Florida Shooters Network

This is not based on any feverish delusions of foreign birth:

http://volokh.com/2012/01/04/georgia-administrative-law-judge-allows-case-challenging-president-obamas-qualification-to-go-forward/

This argument has been raised before, of course, but never survived even this legal stage. I think this argument will lose, but....

Of course this same argument would do in Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal as well, I believe.And maybe Nikki Haley--unsure about that one.

I believe that you'll be able to type " Orly Taitz" in Wikiopedia and "Paranoid Schizophrenia" will come up. She is absolutely nuts and the only reason that the whole "Birther" mess kept going for so long was because the Obama gang found it useful as a ploy to portray their opponents as lunatics. The idiot is batting 000. Every court filing eventually gets tossed out when any judge really looks at it.

Not that I buy into the idea, but I'd like to point out that to the best of my knowledge not a SINGLE ONE of the "birther" suits has been tossed on merit or on evidence provided by the defense that Obama is, indeed, a US citizen. They have EVERY ONE been rejected on the argument that the person suing has no right to demand that answer. Standing. Essentially, we've reached a point where, as serfs, we have no right to demand proof that the President of the United States is a citizen because, as individuals we have not been harmed by the issue of whether or not he is. We may argue that we've been harmed by his actions as president, but that his actions are directly dependent on his citizenship. As far as I can tell, under the judicial argument, which has now been upheld at least a dozen times, the ONLY 2 people in the United States of America that would have legal standing to sue on this issue would be Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

John

I haven't been able to find any serious challenges to Obama's candidacy on citizenship grounds. Once Obama was accepted as a legal candidate for President by every state, and by the federal government, any plaintiff would have to present reasonable cause for the lawsuit and even then Obama could only be removed from the presidency via the impeachment process. Lying on his candidate filings would be sufficient but there would have to be credible evidence presented in any lawsuit that he ever did that.

They didn't have any. Nothing but unsupported allegations pulled out of thin air and a few obviously forged birth certificates - Orly Taitz entered one as evidence in one lawsuit and it was immediately shown to be a bad attempt at forgery. The Hawaii "short form" birth certificate is accepted as prima facia evidence of birth by every state and federal agency.

All of the lawsuits were fishing expeditions, constructed backwards, with the goal, an illegal Obama presidency, first, the complete lack of any reasonable evidence disguised by a pile of irrelevent legaleze pasted on afterwards. They had no evidence whatsoever and they all just wanted a court to order an investigation, refusing to accept even the Hawaii release of Obama's long form birth certificate and his long track record as a natural born US citizen. Judges just used the reason of 'standing", and in California lack of jurisdiction too, to toss them out without wading into the irrelevant details of the nonsense, saving themselves a lot of useless work. The Supreme Court refused appeals without a reason, as usual with hopeless cases. These lawsuits were so groundless they didn't even get to first base.

Here's a link to the 2009 California Federal District Court ruling in The Smoking Gun.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/judge-bounces-birther-lawsuit

Just to be clear--the link I posted has nothing to do with an argument premised on that birth certificate silliness. Lots of people here deluded themselves with that horseshit, which was about as plausible as "Obama came from a UFO!". Apparently disliking someone is supposed to act as a license to spout completely evidence-free nonsense that makes you feel better.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED.

…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident. There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in the country of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as “natives or natural-born citizens”, but these were also further identified as being “distinguished from aliens or foreigners”. The distinction is crucial.

The above is the crux of the whole issue.

And btw - there are two other lawyers apart from Orly Taitz involved in this hearing. 3 back-to-back hearings scheduled for the same day.

Looks like Alabama is also hearing this issue.
http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_31406.php

It is a legit issue, raised before. Goes back to President Arthur, at least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned

Would have been better raised in 2008. Now courts, which likely would have punted anyway, seem REAL likely to punt. But you never know.

tector wrote:It is a legit issue, raised before. Goes back to President Arthur, at least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned

Would have been better raised in 2008. Now courts, which likely would have punted anyway, seem REAL likely to punt. But you never know.

Leo Denofrio tried during the 2008 run-up . . . . . ws blocked everywhere due to 'no standing' . . . the argument still holds.

WHO'S YOUR DADDY . . . . . is the big issue.

and yet Obama received a scholarship for foreign students under the name soetero as a citizen of indonesia and its going to SCOTUS BTW

Legal Alien wrote:http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED.

…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident. There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in the country of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as “natives or natural-born citizens”, but these were also further identified as being “distinguished from aliens or foreigners”. The distinction is crucial.

The above is the crux of the whole issue.

I suggest you read it more carefully and consider what it says and means. Your quote DOES NOT address the citiznship of those born of one or more parents who are aliens residing on US soil. All US court rulings have affirmed that US law makes everyone born on US soil a natural born citizen, let alone someone whose mother is a US citizen and who was born in the USA.

it's out of context excerpts like this that have gotten the birthers thrown out of every court. They use extraneous and irrelevent statements like that as legal filler so they can make a pretense of a case.

jjk308 wrote:

Legal Alien wrote:http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED.

…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

I suggest you read it more carefully and consider what it says and means. Your quote DOES NOT address the citiznship of those born of one or more parents who are aliens residing on US soil. All US court rulings ave affirmed that US law makes everyone born on US soil a natural born citizen, let alone someone whose mother is a US citizen and who was born in the USA.it's out of context excerpts like this that have gotten the birthers thrown out of every court. They use extraneous and irrelevent statements like that as legal filler so they can make a pretense of a case.

I suggest you pay careful attention to the highlighted parts. Your "All US Courts" contention is just plain wrong

I think if you read the Wikipedia article I linked to it might be helpful (the whole thing, not just the subsection I linked to). It is not a dead issue.

As an aside, I really don't care. I think that NBC needs to be definitively construed, and I'd be happy with a construction that allows more people (yes, that includes Obama, but also Rubio and Jindal) to be eligible than less--I like having more choices, not less. But I'm like that--which is why I am against term limits, too (and so was Ronald Reagan, for the same reason). If I find someone I like as my representative, I don't want some artificial law--TOTALLY unknown at the time of Framers--telling me I can't have that representative.

The fundamental problem with America is a bad electorate--period. In system like ours, the people largely get the government they deserve. It is time to stop blaming the system--we have met the enemy and it is us.

Hmmmmmmm . . . . Judge denies motion to Quash and orders Resident Obama to appear at 01/26/12 Administrative court hearing;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78876832/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Order-on-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoenas-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge

Also orders pResident Obama to produce extensive list of records (that everybody has been asking for!!!)

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Swensson-PowellvObama,NoticetoProduce,GeorgiaBallotAccessChallenge.pdf

link to page comes up blank for me ?

Sweep wrote:link to page comes up blank for me ?

It takes a bit to load.

Don't hold your breath. An administrative law judge is just the first step in the process:

http://volokh.com/2012/01/04/georgia-ad ... o-forward/
.... the administrative law judge is supposed to make findings and report them to the Georgia Secretary of State; the Georgia Secretary of State will then make the decision, which can then be appealed to Georgia trial court and then from there on up through the Georgia appellate system. And, though I don’t know much about the Georgia legal system, I suppose that it’s possible that the administrative judge’s denial of the motion to dismiss could be reversed even before a judgment on the merits, for instance through some sort of mandamus procedure.


If the wheels of justice grind on at their usual rate, and 100% of the rulings are for the plaintiffs, then either Obama will be either long out of office or nearly through his second term before the process has gone far enough that he has to surrender the records. Another website characterized this lawsuit as nothing but a crank magnet. I think that's appropriate.

The full faith and credit clause of Article IV section 1 of the Constitution gives hawaii jurisdiction over the legality of Obama's birth certificate. If you have any gripes about that deal with that state, but you'd better have some evidence beyond thefact you really, really hate Obama. Claiming that Obama, a citizen because he was born in United States jurisdiction, is not a "natural born citizen" is a waste of time because there are only 2 types of US Citizen, those born in territory under US jurisdiction, and those naturalized, and natural born is a synonym for born in US territory.
The Minor case does not address this and isn't even pertinent to this case.

Even if GA rules 100% for the plaintiffs it comes up against the Full faith and credit clause and national citizenship laws which automatically kicks it to the Federal court system. So please accept a correction to my wheels of justice / crank magnet paragraph. It'll be sometimes at the end of the next decade before the courts could possibly get through it. But it'll be tossed out long, long before that.

Report by attendee at the GA hearing today
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-ballot-hearing-judge-wanted-to.html

Before the hearing started, the judge called the attorneys into his chambers and explained that he was going to enter a default judgment in their favor. Attorneys Hatfield and Irion requested to be able to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record. At that point, Irion estimated he would need 20 minutes, Hatfield estimated he would need 30 minutes, and Taitz estimated she would need 2 hours.

Van Irion and Mark Hatfield made their arguments, and left. Taitz then presented her argument, calling several witnesses, until the judge asked her to make her closing statement. As her closing statement began, the judge asked if she was testifying, and, in an unconventional move, Taitz took the witness stand to testify. The judge finally asked her just to make her closing statement, which she did.

Lawyer for Obama (Jablonksi) sent GA SoS a letter earlier in the week, requesting him to get hearing cancelled and advising that he would not attend the hearing this am. GA SoS, replied and advised that the hearing would go ahead as planned , that he would accept the recommendation from the Judge and Jablonski's non-attendance was "at your own risk"

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/01/25/obama-ignore-order-atlanta-court/

Jablonski states that while waiting for Kemp to do as requested, “we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.”

A letter that appears to be from Kemp to Jablonski rejects the demand and holds out the threat of punitive action should Obama and his attorneys withdraw from the proceedings.

“To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning,” the Kemp letter states. “Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

I possess copies of both the Jablonski and Kemp letters, and I have little doubt that both are genuine, but I have not as of late this evening been able to contact officials to absolutely confirm their authenticity.

UPDATE: Obama and his attorneys skipped the hearing. Also, the Jablonski and Kemp letters are genuine.

It will now be interesting to see what transpires after ALJ has reviewed all evidence presented - although it appears that he had already made up his mind before the hearing started.

Not good for Obama on the GA ballot it seems.

Legal Alien wrote:Not good for Obama on the GA ballot it seems.

Care to wager on that statement?

tector wrote:

Legal Alien wrote:Not good for Obama on the GA ballot it seems.

Care to wager on that statement?

I am a dreaming man, not a wagering man - I can dream, cant' I?????????