Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Illinois Board of Elections to hear Obama Eligibility Cases Feb. 2
Source:
ObamaBallotChallenge
URL Source: http://obamaballotchallenge.com/ill ... -obama-eligibility-cases-feb-2
Published: Feb 1, 2012
Author: Pamela Barnett
Post Date: 2012-02-01 19:08:03 by Murron
Keywords: None
Views: 19090
Comments: 41
Illinois Board of Elections to hear Obama Eligibility Cases Feb. 2 Obama Ballot Challenge Illinois Jackson Hearing Feb. 2(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1) not displayed.
.
.
.
#2. To: war, Murron (#1)
Your opinions on legal matters are as credible as they are on economic matters... which is to say, your words have all the value of two squirts of warm piss. You just post shit to derail the threads. Get a life, Obungler pole-smoker.
"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 --
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) 88 U.S. 162 (Wall.) MINOR v. HAPPERSETT. October Term, 1874 [88 U.S. 162, 163] ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus: The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains:1 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws.' And the constitution of the State of Missouri2 thus ordains: 'Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.' Under a statute of the State all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise. In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not [88 U.S. 162, 164] a 'male citizen of the United States,' but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote. The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error. Mr. Francis Minor (with whom were Messrs. J. M. Krum and J. B. Henderson), for the plaintiff in error, went into an elaborate argument, partially based on what he deemed true political views, and partially resting on legal and constitutional grounds. These last seemed to be thus resolvable: 1st. As a citizen of the United States, the plaintiff was entitled to any and all the 'privileges and immunities' that belong to such position however defined; and as are held, exercised, and enjoyed by other citizens of the United States. 2d. The elective franchise is a 'privilege' of citizenship, in the highest sense of the word. It is the privilege preservative of all rights and privileges; and especially of the right of the citizen to participate in his or her government. 3d. The denial or abridgment of this privilege, if it exist at all, must be sought only in the fundamental charter of government,-the Constitution of the United States. If not found there, no inferior power or jurisdiction can legally claim the right to exercise it. 4th. But the Constitution of the United States, so far from recognizing or permitting any denial or abridgment of the privileges of its citizens, expressly declares that 'no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' 5th. If follows that the provisions of the Missouri constitution and registry law before recited, are in conflict with and must yield to the paramount authority of the Constitution of the United States. The Chief Justice Delivers The Opinion Of The Court: The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen. It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. [88 U.S. 162, 172] But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Looks like you just got nailed with two squirts of warm piss... /asshole
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
cabbage - lettuce - carrots all vegetables ! No one knows what an obomba - tomato is ! Tomato , whether pronounced Tuh-MAY-toh or Tuh-MAH-to, is a delicious, nutritious fruit, more widely known as a vegetable. Corn is a grain !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT And that ain't the half of it! The disingenuous jagoff left out the majority opinion delivered by the chief justice. Excerpt of the good part, below... The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
"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 --
Mack daddys' father was NEVER a US citizen!
Mack daddys' father was NEVER a US citizen! Yep, there is no question that children born to US citizen parents born in the US are citizens. That does not mean ONLY children born in the US of citizen parents are natural born citizens.
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,
Typical. I realized I didn't catch all of that (hard to read on the Blackberry in stopped traffic), and just deleted my reply to him. It's really quite simple for the dummy- he doesn't give a crap about anything but lining his own pockets. So he'll defend the indefensible. At the end of the day, he'll smoke any pole he has to, to keep the money rolling. He's a *whore*, pure and simple.
"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 --
You spot it, you got it, as the saying goes.
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,
Did you read what you posted? "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. " Those "doubts" were later "solved" in US v Wong Kim Ark in which the court ruled that such children ARE natural born. Here's two squirts for you too. Warm enough for you?
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Those "doubts" were later "solved" in US v Wong Kim Ark If that court heard the Obungler case, he'd be back to community organizing in Chitown, after he served his term. Wong wasn't president, or even on the Democrat ticket. They decided he was a citizen, not a natural born one. Gimmie a quote where they said he's a natural born US citizen.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
This is the part in US v Wong Kim Ark that either has them stumped, or they just totally ignore it for their own convenience, and hope no one notices.
They decided that he was a citizen by virttire of native birth which is what a natural born citizen is. The decision uses native and natural born interchangeably. The decision points out that there are only two types of citizens...native, thus natural born and naturalized. I've actually read the decision. They based their reasoning on Blackstone and the understanding that English Commmon Law was in effect when the USCON was written and ratified: 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 [p663] 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. --US v Wong Kim Ark
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Stuff it Mammy...I've actually read the decision. The term "natural born" is used thoughout the decision. Hondgoo is wrong...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Thanks for the reply, you did indeed come up with something. A quote from a circut court decision (In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court) mentioned in the Wong Ark decision. It wouldn't be the first time a court made a bad decision. I recall that at one time the SCOTUS upheld slavery. If the Wong court could misinterpert the 14th amendment to grant citizenship to anchor babies, it must have been easy for them to accept a circut court judges opinion of natural born. A lot of Marxists on that court, appointed by the co-founder of communism Abe Lincoln.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
You're underscoring the fact that you have never read the decision. What I posted, while getting to the crux of the matter, is hardly the only example in that decision. A quick count and I come up with about a dozen references to prior decisions as well as an overview of the definitions of citizenship throughout both history and the world. Ark was a MAJOR decision. The issue of Chinese immigration and citizenship was as much of a hot button issue then as Hispanic immigration is now. To say that the court decided this issue wrongly in not only a contemporary context but as well as a context of the times is going to be a tough conclusion to support. The Fuller court was under a lot of pressure to rule the other way - as the Roberts court would be should that same issue come before them. Ark is settled law.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Hondo sees commies under everyone's bed. His parents made him work for his keep as a toddler so they wouldn't be accused of being socialists, so take pity.
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
Not one sitting justice...from the Chief Justice on down...who heard and decided Ark was appointed by Abraham Lincoln...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
/asshole Hmmm... you cite the minority opinion of Minor v. Happersett, hoping it won't be noticed. You misdirect the discussion away from what matters- why any citizen can be a Senator, for example, yet only a "natural born citizen" can be POTUS. Nice try. HERE is why the courts are hearing the cases, why oBungler won't show, and why even his attorneys won't show up to represent him. 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. The author above IS an attorney, and you're just a BS artist, who just pissed on his own shoes. Obungler's not a natural-born citizen. He is ineligible to be POTUS. He will not be re-elected, because his name will be stricken from the ballots. Those who attempt to write in the name for an ineligible candidate will have their votes tossed out. Sucks to be you.
"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 --
Uh...nope...read again Junior: The Chief Justice Delivers The Opinion Of The Court: The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen. It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. [88 U.S. 162, 172] But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed. What is in bold is the actual answer to the question before the court. Open wide...here comes two more squirts...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
No, actually he didn't. Instead, he got you wrapped around the axle, with misdirection- his typical M.O. See post #21.
"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 --
And when that does not happen will you promise to never post here again?
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
LOL. All you have is more misdirection, more spin. Sucks to be you. Now that you're boring me, it's time to move on to another thread. Thanks for playing, troll.
"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 --
Damn.... Eric provides the perfect example of the current libertarian mindset. And we need someone who can post in large fonts.
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
Sucks to be you. Now that you're boring me, it's time to move on to another thread. Thanks for playing, troll. Quitter!
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
A) The Court has made NO such determination of inadmissibility as it has, several times, been asked and it has answered questions of citizenship. B) Amendments to the USCON have made several aspects of the original document "superfluous"...a woman's right to vote...a 21 year old's right to vote...presidential succession... C) The intent of the 14th amendment was to establish, once and for all, a defintion of who is a US Citizen and what they are entitled to, which, as has been pointed out in several cases at all levels of the federal judiciary, was distinctly UNDFEFINED in the original Constitution. D) So what if he's a lawyer? When lawyers go to court...one is right and one is wrong.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Fuck off, Junior. As usual, you cannot defend what you have posted because what you have posted is absolute bullshit. Fraud. You know it and I know it. That's all that matters to me.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
war = ebonics 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 !
That's a bullshit statement. The Office of State Administrative Hearings of the State of Georgia is not a judicial agency. It will make a recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State and that officer will make a ruling. The adminstrative judge is nothing but a finder of fact.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
If the USSC is forced into a decision obomba is out the door ! cabbage - lettuce - carrots all vegetables ! No one knows what an obomba - tomato is ! Tomato , whether pronounced Tuh-MAY-toh or Tuh-MAH-to, is a delicious, nutritious fruit, more widely known as a vegetable. Corn is a grain !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
You tapping your Ruby Slippers together as you type that, Dorothy?
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
You must think we are a monarchy - papal state - red square !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Not totally. I realize he'd rather discuss the bad decision (anchor babies) in Wong Ark, but it will be considered in the O'bungler case, whether it really applies or not. It's just one precedent among many. Unfortunately courts have a bad habit of building on bad decisions, and going even further in the wrong direction.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
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 What's next ... constitution - election --- reform ! Maybe a post election republican senate will be the one to ... CHANGE - YES WE CAN --- fix everything ! For the past few years I've had a fascination of Oliver Cromwell !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
So.... what was the outcome? I watched the 6:00 PM news...... No mention.....
Quit talking to people like that.
No. And reinstate Fred.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
ok twit.
Stone - I know you, along with other GOP political party hacks have an axe to grind about mere rumours of 0bama's qualifications as POTUS. I humbly request you dispense with the continuous invectives upon our fine posters. If you don't quit your insipid retorts with no real meaning to the forum and the viewers immediately, I shall have no recourse but to have Moderator X place you on indefinite suspension.
I see that the Moonbats, for some odd reason, still hang their hat on Minor v. Happersett ...
#3. To: Capitalist Eric (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: war (#3)
'Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.'
#5. To: Capitalist Eric (#2)
(Edited)
Obungler pole-smoker.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,'7 and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. 
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#6. To: war (#3)
(Edited)
#7. To: hondo68, Capitalist Eric, war (#5)
"It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
#8. To: Murron (#7)
"It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
#9. To: hondo68 (#5)
And that ain't the half of it! The disingenuous jagoff left out the majority opinion delivered by the chief justice. Excerpt of the good part, below...
#10. To: Capitalist Eric (#9)
He's a *whore*, pure and simple.
#11. To: hondo68 (#5)
#12. To: war, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#11)
Did you read what you posted?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#13. To: hondo68, war (#12)
"They decided he was a citizen, not a natural born one."
#14. To: hondo68 (#12)
They decided he was a citizen, not a natural born one. Gimmie a quote where they said he's a natural born US citizen.
#15. To: Murron (#13)
This is the part in US v Wong Kim Ark that either has them stumped, or they just totally ignore it for their own convenience, and hope no one notices.
#16. To: war (#14)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#17. To: hondo68 (#16)
(Edited)
I recall that at one time the SCOTUS upheld slavery. If the Wong court could misinterpert the 14th amendment to grant citizenship to anchor babies, it must have been easy for them to accept a circut court judges opinion of natural born
#18. To: hondo68 (#16)
A lot of Marxists on that court, appointed by the co-founder of communism Abe Lincoln.
#19. To: war (#18)
IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!
#20. To: hondo68 (#16)
(Edited)
A lot of Marxists on that court, appointed by the co-founder of communism Abe Lincoln.
#21. To: war (#3)
(Edited)
Looks like you just got nailed with two squirts of warm piss...
The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.
#22. To: Capitalist Eric (#21)
(Edited)
Hmmm... you cite the minority opinion of Minor v. Happersett, hoping it won't be noticed.
#23. To: hondo68, murron (#16)
Thanks for the reply, you did indeed come up with something.
#24. To: Capitalist Eric (#21)
(Edited)
Obungler's not a natural-born citizen. He is ineligible to be POTUS. He will not be re-elected, because his name will be stricken from the ballots. Those who attempt to write in the name for an ineligible candidate will have their votes tossed out.
#25. To: war (#22)
#26. To: war (#24)
And when that does not happen will you promise to never post here again?
#27. To: Capitalist Eric (#25)
LOL. All you have is more misdirection, more spin.
#28. To: Capitalist Eric (#21)
(Edited)
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.
#29. To: Capitalist Eric (#25)
#30. To: war (#29)
#31. To: BorisY (#30)
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.
#32. To: war (#31)
#33. To: BorisY (#32)
If the USSC is forced into a decision obomba is out the door !
#34. To: war (#33)
#35. To: Capitalist Eric, *Ron Paul for President* (#23)
he got you wrapped around the axle, with misdirection
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#36. To: hondo68 (#35)
(Edited)
#37. To: Murron (#0)
Illinois Board of Elections to hear Obama Eligibility Cases Feb. 2
#38. To: war (#29)
Fuck off, Junior.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#38)
(Edited)
#40. To: war (#39)
#41. To: A K A Stone, war, Moderator X (#40)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]