Posted on 02/08/2012 10:09:23 AM PST by Pfesser
An administrative law judge in Georgia who held hearings on citizens’ complaints that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president and so shouldn’t be on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state failed to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent, according to one of the attorneys representing clients bringing the complaints....
Appeals of the decision already are in the works, ... Hatfield ... told WND he had expected Kemp to rubber-stamp whatever Malihi wrote....
He noted since Obama and his lawyer “failed to appear” and “failed to submit any evidence,” the determination by Malihi in the cases brought by his clients appears to be unsubstantiated.
Hatfield also explained that Malihi failed to decide the burden of proof.
“The defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional … If the defendant did, as plaintiffs contend, bear the burden of proof in these cases, then defendant can in no way be said to have satisfied his burden, and plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.”
He also noted that Malihi based his opinion of an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling from 2009, when, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court also has spoken on the issue.
While Malihi said he believed Obama was born in the U.S. and that automatically conferred “natural born citizenship” on him, that “is an incorrect statement of the applicable law,” Hatfield said.
“The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett … is binding authority for the proposition that the Article II phrase ‘natural born citizen’ refers to a person born in the United States to two (2) parents who were then (at the time of the child’s birth) themselves United States citizens.”
He said since Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama junior then is disqualified....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
So, descendants of immigrants are natural born citizens, as long as they are descended from Anglo-Saxon immigrants?
So only white people can be President? You really believe that BS?
http://www.archive.org/stream/shakespeareski01shak#page/136/mode/1up
place ur mouse over the 2nd orange icon lower left..its page 33, read 19 on the linked page. U have ur answer.
You are absolutely stark raving nuts if you think that a person in one case has to challenge the stipulations from a DIFFERENT CASE in order to not have somebody else’s stipulation wander over into their case.
That is absolutely asinine. The cases were totally separate.
And nobody can stipulate anybody into being legally eligible. It can’t be done. I can’t stipulate a purple person’s skin into being orange either. And I can’t stipulate MTV into a 5 million dollar contract that they never agreed to - even if in another court case they failed to refute my stipulation. This is absolutely crazy, what you’re saying.
It is a total waste of time to even discuss this with you.
A judge can’t “offer” to make a candidate either eligible or not eligible. And a plaintiff can’t refuse an “offer” of the candidate being eligible or not. The candidate either is, or isn’t. And Obama has produced ABSOLUTELY NO PROBATIVE EVIDENCE THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE. Nothing that happened in Georgia the day of the hearing up until now CAN change that fact.
Has Obama proven he is eligible, or not? If so, what probative evidence did he present to prove his eligibility?Just answer those questions. Those are the only questions that Malihi had to answer.
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Taitz case? If so, with what legally probative records?
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Irion case? If so, with what legally probative records?
Did Obama prove his eligibility in the Hatfield case? If so, with what legally probative records?
I’m going to do my best to just ignore anything from you that doesn’t address those questions because they are the crux of this whole thing.
You tell us Obot..who did the Founders want to be President?
“Which leads me to add one Remark:
That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small.
All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so.
And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.
I could wish their Numbers were increased.
And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People?
Why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such
Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
Ben Franklin
Kind and natural.
http://www.franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp
Do I have that right?
So, if someone believes that one does not need to be white to be President, that makes them an "Obot"? Got it.
You tell us the meaning of natural in natural born citizen.
The Shakespeare reference came from a College professor in the 19th century.
I’ve 100’s examples the meaning of natural, kind and native.
If the 14th and WKA changed this I’ve no idea.
One thing is certain..the Founders placed one class of citizen into a Kind.
The Chinese, Ethiopians, Malays, Slavs, Arabs did not write the Constitution did they. The Founders had every right to do what they did when they used the term natural born citizen.
If you don’t like it..complain to the Founders or call your Congressman to change the Constitution.
Funny how they did so without using the word "Kind," huh? And funny how they did so using a phrase ("natural born citizen") that sounds oddly reminiscent of a phrase ("natural born subject") that (a) would have been recognizable to anyone in the former colonies and (b) had nothing to do with ethnicity or "Kind."
It's one thing to argue that Obama is ineligible because his father was not a citizen. It's another thing to argue that Obama is ineligible because his father is black (and that all blacks, southern Europeans, Jews, etc. are ineligible to be President). The former is a reasonable argument, based on solid (if not universal) principles of international law. The latter makes you look like you belong on Stormfront, not FR.
Wanted to let you know your Alinsky methods do not work.
Say hello to the crazy Foggy.
I thought this creep got zotted a while ago. What gives? Same thing with drool68, I know he was banned. Now he’s back, even worse than before.
You’re on here pushing an idea that only white Anglo-Saxons are eligible to be President - an idea that (a) has never been adopted by any court in this nation, (b) appears to be based not on any historical sources that are relevant or directly tied to the Framers, but rather on snippets of Shakespeare, dictionaries, etc., and (c) is associated with racial/ethnic separatist garbage that has no place here. And you’re accusing me of “Alinsky methods”??? I might accuse you of the same thing, posting this baseless garbage in an effort to make all of us look bad.
Right now there's no legal evidence that Obama ever had U.S. citizenship to renounce, so the U.S. law doesn't necessarily apply. Further, under the same Supreme Court decision that would supposably make Obama a native-born citizen, it was acknowledged that the parents COULD renounce the citizenship of the child.
Most Italian aliens who served in WWII were naturalized by an act of Congress. If gramps was in the Army, Happy Birthday Mr President Ho-Tep.
Article 9 of the Jay Treaty is still in effect. That treaty recognizes dual citizenship for British subjects and United States citizens. A natural born citizen is a citizen born of two citizen parents who owes no allegiance to any other country than the United States from the moment of his birth. The United States legally recognizes the dual citizenship of Barack Obama from his birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen owing to the fact that he owed allegiance to at least three different nations from his birth.
Article 9 of the Jay Treaty is still in effect. That treaty recognizes dual citizenship for British subjects and United States citizens. A natural born citizen is a citizen born of two citizen parents who owes no allegiance to any other country than the United States from the moment of his birth. The United States legally recognizes the dual citizenship of Barack Obama from his birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen owing to the fact that he owed allegiance to at least three different nations from his birth.
He also noted that Malihi based his opinion of an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling from 2009, when, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court also has spoken on the issue.Last I heard, Georgia was not under the jurisdiction of Indiana. But it is under the jurisdiction of SCOTUS, so SCOTUS opinion should rule over Indiana opinion. While Malihi said he believed Obama was born in the U.S. and that...One of the three cases challenged that he was born in Hawaii. How can the judge 'believe' he was born there, or anywhere else in the U.S., without a singe SHRED courtroom evidence to that effect? Does this twit get his evidence from Twitter? Are these lawyers now going to have to appeal BOTH Malihi AND Kemp? It seems like if they don't appeal Kemp, they won't have standing to appeal Malihi. |
“bushpilot1 is arguing that only white people can be President, and I’m the one who should be zotted? Ha!”
I’m of the firm opinion that Natural Born Citizen means a person born of two parents who are themselves also citizens (of whatever kind), and I must admit that I don’t see this “Anglo Saxon” thing. Am I missing something, here?
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.