LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: The Dirty “little” Secret Of ...The Natural Born Citizen Clause --- Revealed.
Source:
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
URL Source: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress ... -born-citizen-clause-revealed/
Published: Jan 27, 2012
Author: Leo Donofrio
Post Date: 2012-01-27 14:14:32 by BorisY
Keywords: native, naturalized - immigrant, natural - parents
Views: 102253
Comments: 232
Natural Born Citizen Respecting the Constitution The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born. The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed. I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States. Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language: Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.” Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.” (While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.) The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific. Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation. Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President. According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B. It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored. Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule: “Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902). The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974). This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”. Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B? Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule. Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect. Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated: “Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States. The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.) If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument. Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents. Leo Donofrio, Esq. [For a more detailed analysis of this issue, please see my Amicus Brief entered in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases.] [See commenting rules here.]
Poster Comment: People who can't figure this out shouldn't be allowed to vote - citizenship !
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-143) not displayed.
.
.
.
#144. To: CZ82 (#135)
(Edited)
Who says I hate them? Who I detest are posters too chickenshit to even dare criticize the hold they have over this country. So... where did you meet Stone, at your local mental hospital? Because you both act like borderlines.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
The very clause that you posted above distinguishes between a citizen and a natural born citizen.... No person except a 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. If their intention was to allow any citizen to be eligible for the office, then the entire first sentence in the clause above wouldn't have been necessary. Read the Federalist Papers. They were intent on keeping foreign influence "out of our councils". The fact that this constitutional issue, along with many, many others has been bastardized over the years doesn't change the original intent.
IN other words, you're making a leap over a very, very wide chasm of logic. If a person says "the sky is blue" does that mean that the sky is not blue because the statement didn't include the phrase "and the sky is not red"? It is specifically stated in the clause that you posted. There is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. If there is no difference, why use both terms in the same sentence? You may want to read... again, the Law of Nations, posted here at Constitution.org.
I would be happy if the Israelis would simply stop bullying, beating and imprisoning Palestinian Arab kids to get back at their older siblings or as a vehicle to torture these families on the whole enough to make them flee their homeland like the Nazis did to Jewish people before the Shoah.
And I know that you're going to bring up British common law, but does it make sense that the Framers of the US Constitution would rely on the common law of the King whom they rebelled against, or 'natural law' which they refer to many times?
Only in so far as the USCON confers citizenship on all those present on the soil at the time of the adoption to make them eligible for POTUS versus all those who shall be subsequently born on the soil AFTER the adoption. It makes no other distinction or qualification, e.g. immmigrants who arrived AFTER the adoption and had children. Hilarious that you would believe that the Framers tolerated non-natural born citizens being POTUS at the onset of this nation but then wouldn't tolerate Obama, who was born in Hawaii, as being eligible...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
The USCON specifically denies citizenship to Indians and Slaves. England's citizenship rules were detailed by Blackstone and stand in stark contrast to Vattel. English citizenship rules - at the time - made all of those who were born within the realm subjects, i.e. citizens, with all rights, privileges and immunities, of the Crown of England.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
English Common law was the law in effect in the colonies. Look at the early cases that went to the Supreme Court. Almost all of them dealt with a Common Law rather than Constitutional issue. A notable exception being Calder v. Bull Also, if you read the entirity of the D/I, Jefferson accuses the King of IGNORING established (common) law by asserting the King's own will on the colonies over the established Rule of Law. There is nothing in any of the writings of any of the Framers that had the affect of negating English Common law. IN fact, Blackstone is very often cited by Jay, Chase, Marshal, Story - all very important justices. So, again, simply surmising that because the English colonists, who considered themselves Englishmen and thus due all rights and privileges of being so, rebelled against the Crown of England, that they somehow negated an entire body of law, with roots going back more than 500 years is a premise unsupported by even anecdotal evidence.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the ‘natural born’ right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.” Bates himself saw only one (familiar) exception to the rule: “the small and admitted class of the natural born composed of the children of foreign ministers and the like... Edward Bates, USAAG, 1862 A "natural born citizen" is not one made by law or otherwise, but born.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Natural born liberal ! Ever watch 48 hours - homocide ! Typical gangbanger - dead teenager with 2 - 3 children ! The mtv graduate is - pregnant teenagers with tattoos - piercing on drugs not married ! Warjr - street bastards need govt father - mothers !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
My question is why is she pregnant to start with when she knows she can't afford it????? Why is it we spend so much taxpayer money on "TRYING" to fix the stupid things stupid people do?????? Instead of spending the money wisely and educating them.. Ohhhh that's right that means they would be too smart to vote for those "STUPID" politicians!!!! Free Prenatal Care, Low or No Cost Prenatal Care By Robin Elise Weiss, LCCE, About.com Guide Prenatal care is important for a healthy pregnancy. Sometimes pregnancy occurs and you are not ready. This can often mean the lack of quality prenatal care. This lack of prenatal care can be dangerous because you do not have anyone to help you figure out the ins and outs of pregnancy or to pick up on the rare serious complication. In essence, without prenatal care, you have no life guard. Here are some places that you can look for locally to help you get prenatal care: • Local Health Department Your local health department will be able to tell you where a prenatal care clinic is run. They may have one that they run or can help you find free or reduced prices on prenatal care depending on your income level. You can call 1- 800-311-BABY (1-800-311-2229) to connect you to your local health care department. This information is also available in Spanish by calling 1-800-504- 7081. • Local Medical School If you live in an area with a medical school or even have a bigger medical school in your state, even if it is not in your town, call their clinics. They often run clinics for prenatal care both at the medical school and in local towns within a certain distance. These are staffed by trained and qualified doctors and midwives who are training residents (doctors who have graduated from medical school but are learning the specialty of obstetrics), midwives and sometimes student doctors and nurses. Costs will vary depending on income. • Planned Parenthood There are many cities that are serviced by Planned Parenthood. They do provide sliding scale prenatal care. This means it will be based on your ability to pay. • Medicaid This is a sponsored program for women who do not have the money to pay for prenatal care. After the application process, you will be given a list of providers of care. This should include doctors and midwives in your area who have already agreed to take Medicaid. They will provide you with the exact same medical care as private pay or insurance based patients. Check in the blue pages of your phone book. • Other Resources You may have local resources that are helpful for finding prenatal care. It may be that your religious family has a prenatal care provider who will work with you. Or perhaps you can make payment arrangements with a local midwife or doctor. Be up front about your situation. Be truthful about what you can and can't afford.
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
So what are they doing besides spying on us, "TRYING" to influence our foreign policies, trying to influence union policies, trying to influence the ACLU, trying to influence the ADL, hunting down terrorists, hunting down old Nazis and kicking the Palestinians ass!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
She's stupid, remember. Would your death panel deny her and her unborn baby medical care because she's stupid? Instead of spending the money wisely and educating them.. Ohhhh that's right that means they would be too smart to vote for those "STUPID" politicians!!!! I'm all for education. It seems to work pretty well to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates in socialist, old Europe. Here are some places that you can look for locally to help you get prenatal care: Aren't conservatives working hard to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood? Medcaid, there's another on the conservative hit list. Medical schools - how many get by with no government (taxpayer) money? Local health department - we know where their money comes from.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
It depends on what "PART" of Europe you're talking about..... Some are lower than the US, some are on par with the US and some are 2-3 times higher that the US!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
Well I guess it depends on how much money they bring in from doing business with the public, tuition from students, grants/donations from the drug companies, other miscellaneous business corporations and private individuals!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
If they thought they were getting their monies worth I don't think they would squawk, but I would say they don't think abortion is worth funding!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
Ann Coulter. Oh, and the exact quote was "It would be a much better country if women did not vote." Coulter is as much a crazed neocon as Newt, but I have to give her credit: she certainly gives the liberal morons fits. :) Some other choice quotes: That was the theme of the Million Mom March: I don't need a brain — I've got a womb. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it's yours. I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care. Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges. Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges. Democrats cannot conceive of "hate speech" towards Christians because, in their eyes, Christians always deserve it. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy — you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism. The tolerant liberal suddenly becomes very intolerant when their official religion is challenged. If someone enters the teaching profession for the big bucks, aren't they too stupid to be teaching our kids? Liberals have managed to eliminate the idea of manly honor. Instead, all they have is womanly indignation. Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients. Liberals are hopping mad because Rush Limbaugh referred to phony soldiers as "phony soldiers." … True, all Democrats in the military are not phony soldiers, but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats. The reason [Liberals] sob about the dark night of fascism under McCarthy is to prevent Americans from ever noticing that liberals consistently attack their own country. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” -- Samuel Adams --
The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, for instance, got more than half of its funding from NIH in 2004. Between 2-16% of medical school funding comes from drug companies nation wide.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
Abortions are only a small part of what they do, 3%.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
And accounts for right about 40% of their income!!!! For every 340 abortions they perform they do 1 adoption referral..... And they perform 47 abortions for every 1 prenatal care client..... Not very good numbers are they..... Can't say as I blame the Conservatives for wanting more for their money!!!!
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
I'm glad to bring a little humor into your day. They wouldn't tolerate Romney either.
For every 340 abortions they perform they do 1 adoption referral..... And they perform 47 abortions for every 1 prenatal care client..... Not very good numbers are they..... No they aren't, where did you get them? Obviously these numbers are not from your source: Planned Parenthood calculates the numbers by services provided, rather than dollars spent. In a fact sheet last updated in March 2011, the group lists the following breakdown of its services: Contraception (including reversible contraception, emergency contraception, vasectomies and tubal sterilizations): 4,009,549 services Sexually transmitted infections testing and treatment: 3,955,916 services Cancer screening and prevention: 1,830,811 services Other women’s health services (including pregnancy tests and prenatal care): 1,178,369 services Abortions: 332,278 procedures Miscellaneous (including primary care and adoption referrals): 76,977 Total services: 11,383,900 By this tally, abortions accounted for just under 3 percent of the procedures Planned Parenthood provided in 2009, which is the most recent year for which the group is reporting statistics. www.politifact.com/truth-...ices-are-well-over-90-pe/ Planned Parenthood gets $363 million a year from the federal government. None of that money can be used for abortions.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
They wouldn't tolerate Romney either. They tolerated the Quakers, the Papists and, in Jefferson's and Madison's case, the Calvinists. Regardless, the Berfer arguments, from any angle - Article II, BC, COB, Vattel etc - do not withstand even minimal scrutiny.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
For every 340 abortions they perform they do 1 adoption referral..... And they perform 47 abortions for every 1 prenatal care client..... Not very good numbers are they..... No they aren't, where did you get them? Obviously these numbers are not from your source: The 40% is from "CLINIC" income not total income..... they receive probably close to 6 or 700 million from the government, corporate donors and private donors..... Straight from the PPFA: STI/STD Testing and Treatment — 38.0 percent of services in 2010 STI Tests, Women and Men 3,552,955 Genital Warts (HPV) Treatments 51,197 HIV Tests, Women and Men 574,901 Total 4,179,053 Contraception — 33.5 percent of services in 2010 Reversible Contraception Clients, Women** 2,219,726 Emergency Contraception Kits 1,461,816 Female sterilization procedures 605 Vasectomy Clients 3,290 Total-3,685,437 Cancer Screening and Prevention — 14.5 percent of services in 2010 Pap Tests 769,769 HPV Vaccinations 34,130 Breast Exams/ Breast Care 747,607 Colposcopy Procedures*** 41,549 LOOP/LEEP Procedures*** 2,432 Cryotherapy Procedures*** 1,254 Total-1,596,741 Other Women’s Health Services — 10.4 percent of services in 2010 Pregnancy Tests 1,113,460 Prenatal Services 31,098 Total-1,144,558 Abortion Services — 3.0 percent of services in 2010 Abortion Procedures 329,445 Other Services — 0.6 percent of services in 2010 Family Practice Services, Women and Men 35,062 Adoption Referrals to Other Agencies 841 Other Procedures, Women and Men**** 32,229 Total-68,132 Total Services 11,003,366 *Patient Care Provided by Planned Parenthood Affiliate Health Centers in 2010 So...... Abortion-329,445, Prenatal-31,089 Adoption-841.... Which equals out to........ 1.5 abortions for every prenatal service and 391 abortions to every adoption service.... (looks like his/her calculator was broken because this is the information he/she used from the PPFAs website)..... The numbers still aren't pretty no matter which calculator you use.......
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
Obama thinks they are fairly pretty numbers. You see he loves dead babies. He wants more abortions and less adoptions.
While you believe abortions should be illegal, you also believe once born, those babies do not have a right to medical care, a home, clothing, food, or an education unless their parents can pay. Seventy-six percent of Planned Parenthood's clients are poor, defined as 150% of official poverty line. If it is true that Obama loves the sight of dead babies, then it is also true that you crave the sight of diseased and starving children dressed in rags on our streets. Come to think of it, it is the right to lifers that publicly display huge pictures of dead babies - they obviously love the sight.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
here is your statement that started began our exchange If they thought they were getting their monies worth I don't think they would squawk, but I would say they don't think abortion is worth funding!!!! My point, abortion is only 3% of the total services provided annually, and by law government money can not be used to pay for abortions. The list just provides information about PP's other services - what they are and how many.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
You do understand why some people here call you looney mom?
Back attcha.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
My point, abortion is only 3% of the total services provided annually, and by law government money can not be used to pay for abortions. The list just provides information about PP's other services - what they are and how many. Can you say that with a straight face???? So you don't think they have been circumventing the (cough....cough) law for years???? Don't forget that's one of the reasons ObamaCare was created, as a way to legally get around that (cough....cough) law!!!! So what else is it "SUPPOSEDLY ILLEGAL" to do with that money?????? I'd bet it's "NOT" give it back to the Leftards in campaign contributions!!!!!!! (The Circular Money Laundering scheme). How do you think they buy votes???? With other peoples money........
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
I'd say he is getting his wish!!!!
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
Or perhaps you're paranoid.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
Citizenship - qualification for presidential office are two separate things ! To: butterdezillion Attorneys who argued in a Georgia court this week that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president say Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi considered granting a default judgment before they even argued the case. That presumably could have recommended that Obama failed to prove his eligibility and therefore should not be on the 2012 ballot, since he and his lawyer snubbed the hearing, for which Obama was subpoenaed. But the attorneys argued against such an easy victory on the point of the single hearing, expressing instead their desire to get the evidence concerning Obama’s eligibility or lack of it in the record, so that it would be there should the case elevate to an appellate level. The attorneys also said the strategy decision by Obama to simply ignore the subpoena and the hearing may ultimately backfire, because judges typically aren’t pleased to listen to arguments from someone who wants to introduce evidence during an appeal. Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?” Both attorneys, J. Mark Hatfield and Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation told WND they felt comfortable discussing the situation as the judge had imposed no ban on communicating what happened. “The judge … was considering just entering a default judgment against Obama,” Hatfield said today. “The plaintiffs’ attorneys uniformly did not want the judge to do that because there wouldn’t be any evidence in the record at all.” In Georgia, state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined. That’s exactly what several groups of individuals did. Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot. Hatfield and Irion told WND the expected process is that Malihi will make a decision over the course of the next week whether Obama, without appearing or being represented at the hearing, documented his eligibility to the court’s satisfaction. That recommendation then goes to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, to whom Obama’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, earlier had complained that Malihi was letting the attorneys “run amok” since the issue of Obama’s “citizenship” had been resolved. But in fact the U.S. Constitution demands a different status for presidents, that of a “natural born citizen,” which Founders likely considered to be the offspring of two citizen parents. If that is the case, Obama could not be eligible as his father was a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. At the time Jablonski complained to Kemp and told him he should simply cancel the hearing, Kemp warned Jablonski that he ultimately would be reviewing the hearing result, and to not participate would be at Obama’s “peril.” Both lawyers, whose cases in fact are separate from each other as well as from the Taitz’ case, said it was important for them to be able to introduce evidence and build a court record. Hatfield said the goal ultimately is to have a court rule on the substance of the controversy: Is it necessary to have citizen parents to be a “natural born citizen” or will that definition evolve as America ages? Hatfield told WND that he specifically asked the judge at the end of the hearing to close the record, and he did that. Hatfield said that should make it clear that as the decision is made, and any challenges progress, no new information can be added to the evidence already submitted. He said it’s very clear that the court had jurisdiction to take the case and accept evidence, since the ballot at issue is a ballot with which the state election in 2012 will be conducted. And Hatfield noted that although Obama’s lawyer at least made a motion to quash the subpoena from Taitz for his testimony and records, Obama’s attorneys never even bothered to respond to his own motion to produce records. Obama’s campaign declined to respond to WND emails and messages inquiring about a comment on the situation. Irion told WND the default is a typical result when one side fails to appear for a dispute that’s being adjudicated in court, but in this case, that would have left it wide open for arguments on appeal that had nothing to do with the issue. He said he explained to the judge that awarding a default judgment actually would have been rewarding Obama for failing to respond to the subpoena. The attorneys said they would be watching for Obama’s next move in the contest. And they said they believe there is a possibility that because of the dispute, Obama may end up not being on the Georgia ballot in the fall. Obama lost the state in the 2008 election to John McCain. Earlier, several attorneys who previously took cases challenging Obama’s eligibility as high as the U.S. Supreme Court said Obama’s refusal to participate in the hearing was a travesty. “That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” said attorney Leo Donofrio. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.” He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.” “If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned. “My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said. “If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation. His organization pursued several of the lawsuits over Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not accepted any eligibility cases. “He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said. Mario Apuzzo, who also shepherded a case to the Supreme Court, said Obama, by not showing, “actually failed to meet his burden of proof, to show that he is eligible and should be placed on the ballot.” “For him to just ignore due process here is really telling a lot,” he said, noting, “This decision will have a ripple effect.” “He’s not above the law. That’s a very important thing here. He’s a private person running for office, so he had no business not showing up. So the court can enter the judgment, and then the secretary of state does what he wants with it. And this will have a ripple effect for other secretaries of state, for other states, for the public. Also for any case that could be pending in the Supreme Court, where the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility is implicated,” he said. 16 posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 05:00:23 by Mr. Wright (N)
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
The Adminstrative Judge had no power to compel the President or his lawyers to attend.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
To: edge919 << “He was not being sued.” >> Semantics. This was all started by a lawsuit, yes? << “He was being subpoenaed for evidence and for testimony related directly to his candidacy for office. The only appeal he can file is with the state superior court, which he is NOT going to do.” >> He doesn't have to appeal in state court at all. He can simply ignore the whole mess then - if the state tries to keep him off the ballot - sue the state in Federal court. << “He is better off cutting his losses in this state and trying to marginalize the outcome of the hearing through his typical Alinsky tactics, and hope to high hell this isn’t repeated in all 57 states.” >> I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. No candidate with a brain is going to support that strategy. Concede states in a Presidential election? Silly. Other than a loss in Federal court, there appears to be no downside for him to simply ignore this. The USSC overruled the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. You have to keep that precedent foremost in your mind if you want to understand how Obama is reacting tactically to this. If Georgia announces some adverse impact to Obama from all this, then you can expect a hurried Obama appeal to the Supremes. The real interesting aspect here is that this would force the Supremes to review the “Natural Born Citizen” issue for the first time. Wouldn't it be interesting if they decided that Obama didn't qualify for NBC status? What would happen then? Would he be removed as President? Would 2012 be Romney vs. Biden? I'd pay to see that. It would be a fascinating news cycle. 23 posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 07:59:38 by omnidroid
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
No. This "case" was simply a ballot challenge.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
That issue has, in fact, been addressed several times by the court.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
sue = lawsuit
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Or perhaps you're paranoid. Or perhaps you're naive....
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
More like kicking the can ! Eventually a republican senate will decide !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Comments (185 - 232) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSo is that why you hate them????? Because they do what you support here????
#145. To: war (#140)
There is nothing in the USCON and there is nothing in case or administrative law that creates that mythical third class of citizen.
#146. To: war (#142)
(Edited)
Nothing that you posted lends any credence to that being either a logical or legal conclusion. There was no corollary statement "but if one or both parents are not American then the offspring is not natural born". Nor does it state "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen and if they are not then the offspring are not,” Chertoff replied.
#147. To: mininggold (#128)
"I'm sorry.... weren't you the one who insinuated all kids need to work for their room and board? And that anything less is dratted socialism."
#148. To: war (#146)
#149. To: We The People (#146)
(Edited)
There is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
#150. To: We The People (#146)
(Edited)
If a person says "the sky is blue" does that mean that the sky is not blue because the statement didn't include the phrase "and the sky is not red"?
#151. To: We The People (#148)
(Edited)
And I know that you're going to bring up British common law, but does it make sense that the Framers of the US Constitution would rely on the common law of the King whom they rebelled against, or 'natural law' which they refer to many times?
#152. To: We The People (#145)
(Edited)
#153. To: war (#152)
(Edited)
#154. To: lucysmom (#137)
However if a unborn child happens to occupy the womb of one of your stupid mothers too poor to afford pre-natal medical care then it's ok for that baby to die of a treatable medical condition, right?
#155. To: mininggold (#144)
Who I detest are posters too chickenshit to even dare criticize the hold they have over this country.
#156. To: CZ82 (#154)
My question is why is she pregnant to start with when she knows she can't afford it?????
#157. To: lucysmom (#156)
I'm all for education. It seems to work pretty well to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates in socialist, old Europe.
#158. To: lucysmom (#156)
Medical schools - how many get by with no government (taxpayer) money?
#159. To: lucysmom (#156)
Aren't conservatives working hard to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood?
#160. To: CZ82 (#159)
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood' to be flogged publicly.
#161. To: CZ82 (#158)
Well I guess it depends on how much money they bring in from doing business with the public, tuition from students, grants/donations from the drug companies, other miscellaneous business corporations and private individuals!!!!
#162. To: CZ82 (#159)
If they thought they were getting their monies worth I don't think they would squawk, but I would say they don't think abortion is worth funding!!!!
#163. To: Capitalist Eric (#160)
Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.
#164. To: lucysmom (#162)
Abortions are only a small part of what they do, 3%.
#165. To: war (#149)
Hilarious that you would believe that the Framers tolerated non-natural born citizens being POTUS at the onset of this nation but then wouldn't tolerate Obama, who was born in Hawaii, as being eligible...
#166. To: CZ82 (#164)
And accounts for right about 40% of their income!!!!
#167. To: We The People (#165)
(Edited)
I'm glad to bring a little humor into your day.
#168. To: lucysmom (#166)
And accounts for right about 40% of their income!!!!
#169. To: CZ82 (#168)
The numbers still aren't pretty
#170. To: A K A Stone (#169)
Obama thinks they are fairly pretty numbers. You see he loves dead babies.
#171. To: CZ82 (#168)
Which equals out to........ 1.5 abortions for every prenatal service and 391 abortions to every adoption service.... (looks like his/her calculator was broken because this is the information he/she used from the PPFAs website).....
#172. To: lucysmom (#170)
then it is also true that you crave the sight of diseased and starving children dressed in rags on our streets.
#173. To: A K A Stone (#172)
You do understand why some people here call you looney mom?
#174. To: lucysmom (#171)
here is your statement that started began our exchange If they thought they were getting their monies worth I don't think they would squawk, but I would say they don't think abortion is worth funding!!!!
#175. To: A K A Stone (#169)
He wants more abortions and less adoptions.
#176. To: CZ82 (#174)
Don't forget that's one of the reasons ObamaCare was created, as a way to legally get around that (cough....cough) law!!!!
#177. To: war (#152)
(Edited)
#178. To: BorisY (#177)
“He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said.
#179. To: war (#178)
#180. To: BorisY (#179)
Semantics. This was all started by a lawsuit, yes?
#181. To: BorisY (#179)
The real interesting aspect here is that this would force the Supremes to review the “Natural Born Citizen” issue for the first time.
#182. To: war (#180)
#183. To: lucysmom (#176)
Don't forget that's one of the reasons ObamaCare was created, as a way to legally get around that (cough....cough) law!!!!
#184. To: war (#181)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]