor was a case that stated women could not vote. Can you imagine the fun MSNBC would have with that?

“Chris, the latest argument from the Right is that Minor vs. Happersett, a Supreme Court Case denying women the right to vote, also means that a man born in Hawaii cannot be President if his father is from Africa. What do you say to that?”

“Well Rachel, this just goes to show how the GOP wants to turn back the clock to the days before women’s suffrage. To the days of Jim Crow. To attack women’s rights, to attack civil rights….”

Frankly I am surprised that this hasn’t happened yet. Maybe they are saving it for closer to the election.

22 posted on 02/17/2012 11:55:25 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

I believe the Georgia Secretary of State has already stepped in to review this Judge’s ruling.


23 posted on 02/17/2012 12:07:25 PM PST by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You realize that code was blown away by the 14th Amendment?

And that American citizenship was a federal issue, not a state issue? If this law had been challenged it would have been deemed unconstitutional. However, that did not happen because of the Civil War and was then rendered moot by the 14th Amendment.

Your NY Code simply documents the fight over how states and the federal government would share power. Before the 14th amendment states had a say in who was a citizen and what rights they had. The states have not had a say in citizenship since the 14th.

24 posted on 02/17/2012 1:01:57 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
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.

Yep it is all that stupid Orly's fault, sadly this immigrant is the only lawyer that seems to be willing to fight for our Constitution. Our lawyers shamefully attack Orly the defender, and then set on their collective a$$. A Pox on them all,

25 posted on 02/17/2012 1:32:22 PM PST by itsahoot (I will Vote for Palin, even if I have to write her in.(Recycled Tagline))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; LucyT

PING

Not sure if you have seen this


26 posted on 02/17/2012 2:17:11 PM PST by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

I have a question regarging the entire case. Hopefully someone can explain it to me. Since Obama never appearred in court AND did not comply with the production of a Birth Certificate, how does the court determine he was vorn in Hawaii?
He has never provided a BC to the court hearing this case. Is this court using the Plaintiffs exhibit of the fake BC as evidence? Didn’t lawyers stipulate Obama was born in Hawaii? Can anyone explain how this could happen in a court of law.
The argument that we must produce our BC to get a Drivers Licence or be enrolled in school would now be changed. Can anyone just refer to something they put on their website as proof?


27 posted on 02/17/2012 3:10:41 PM PST by DrDude (Governor of the 57th State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: phockthis; Gvl_M3; Flotsam_Jetsome; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; ...

.

Ping

Article, check out comments, esp # 27.

Thanks for the ping.

.


28 posted on 02/17/2012 3:38:53 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: phockthis; Gvl_M3; Flotsam_Jetsome; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; ...

.

Ping

Article, check out comments, esp # 27.

Thanks for the ping.

.


29 posted on 02/17/2012 3:44:35 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DrDude

First of all Governor, it is an “administrative court” not a court of law. There is a huge difference. It is created by the GA Executive branch and under that branches authority. It’s purpose is to adjudicate issues arising from application of administrative policies and statues. It’s decisions are not law.

Now under GA law the decision of the SoS can be appealed, and in this case has been. I think you will see that GASC is going to say that the legal arguments against the administrative law judge are going to be tossed because they have no legal standing, only the decision of the SoS can be appealed. So I believe that there maybe a window of opportunity to introduce “real evidence” in a “real court” if the GASC decides to hear the case.


30 posted on 02/17/2012 3:49:26 PM PST by GregNH (I will continue to do whatever it takes, my grandchildren are depending on me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DrDude; LucyT
Very intriguing. Perhaps we should ALL try it and use barry as an example, as well as the court rulings.

Might get interesting.

31 posted on 02/17/2012 3:51:58 PM PST by NoGrayZone (Jim "Firebrand" Robinson endorses Newt...with EPIC call to action!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DrDude
“Since Obama never appearred in court AND did not comply with the production of a Birth Certificate, how does the court determine he was vorn in Hawaii?
“He has never provided a BC to the court hearing this case. Is this court using the Plaintiffs exhibit of the fake BC as evidence? Didn’t lawyers stipulate Obama was born in Hawaii?”

In the appeal, IIRC, Hatfield complains that Jablonski evaded the Jan. 26 Malihi hearing but then sent a photocopy of the WH pdf LFBC to SOS Kemp and copied Malihi and Malihi seemed to have relied on it.

Also, either Hatfield or Irion put up the LFBC image in court and asked a witness and/or the court to take note of the birthplace of BHO Sr. as being a village in Kenya. That same image shows Barry as having been born in HI, of course. The main issue in this appeal will be the definition of NBC in the MvH case and Barry's UK subject father, not the birth location of Barry.

32 posted on 02/17/2012 3:56:35 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

That info helps me understand some of this. I still don’t understand how anything can be accepted unless it is a certified copy. With all the college transcript issues, the SS #, passport, etc... issues, I don’t see how not providing a BC gets him a hearing let alone a winning decision.

Not aure what the PING LIST is but I would like to know how to gwt on it.


33 posted on 02/17/2012 4:14:26 PM PST by DrDude (Governor of the 57th State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DrDude; All

This has been *my* question from back in 2008!

If ANY OF US had shown up to the DMV for a replacement Drivers License and when asked for proof of birth (meaning an original birth certificate which they ASK FOR AND WE ALL HAVE TO OBTAIN WHEN LOSING A DRIVERS LICENSE) we gave a URL of a scanned copy of said birth certficate... we would be LAUGHED OUT OF THE DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

And yet we can all hold the office of POTUS without as much as a blink of an eye (as long as we had a “D” by our name)

Hell, apparently the “R”s don’t care about it either...

Anyway, it’s more frightening than anything.


34 posted on 02/17/2012 4:15:55 PM PST by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the tumbril wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

I still would like someone to challenge him using what most Americans would fully understand - ‘little league’ requirement.

If you were born in Hawaii AND your over 35 all you need to show is a real, authentic document WITH A REAL RAISED SEAL FROM THE ISSUING ORGANIZATION. That is all. Just like any 8 year old has to show up with in spring to play ball.

When they fail to produce this simple element that most American males have had to show just to play ‘little league’ it should be become clear how bad the fraud is.


35 posted on 02/17/2012 4:17:55 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

That info helps me understand some of this. I still don’t understand how anything can be accepted unless it is a certified copy. With all the college transcript issues, the SS #, passport, etc... issues, I don’t see how not providing a BC gets him a hearing let alone a winning decision.

Not sure what the PING LIST is but I would like to know how to get on iT. Is it a notification system.


36 posted on 02/17/2012 4:19:46 PM PST by DrDude (Governor of the 57th State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

You are likely right, but the effort still must be made.

Why?

So....History can permanently record the names of the cowardly traitors who **refused** to honor their oaths taken before God to defend the Constitution.


37 posted on 02/17/2012 4:21:07 PM PST by wintertime (Reforming a government K-12 school is like reforming an abortion center.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
We all know that WKA merely confirmed that Ark was a citizen, but DID NOT confirm that he was a natural-born citizen. That has NEVER been resolved.

But let us hear what United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) had to say about the INTENT of the Fathers of the 14th Amendment.

He emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment. Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.

Quote from Justice Black:

“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.”

During a debate regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

Bingham also stated:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

And:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”

38 posted on 02/17/2012 4:21:19 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Oh, it’s worse than just not caring much, they’re consciously violating their oath to the Constitution and thus their oath to US. The ‘rule of law’ is no more, it is now the rule of federal oligarchy.


39 posted on 02/17/2012 4:21:19 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

I agree completely. To take it further, Obama has never proven he is 35 years old. Has anyone ever asked a court to determine eligibility based on age. The certified BC would have to be provided. IMHO


40 posted on 02/17/2012 4:24:36 PM PST by DrDude (Governor of the 57th State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DrDude; LucyT
“Not aure what the PING LIST is but I would like to know how to gwt on it.”

A ping is a comment reply alert to one or many FReepers. A ping list is a list of FReeper ID handles kept by a FReeper volunteer to send out alerts on a particular topic.

LucyT keeps the best eligibility ping list and you can ask her to be put on her list.

If you see an article that LucyT hasn't pinged yet, you can alert her with a ping.

41 posted on 02/17/2012 4:29:13 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

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.

We the people have more power than the judiciary, president or ‘congress, their powers derive from us, we the people. See American Revolution and US Civil War for previous demonstrations of who has the power.


42 posted on 02/17/2012 4:39:11 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DrDude

like the magic bullet, the magic Usurper has a magic birth certificate, now you see it now you don’t...


43 posted on 02/17/2012 4:41:29 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Thanks for the info.


44 posted on 02/17/2012 4:43:40 PM PST by DrDude (Governor of the 57th State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Could you add me to the Ping List? Thanks


45 posted on 02/17/2012 4:45:25 PM PST by DrDude (Governor of the 57th State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DrDude

You’re added.


46 posted on 02/17/2012 5:11:09 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
Malihi resorted to Ankeny dicta which resorted to WKA dicta which resorted to Circuit Court dicta from 1866 which was PRIOR to the 1975 Minor v. Happersett SCOTUS definition of NBC.

From WKA:

“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

“’All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’”

This is the passage that Ankeny holds up as the NBC definition which allows Barry to be eligible with a foreign father...a situation about which the later 1975 MvH case says “there are doubts” as to NBC status.

47 posted on 02/17/2012 5:56:20 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6
“When they fail to produce this simple element that most American males have had to show just to play ‘little league’ it should be become clear how bad the fraud is.”

Yes, fail to produce IN COURT and pay $ millions to defeat any attempt to compel production of his identity documents in any court...and let an honorable LTC go to the brig before pretending to “produce” an alleged BC, but just for one friendly MSM reporter to hold and take a crappy smartphone photo of, but never allow a judge to hold it.

48 posted on 02/17/2012 6:02:59 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196; LucyT; butterdezillion

you don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about!!!!


I. There are 2 classes of citizenship under American Law

A. State Citizenship

1. found in the U.S. Constitution prior to the Civil
War

a. e.g. see qualifications for Representative,
Senator, and President (1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5)

2. this is a sovereign class created and endowed by
the Creator

B. federal citizenship

1. 14th Amendment attempted to formalize a second
class of citizen first defined in 1866 Civil
Rights Act

2. this is a statutory creation, a subject class,
created and endowed by the Congress, not by the
Creator

II. 2 recent decisions of Utah Supreme Court struck down the
14th Amendment.

A. Congress and the President forced Southern States to
vote for it “at the point of a bayonet”, using the
duress and undue influence of martial law.

B. The Civl War was over and Southern States had already
been counted upon to ratify the 13th Amendment, banning
slavery.

III. The consequences of the failed ratification are many and
far-reaching:

A. federal citizenship is not defined in the supreme Law
(i.e. the U.S. Constitution)

1. it is, at best, the creation of federal statute

2. as such, it can be taxed, regulated, and even
revoked, just like a corporation

B. in contrast, State Citizenship is an unalienable Right
which Congress cannot tax, regulate, or revoke

1. Congress cannot amendment the Constitution

a. Congress derives its power solely from the
Constitution

b. Congress can lawfully exercise its powers
only within the limitations of constitution

2. qualifications for Representative, Senator, and
President have never been amended by the States

a. the term “United States” in these provisions
means “States United” (see People v. De La
Guerra and Ex parte Knowles, Calif. Supreme
Court)

3. since the Constitution as lawfully amended is
perpetual, then so is the Sovereign State
Citizenship which it has recognized from the
beginning (1787)

IV. The term “United States” has 3 separate and distinct
meanings in American Law:

A. The name of the sovereign nation, occupying the
position of other sovereigns in the family of nations

B. The federal government and the limited territory over
which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority

1. to be a federal citizen is to be a “citizen of the
United States” in this second sense of the term

C. The collective name for the States united by and under
the Constitution for the United States of America

2. to be a State Citizen is to be a “Citizen of the
United States” in this third sense of the term
(i.e. a “Citizen of one of the States United”)

V. One can be a State Citizen without also being a federal
citizen

A. see Crosse case from Maryland Supreme Court:

“Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the
federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a
person to be a citizen of the United States in order to
be a citizen of his state.”

[Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections]
[221 A.2d 431 (1966)]

B. see State v. Fowler case from Louisiana Supreme Court:

“But a person may be a citizen of a particular state
and not a citizen of the United States. To hold
otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest
exercise of its sovereignty — the right to declare who
are its citizens.”

[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)]

C. see Cruikshank court from U.S. Supreme Court:

“We have in our political system a Government of the
United States and a government of each of the several
States. Each of these governments is distinct from the
others, and each has citizens of its own ....”

[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

D. numerous other authorities can be found, with cites, in
“A Collection of Court Authorities in re Two Classes
of Citizens”

VI.


49 posted on 02/17/2012 6:16:57 PM PST by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

The key is the statement that the US follows “English concepts” with “an acceptance of the jus soli.” Jus soli means “born on the soil” = Natural born.

The claim that Minor v Happersett defines NBC is far more tenuous than the clear statement in Rogers v. Bellei.


50 posted on 02/17/2012 6:26:05 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson