Skip to comments.Obama Got Served
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 ...
are anchor babies eligible to be president?
D'onofrio didn't have the Minor definition as a legal precedent in 2008. He tried to argue from omission that the 14th amendment didn't define natural-born citizenship. This argument is true, because it was confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but Leo didn't cite that either. He relied strictly on the construction of the law, and not a citation to legal authority. Second, the appeal had to overcome the lower court's argument that it was filed too late. The SCOTUS didn't have anything to work with.
MaineSkeptic FogBlower post.
“Straight from the horse’s mouth (yeah, I know):
David Farrar wrote:
This case is going to be wrapped up, possible as early as tomorrow, with Judge Malihi issuing a default judgement against candidate Barack Obama, with a recommendation that his name not be placed on Georgias PPP ballot due to his failure to produce a certified birth certificate.”
If this is true, it appears logical that Obama has to get to first base before he can argue that ‘jus soli’ means natural born citizen. As we all know, the loser has not done that. No evidence of being born on US soil submitted to the court is tantamount to being a foreigner.
Which means, I gather, that the MSN has no objection in principle to the idea of an absolute monarch "governing" us. For only an absolute monarch can be said to be "above the law." Worse, the MSN by deciding what is "fit to print" on the supposition that what can be kept out of the public record never happened are not impartial conveyors of on-the-ground reporting of important public events. Rather, they have chosen to be the handmaidens of creeping absolutism....
Thanks for the great post, Sallyven!
Pay close attention as I will only go over this once. Are you ready for a little grammatical magic?
Amendment XIV says:
All persons born or naturalized... are Citizens of the United States...
Article II, Section 1 says:
...Natural Born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
Or is a coordinating conjunction that presents an alternative item or idea. One in place of another.
Are or Shall Be is a subject-verb agreement which means both subjects are essentially the same.
Let us complete the lesson by substitution:
...Natural Born Citizen, or a person born in the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.
...Natural Born Citizen, or a person naturalized in the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.
Your argument does not hold water.
Who is that? David Farrar... where was that posted?
Its interesting for certain, but really more relevant to Orly’s case.
Though.... really, Without ANY documentation that he was born in Hawaii, how can the court determine he was born there in the first place. No internet document is Prima Facie evidence. ONLY the document ITSELF is. A picture is only a picture and means nothing, particularly nowadays. So it makes sense that the court would reject what amounts to a picture. That is in accord with any chain of evidence.
This could get interesting..... You are right.
I just received information that Judge Mahili rejected the White House pdf file of 0bamas long form birth certificate abstract. This should get real interesting.
As he should since it is BS. I see exploding heads in La La FogBow Land.
Thanks, Red Steel.
Of course. It is not an original certified copy, with raised seal.
Really .. do you trust this info to be from
a reliable source?
I just received information that Judge Mahili rejected the White House pdf file of Obamas long form birth certificate abstract.
Liberty Legal Foundation
The second filing today was a Motion for Finding of Contempt against Obama. My message last week, Is the Judicial Branch Dead?, covered the implications of Obamas actions last week.
Never before in our history have we had a President simply ignore a court order. We have had Presidents subject to a court order more than once, but in every one of those instances, the President in question followed lawful procedure in dealing with those orders.
We now have a sitting President that has openly declared that he is not subject to the Judicial Branch of our government.
This is dangerous territory and our Motion urges Judge Malihi to recommend that the Superior Court find the Defendant in willful contempt of Court, and that the Superior Court impose sanctions commensurate with an act that threatens the foundations of our Constitutional Republic.
Please continue to help spread the word about our arguments. There is so much misinformation circulating about what a Natural Born Citizen is and what our Constitution says.
Many wonder why this is even important at this point. It is important because everything is connected. If we fail to follow the Constitution in one circumstance, how can we defend upholding the Constitution in another?
This is not a partisan issue, this is not a gender issue, this is not a race issue. This is a rule of law issue. Either we have rule of law in the United States or we dont.
Anyone who has foreign citizenship is a foreigner, even if they're also US citizens. By definition, using the legal dictionaries of the period, and specifically using the ones ordered by Madison for use at the Constitutional Convention.
Also, the Minor decision states that those who are born in the US to US-citizens parents form a citizenship class that is distinct from any others that don't satisfy all of the following conditions:
The explicit statement that those membership predicates form a distinct citizenship class does logically exclude anyone who doesn't satisfy the predicates from the class. The fact that the court names this class—and only this class—as "natural born citizens" excludes all those who don't satisfy those same membership predicates from being "natural born citizens."
And it was absolutely legally necessary for the Court to demonstrate that Mrs. Minor was a citizen solely by natural law, and not by statute or by the 14th Amendment, in order for the reasoning they used to justify their principal holding regarding the right to vote to be valid. In order to do that, it was absolutely necessary to correctly ascertain and enumerate the membership predicates of the class (set) of natural born citizens.
Without all the correct membership predicates of any set, it is not only impossible to prove that any missing predicates don't identify set elements missed by the incomplete predicate set, it's also impossible to prove that the missing predicates don't exclude set elements not excluded by the incomplete predicates. That's why the Court had to be certain that it had each and every membership predicate, and no others.
This may be a little off topic, but if the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the US Presidency had also been one of the requirements for access to the secrets of our nuclear weaponry it is highly unlikely that the Chinese communists would have been delivered those secrets. Of course unfortunately political correctness precluded that. And this (minimize the possibilities of divided loyalties) was the reason that the founders who established our Constitution had this as a requirement for the office of the US Presidency. Fortunately the affliction of political correctness did not exist at that time and common sense prevailed.
I loved the commercial with Jerry Seinfeld getting trumped by Leno in the jet pack flying squirrel suit.
I tried to follow all the comments from that first ‘announcement’ by Obama Exposer...and I see NOTHING by way of a SOURCE - other than a prediction...so what’s going on here?
All natural born citizens are citizens, but the reverse is not true. Not all citizens are Natural Born Citizens.
Sounds like familiar 7th grade Math logic:
- a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not
necessarily a square;
- a diameter is a chord, but a chord is not necessarily a
What is with the comma after “United States” in Article II Section 1?
Wouldn’t good grammer indicate that it means:
“natural born Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” Or “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”?
Why then, if my argument does not hold water (And your explanation was goofy at best) Why then, is it, that NOBODY IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION, NO IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS, NO ELECTED OFFICIALS and No real historians agree with you?
You are wrong.
You are all twisting yourself into knots trying to prove what you can’t prove.
Don't recall that--Segretti, perhaps? Anyway, he didn't appear, and no one has yet raised a single example where a sitting President did.
See #421. 4 min/27 sec.
no both parents are illegal squatters.
"So lets seeits a long form certificate? So the distinction is that it includes the footprint? - Because if it did, you ought to try and get him to appear and demonstrate his footprint. That would give us something to compare when and if we find a birth file that appears to have some validity (if ever).
"I assume the word abstract is there because the person who offered it didnt include a footprint."
I just proved to you using the ENGLISH LANGUAGE that you are illiterate.
Apparently you must have flunked grammar and reading comprehension in school.
I miss Congressman Billybob.
A quick read of attorney Irions argument which appears incorporated in Hatfields post-hearing filing seems to me to contain a flaw. He states: However, this statement is immediately followed by the clarification that there have never been doubts as to the narrower class of natural born Citizen[s]. On its face, the lack of doubts may be true, but the courts classification may have applied to children and not forms of citizenship. In any event, we will not have to wait long to see what status the ALJ gives to Minor.
We may also agree on the view I prefer: that Minor has an important role in the debate because it asserts there can be no doubt regarding the intent of the framers and ratifiers when they used the term NBC and executed the document. That 1787 intent, if it can be ascertained of course, is what is most relevant, not subsequent theories, misapplications, redefinitions, or misunderstandings.
It is possible to imagine Minor could well have said, if indeed it did not actually convey, It is unnecessary for the Constitution to say who shall be natural born citizens, because at common law there was never any doubt that all children (etc.) In such a reading, Minor does not define but affirms 1787 usage.
You may know there is evidence that George Washington, Commander in Chief of our nations forces during the Revolution corresponded with John Jay, then President of the Continental Congress, about the desirability of sending him officers that were American citizens. Jay, of course, established himself as one of the nations leading intellects and later argued strongly in the Federalist Papers against the danger of foreign influences in our new government. Jays 1787 letter to Washington, then the chair of the Constitutional Convention, emphasizing that the Command(er) in Chief be a natural born citizen was almost certainly in furtherance of their prior correspondence.
It is not clear whether very preliminary drafts of the new constitution addressed presidential qualifications, but a August 22 report from the Committee of Eleven recommended the president be a citizen (similar to senators and representatives, along with 35 yrs of age and 21 years residency). Within a matter of days there appeared on September 4 the term NBC applicable solely to the president. Typically there was discussion and comment on most issues but there was none on this point. Perhaps more telling, no concern was expressed about whether that important and unique qualification extracted the highest level of allegiance and loyalty
Would Jay, a prominent thinker and lawyer have used an ambiguous term to qualify the CinC in order to extract the highest level of allegiance and loyalty? That is unimaginable. What other term was available to convey those attributes by virtue of parental citizenship? There is none, the term speaks for itself.
It seems to me the burden of proof is on those who would propose a different definition of NBC. In that regard, I believe the only persuasive rebuttal would come from the record of those notables who attended the convention and those who signed the document.
He's still with us...if only in spirit.
I’ve not seen any reliable confirmation of it yet.
No. Article II, Section 1 is grammatically correct. The rule of punctuation has changed since 1787.
Hmmm....I hadn't thought about this, since Rubio has been adamant that he will NOT be the VP pick and showing every sign (my interpretation) that he knows fully well that no constitutionalist (such as he claims to be) could agree to violate the Constitution.
You do raise the interesting scenario of what the Dems would do if Rubio WAS picked.
The Dems are scared to death of Rubio and would stop at nothing to prevent him from peeling off a big chunk of the Hispanics.
Their attack, IMO, would be to point out that unlike Obama, who has ONE US citizen parent,...Rubio has ZERO US citizen parents! On this basis alone Dems could claim this distinction makes Obama eligible and Rubio ineligible. Dems could point to the precedent that the entire Congress ignored Obama’s publicly claimed non-citizen father, while there is NO precedent for a person with ZERO citizen parents (Chester Arthur's were unknown).
On this basis alone, the Dems might be bold enough to risk a fast-track NBC hearing before SCOTUS to try to remove Rubio and count on SCOTUS being too chicken to also remove Obama. Frankly, I don't think Obama's legal team would allow that SCOTUS test case if they could prevent it. But they might be too boxed in to try to prevent it, having told their peeps that there is NO QUESTION that Obama is eligible.
A private message can be sent farrar.
As I wrote, I tried to trace it back and that took me to fogbow website. Yet it's been spread all over FR threads. Obama Exposer, you were asked to provide a source, and have not done so. I checked your page. That's NOT how things are done here in FR.
Including Fox is not reporting it
So called Conserative Talk shows on Radio not reporting it
Including Fox is not reporting it
So called Conserative Talk shows on Radio not reporting it
“Including Fox is not reporting it
So called Conserative Talk shows on Radio not reporting it”
The mainstream media is ignoring it hoping it will “go away”. Conservative talk radio is not touching it yet because of fear that the decision will be similar to all the earlier decisions that favored the anti-constitutionalists. If the decision goes the way that the US Constitution says it should, then there will be no shortage of coverage. I’m hoping that the Georgia decision is made with wisdom, courage and love of our country and its Constitution. If it is, it will be the first step in laying a foundation for a brighter future for the USA.
He WAS subpoened, and spun, delayed and tread water for a couple of months, then faced with the reality that he was caught cold, he resigned.
There are now ongoing calls for Nixon to resign and the Congress begins to seriously consider impeachment.
TIME Magazine names Watergate Judge John Sirica as Man of the Year.
The House of Representatives votes to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether grounds exist for the impeachment of President Nixon.
Complete List of Members of the House Judiciary Committee
Nixon is named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an indictment against seven former presidential aides.
Special Prosecutor Jaworski issues a subpoena for 64 White House tapes.
Nixon refuses to hand over the tapes, but provides more edited transcripts to the Judiciary Committee. He appears on national television to announce his decision to release the transcripts. There is public shock at the general tone of the conversations and the foul language used by Nixon and others. The expression “expletive deleted” enters the vocabulary.
Full Text of Nixon’s Address to the Nation.
Impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee.
The Supreme Court, by a unanimous vote of 8-0 (William Rehnquist abstaining) upholds the Special Prosecutor’s subpoena, ordering Nixon to make the tapes available for the Watergate trials of his former subordinates. The case is known as United States v. Nixon.
The full text of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Listen to some of the White House tapes.
Barbara Jordan, a Democratic Party member of the House Judiciary Committee, makes a famous speech reminding her colleagues of the constitutional basis for impeachment of the President.
Read Barbara Jordan’s speech
The House Judiciary Committee adopts the first Article of Impeachment by a vote of 27-11, with 6 Republicans voting with the Democrats. The Article charges Nixon with obstruction of the investigation of the Watergate break-in.
Full text of the Articles of Impeachment.
Analysis of the Judiciary Committee’s votes.
Listen to the announcement of the Committee’s vote to Chairman Rodino.
Listen to Lawrence Hogan, a Republican member of the Committee
The House Judiciary Committee adopts the second Article of Impeachment that charges Nixon with misuse of power and violation of his oath of office.
The House Judiciary Committee adopts the third Article of Impeachment, charging Nixon with failure to comply with the House subpoenas.
Listen to the Impeachment Resolution being moved in the Judiciary Committee
Nixon releases transcripts of three conversation he had with Haldeman six days after the Watergate break-in. The June 23 tape becomes known as The Smoking Gun because it reveals that Nixon ordered the FBI to abandon its investigation of the break-in.
Nixon releases three more tapes that prove he ordered a cover-up of the Watergate burglary on June 23rd 1972, six days after the break-in. The tapes show that he knew of the involvement of White House officials and the Campaign for the Re-election of the President, as well as revealing that Nixon ordered the FBI to abandon its investigation of the break-in.
These tapes become known as The Smoking Gun The eleven Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who voted against impeachment say they will change their votes. It is clear that Nixon will be impeached and convicted in the Senate.
Transcript of the Smoking Gun tape
Three senior Republican congressmen meet with Nixon, advising him that his chances of avoiding impeachment by the House and removal from office by the Senate are “gloomy”.
Around the country, calls mount for Nixon’s resignation, and speculation builds about Nixon’s intentions.
A Law Professor at the University of Arkansas comments on Watergate.
In a televised address to the nation at 9pm, Nixon announces that he will resign
(links active at site)
News davidfarrar does not have any reports.
On this day in 1998, President Bill Clinton becomes the first sitting president to testify before the Office of Independent Council as the subject of a grand-jury investigation.
Comments (13 as of this posting)
Brett Baier reported the hearing,
and as I recall .. not the snub
by the won.
What fast fingers you have grandma!