Monday, February 20, 2012

Georgia and Birthright Citizenship

There are several links included within American Thinker's author, Cindy Simpson's article, Georgia and Birthright Citizenship that everyone who has been following the Georgia Court eligibility issue should read. It is concise and on point in every aspect of this case.

One of the most important links to read is:

Liberty Legal Appeal of Georgia Eligibility Ruling.


One of those motions is an Emergency Motion for Stay and Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the Georgia Secretary of State from including candidate Barack Obama on the Georgia Presidential Primary ballot. Read the filing on our website. Quoting from the motion,
“should this Court incorrectly deny this motion it would confirm that the judicial branch is now unwilling to enforce the clearest and most basic requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Harm to Petitioner that would result from such incorrect refusal to grant this motion represents nothing less than the loss of our constitutional form of government for all Americans.

Our 15 page Appeal, available on our website, argues that the decision of the OSAH court:
  1. violated Rules of Constitutional Construction,
  2. misapplied Minor v. Happersett,
  3. ignored the clear definition and precedential status of Natural Born Citizen in Minor,
  4. ignored the Minor Court’s discussion of other categories of citizens,
  5. ignored the Minor Court holding that the 14th Amendment “Did Not Add to the Privileges and Immunities of a Citizen”,
  6. applied dicta from Wong Kim Ark instead of precedent from Minor, and
  7. relied upon the severely flawed Indiana state court ruling, Arkeny v. Governor.
The OSAH decision concludes that any person born within the United States, regardless of the citizenship or legal status of their parents, is a “natural born citizen” under Article II of the United States Constitution. This conclusion runs contrary to common sense, violates venerable rules of Constitutional Construction followed by the U.S. Supreme Court since its inception, and violates the explicit holding of the Supreme Court case relied upon.

Had the drafters of the Constitution intended all people born in the U.S. to be considered natural born citizens, the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary. Had the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended that Amendment to alter the Article II definition of natural born citizen, they would have clearly stated so. Yet the term “natural born citizen” is not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment. The Amendment also makes no reference to Article II. The OSAH ruling, therefore, violates rules of construction that the OSAH had itself relied upon just days earlier in the same litigation. Quoting Judge Malihi,
“When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step…is to examine the plain statutory language.’ [T]his Court is not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.”

The OSAH decision ignores a precedential holding from the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of dicta from a later Supreme Court case. This issue was presented at length to the OSAH at oral arguments and in written submissions, yet the OSAH chose to completely ignore this issue in its decision.

That the OSAH decision relies upon a non-binding opinion from an Indiana State Appellate Court to support its conclusion further illustrates their failure to follow venerable rules of construction and judicial restraint. In Arkeny v. Governor, the Indiana opinion relied upon was litigated by pro-se citizens of Indiana against the Governor of that state. The Indiana court reached its holding via an issue that did not require interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, yet that court then proceeded to construe the U.S. Constitution anyway. The Indiana court?s decision to construe the U.S. Constitution without need to do so represents an overreaching Judiciary and violates a doctrine of judicial restraint established by the Supreme Court over 150 years ago. The OSAH’s reliance upon the Indiana court’s opinion, rather than follow a precedential holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, further demonstrates the OSAH’s errors of law.


GMpilot said...

Less than 48 hours ago as of this writing, you posted a fluff piece on 'facing the giant of failure'. But it appears that someone out there—or a lot of someones—haven't yet learned anything about:

Facing the Reality of Failure: Barack Obama is an (natural-born) American citizen
Facing the Reason for Failure: Citing old books and older laws that have no relevance to the US Constitution and the US Code
Facing the Result of Failure: How many attempts have there been since 2008? The circus in Georgia last month was the 97th, as I recall.

So, despite the fact that you have a book that tells you how to deal with it, why are you birfers setting yourselves up for failure again?

'Shyster' lawyers, 'activist' judges, and everyone of them who disagrees with birfers is labeled 'treasonous'--it's a wonder that anyone studies law at all any more.
So the LLF claims that Obama on the ballot would mean 'the loss of our constitutional form of government for all Americans', hm? I'll have to follow this and see how they intend to demonstrate that.

Christinewjc said...

It is obvious to me that you didn't view the sermon on video. You are just the typical ole' GM who hates God, Christians, the Gospel message and the Bible; so you label it a "fluff piece." Sometimes I really feel sorry for you.

Anyone who could still support Obama despite all of the evidence of his crimes is a crying shame and despicable. You wouldn't recognize someone who is ruining our nation if the evidence came up and bit you in the rear.

The opposition to Obama being on the ballot is a valid one. The case that was used to skirt the issue was done in 2009 and was misapplied by Judge Malihi in the Georgia decision. If ballot challenge case was presented in 2008 or earlier, which case law would have been used? Answer: the Supreme Court one where it was decided by the judges that a natural born citizen was a person born of two citizen parents (Obama's Kenyan father was never a U.S. citizen) in the U.S.A.

I think that Malihi was either bought off or threatened if he didn't give the "win" to the defendants. Aren't you at all concerned that Obama and his lawyer ignored a court order to appear? What is he...above the law? Every indication shows that Obama thinks he is above the law. But he won't be when he is out of office and it will probably be then that the truth will all come out about him being a usurper because of his ineligibility to be POTUS.

Christinewjc said...

Dear Readers,

Here is a link to another Obama eligibility challenge in the state of Missouri:

The Post & Email: Update on Obama Eligibility Challenge in Missouri

GMpilot said...

CJW: ”Every indication shows that Obama thinks he is above the law. But he won't be when he is out of office and it will probably be then that the truth will all come out about him being a usurper because of his ineligibility to be POTUS.”

Ah yes, the ol' “bought off or threatened” excuse again. Are so many judges are so corrupt or vulnerable, or just the ones who rule against the birfers? Many of them are Republican (or appointed by Republicans); a considerable number of them have conservative credentials; very few could by any stretch be considered as 'legislating from the bench'. Most of them have no desire to advance themselves; it takes many years to become a judge, and more years to become a good judge.
So how is it that the birfers strike out every time they go to court?

I think it's because of their beliefs. Their basic one is that Obama MUST NOT be an American, because the idea of a non-white president of the USA is anathema to them. He MUST be foreign-born, or believe in a god other than the Judeo-Christian one, or support some alien (and hostile) philosophy; anything that can somehow disqualify him and reset the calendar to 2008. Anything, anything short of assassination to get him out of the White House. (Of course, many birfers don't stop there.)
They try, most of them, to couch it in patriotic terms like “upholding the Constitution”, even though that very same Constitution says that Obama IS a citizen. It's rather like neo-Confederate sympathizers who talk about “states' rights” without mentioning that keeping slaves was one of those rights they wanted to preserve.
I think it's also because of their ignorance. Those who actually know how to present an argument don't argue the facts as they exist; they quote some obscure nutter from the 18th century whose work somehow never made it into American law, and is therefore irrelevant. Those who don't know how to present an argument are all over the map: unqualified witnesses, forged documents, cases filed very late or not at all...and when they lose, “emergency” petitions everywhere.
They also seem to forget that every judge was once a lawyer: they've all been on the other side of the bench, they know all the arguments, all the tricks, and generally they know if they've been handed a serious case of just a load of BS.

After nearly 100 attempts over four years, the law of averages should finally be on the birfers' side, but it never is. And they have only themselves to blame for it. GIGO.

GMpilot said...

CJW: ”It is obvious to me that you didn't view the sermon on video.”

Quite right. I didn't watch all of it.

”You are just the typical ole' GM who hates God, Christians, the Gospel message and the Bible; so you label it a "fluff piece."

I don't hate god; I ignore it. Since I don't believe that god exists, it's easy to ignore.
I don't hate Christians. Christianity, perhaps, but not Christians.
I don't hate the Gospel message, but I do wonder why being told I'll probably burn in hell forever (along with the greater part of humanity) could possibly be called “Good News”.
Wasn't it a fluff piece, a bit of spiritual cheerleading? Failure is not a "giant": failure is failure. Like what the birfers have been doing these past four years.

”Sometimes I really feel sorry for you.”


”Every indication shows that Obama thinks he is above the law. But he won't be when he is out of office and it will probably be then that the truth will all come out about him being a usurper because of his ineligibility to be POTUS.”

Last time I checked, Presidents aren't above the law. Remember Nixon?
Remember Reagan actually appearing at the Iran-Contra hearings and his constant “I don't remember”? He had a summons he couldn't ignore, unlike Obama's so-called subpoena, which had no legal authority outside Georgia.