Ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is no longer on life support. It is D E A D. To believe otherwise is sheer idiocy and monstrously delusional.
Today, Judge Michael Malihi, a name which will live in infamy, "ruled"--something effete judges love doing--AGAINST plaintiffs, rendering Barack Obama ballot-eligible in Georgia on the basis of his being born in Hawaii and, therefore, a natural born citizen.
The ignorance demonstrated by that conclusion is breathtaking and the ruling itself utterly contrived and absurb. Judicial historians will have a veritable heyday with this one. Every legal treatise and case I have read many times over clearly compels precisely the opposite finding.
What this means is that ANYONE born in the United States of illegal aliens, Legal Permanent Residents, one US Citizen parent--and never mind there's no irrefutably authoritative proof that s/he was actually born within US jurisdiction--is now eligible to be our President. As far as I can see, this may well mean Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Gov. Schwartzenegger, Sen. Rubio and the "anchor baby" of that illegal alien down the street can some day be our President. No effective rules, no constitutional constraints. The possibility of dual allegiances irrelevant.
So much for original meaning and intent of the Constitution's and the 14th Amendment's framers .
In effect, the Constitution's Presidential Clause, de Vattel's Law of Nations and Minor v Happersett, et. al. are now heaps of meaningless words--and wholly irrelevant at least in Georgia.
Scrambling to diligently submit a mountain of evidence against Obama during the rushed hearing on January 26th, plaintiff attorneys took the fall for their patriotic effort and due diligence, and both Obama and his attorneys who showed nothing but contempt for the court and who failed to submit one scrap of authoritative evidence to refute plaintiff claims have, without lifting as much as a finger, prevailed with impunity.
Folks, we are no longer a nation of laws. We are nation of ignorant, Progressive, anti-Constitution nihilists. And when I think of all the past lives and limbs lost on our nation's battlefields in defense of this Republic and the rule of law, I could, quite literally, cry.
My stomach in knots, I am so digusted and enraged, I could spit bullets.
(POSTSCRIPT: Just got off the phone with Carl Swensson, plaintiff, who is determined "not to give up". The ruling is on expedited appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Since evidence of Obama's eligibility is already a matter of public record, a full hearing of the evidence is aniticpated. By the way, and for whatever relevance it may be, Judge Malihi is an Iranian Muslim.) And so it goes...
We will appeal!
Appeal? Good luck with that. Another Progressive court, another Progressive ruling. This black-robed, unaccountable judicial oligarchy of judicial supremicists is shreddiing the Constitution and burying our Republic with each passing day.
Sorry, but I'm really POed right now, so best take a break.
All it takes is for the original plaintiff to be willing to file...
Jeff, yes, I hope the plaintiffs and the prosecutors appeal. The case was not even about where Obama was born. The facts of the case alleged that he was not a natural born US citizen, even if he WAS born here (which has yet to prove, but that is another story), since only one of his parents was a US citizen. The judge did not even rule on those facts, which were the facts of the case before him. He ruled that because Obama was "born in Hawaii, a US state", that he was natural-born. What a sick joke. I guess the Chicago Muslim Mafia must have gotten to the judge, and he decided the Constitution just doesn't matter anymore. Yes, indeed, I surely hope the prosecution appeals.
See my postcript in article for an update.(I've calmed down now.)
Are you referring to the the fact that Judge Malihi is an "Iranian-Muslim"?
Minor v Happersett does not define what a natural born citizen is. If you've read it, it describes one indisputable case — someone born in the US of two US citizens — as a basis for the reasoning for its decision about whether the right to vote can be taken away by a state.
If you read the ruling, the judge made his determination based on the law. Other than the claim that he can't be a candidate because his father was never a US citizen, none of the evidence was relevant.
I wish people would put their energy into getting Newt nominated rather than flogging this very dead horse. Isn't that's what important?
I have read the ruling. We all have! Once again, here it is:
In Minor, The Chief Justice wrote...
"This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides 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,' 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. [Here is the difference between two types of citizens.]
"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 [note that this the plural] who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Sharron, do you require further explanation?
This is why so many of us are ready to go for the guns!
Unlike the Left and nihilists like Judge Malihi, folks have to do their research. It's all there and as plain as one's face. Just have to take the time to carefully look.
I read the ruling. It says that children born of two citizens are natural born, because that was what was relevant to the case. It does not, however, say that only children born of two citizens are natural born.
You're simply wrong. Not surprisingly, Malihi relied upon grossly errant interpretation of NBC, specious caselaw (e.g. Ankeny), pure conjecture and upon no reliable evidence to arrive at his "opinion". Minor v Happersett left NO DOUBT as to what a NBC was, but did leave doubt as to whether a child born in the USA of alien parents was even a US Citizen. Also, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802 provided that ONLY children born in the USA to US Citizens can be Art II "natural born citizens". The Indiana Ankeny ruling was errantly fashioned since it wrongly relied upon English common law rather than American common law.
To get up to speed, I urge you to carefully read Atty Mario Apuzzo's refutation of Malihi's ruling. It can be found in its entirety at CDR Kerchner's Blog. Apuzzo's examination is clear, concise, probative, cogent and spot on. I suspect his examination will be heavily relied upon at the GA Supreme Court appeal.