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 ...
Where she was born doesn't matter. Was she a citizen of the US at the time you were born? That's what counts. Children of naturalized citizens are as eligible as those of natural born citizens.
CONCLUSION AND REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes and hereby
reports to the Secretary of State that Plaintiffs’ challenges to the qualifications of Defendant Barack Obama should be sustained and upheld;
that Defendant Barack Obama is not entitled to appear on the primary or general election ballots in the State of Georgia as a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States; and that Defendant Barack Obama’s name should be withheld from the presidential ballot or, if the ballots have been printed, should be stricken from the presidential ballot.
This day of , 2012
Michael M. Malihi
Administrative Law Judge
As soon as you mention the 14th amendment, you show your ignorance. The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with Natural Born Citizen.
If I wanted a dodge, I would go to a car dealership. Cite a LEGAL source.
“The Founders wanted to deny NATURALIZED Citizens the ability to become President.
That is the purpose of “Natural Born” -— to distinguish between NATURALIZED.”
A distinction without a difference, plus the Constitution already allowed that exception given the fact that no one alive at the time met the NBC requirement since none of their parents were USA citizens. AND you claim Not to be ignorant?? What a hoot!! I can get more intelligent discussions out of used car salesmen...
JC
Nope. Soros.
Kansas you are the one wrong.
“Try to be a bit more mature, would you?
I can’t stand Obama but I refuse to make a fool of myself with issues or tactics that do not hurt Obama.”
Sorry, but you have already accomplished the latter. Have some breakfast with those waffles, OK?
JC
{Why no reaction to the TWO Certificates of Nomination Pelosi and DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond put out? They KNEW he was ineligible and tried to cover for him.}
All too true, but the lawyers and the wannabes are here immediately to ply their trade of obfuscation and big words that mean nothing. Even if they agree that it is likely that the above is true, there are precedents to invoke and money to be exchanged.
Is this a prediction or is it actually from Malihi??
The 14th Amendment caused the “Anchor Baby” problem. However, since that Amendment contains the “-— subject to the jurisdiction thereof -—” clause, Congress can easily, through simple legislation, fix the Anchor Baby issue.
Also, since even the “Case Law” you Birthers post says, clearly, from the COURTS YOU CITE, that the Constitution does not define the term, and since said Case Law CLEARLY refers to Common Law -—
Legislation trumps Common Law!
NO COURT HAS EVER RULED THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND CITIZEN AT BIRTH!
The Constitution expressly allows for Congress to determine the Jurisdiction of the Courts, and the Constitution also allows for Congress to define, interpret, enforce and enact the Constitution.
You are CREATING a “Constitutional” issue where no such issue exists.
Like any legal document, the parties are not free to change the meaning of it's terms once the document is enacted, except in cases where the document itself provides procedures for doing so. In the case of the Constitution, that's called the amendment process. I'm aware of no amendment that changes the definition of natural born citizen. Yes an amendment does declare that all persons born here are citizens, but it doesn't not define them as natural born citizens. So, whatever the term meant when the Constitution was written and ratified, it means the same today.
I must admit that Hillary Clinton has changed the passport application a bit, since she came to be Secretary of State.
However, that application you posted DOES list other government forms you must fill out, if you were born outside of the United States and claim citizenship at birth.
The law has not changed, but the application does not list the dates and times of the law changes anymore.
The application STILL asks for the dates of birth and residences of the parents, and the ages of the parents, as those are all controlling factors.
I must admit that Hillary Clinton has changed the passport application a bit, since she came to be Secretary of State.
However, that application you posted DOES list other government forms you must fill out, if you were born outside of the United States and claim citizenship at birth.
The law has not changed, but the application does not list the dates and times of the law changes anymore.
The application STILL asks for the dates of birth and residences of the parents, and the ages of the parents, as those are all controlling factors.
I’m sure you know this, but we must not confuse the ignorant.
Immigration Act of 1790
“....and the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:...”
and REPEALED by the Immigration Act of 1795
“.....and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as CITIZENS of the United States: .....”
No the judge has not signed.. its part of Hatfield’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
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.