It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sealing
No offense to OP I know you're just reporting what you've found but,
Did you say Georgia Judge orders President of the USA to court ?
As in, "Explain yo'self boy, Is you is or is you ain't Merican ? "
a hahahahaha!!!! Oooohhaha hahaha !!!!!!
OK wait... ha haha hahahahaha!!!!
Whew... Yeah he'll be showing up for that.
Sad and debunked. Just like the BC. They'll never quit. U know why?
The judge (if there is one) is a big fat racist. Yep probably fat.
I used to give people the benefit of the doubt, but no more.
Racist..pure and simple
Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by spyder550
Good friggin' grief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I read another post about this case having anything to do with his birth certificate I'm going take up smoking again.
The plaintiffs are claiming that the Supreme Court has held that both parents need to be American citizens for the child to be "Natural born," and since his father wasn't a US citizen, Obama is not "natural born," therefore ineligible.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. [SOURCE CREDIT]
Person 1: “Here is a door and on the other side of it is the inside of my house.”
Person 2: “No. There’s no inside.”
Person 1: “But I live in it everyday.”
Person 2: “You can’t prove it.”
Yesterday, January 20, 2012, Judge Malihi, here in Georgia, issued his Order on Motion to Quash Subpoenas:
ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
In support of his motion, Defendant argues that “if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States” to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant’s motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony… [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.” Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).
Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court’s rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party’s counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge
On first glance, I had to laugh out loud and say, “Gee — maybe it’s Obama who needs to get some competent representation! According to this judge, he’s pointed out that Mr. Jablonski hasn’t even provided a legal basis for his arguments, regardless of how rational or irrational his argumentation may be!”
Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:
“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “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.”
Obama’s problem, by his own admission and records of the State Department is this:
Obama’s father was not a United States citizen.
Therefore, via Minor v, Happersett and the United States Supreme Court in 1875, Obama is ineligible because, since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen.
For a person to run, as his or her party’s nominee for President, the party must issue certification that the person named is eligible under the United States Constitution to become President.
Because the Constitution does not specify the definition of “Natural born citizen” it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens and, Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen.
If his counsel has yet to provide legal basis for his arguments I do think Obama needs new counsel. This is no joke.
Originally posted by kawika
I think they have supreme court precedent. Don't know the details but I read a post here.
One of the legal eagles help me out please, what case was that? Maybe at wikipedia...oh, here...
Source and more court cases here
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Although the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled the Dred Scott case, the Court stated in the Slaughter-House Cases that at least one part of it had already been overruled by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which created citizenship at the national as opposed to the state level:.[5] The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.[6]
Originally posted by kawika
But probably the thing they want him there for is to allow him to face his accusers.
it is is truly idiotic to say that he regards himself as god and owns the country and needs to be reminded that he is a public servant.
Source: www.usconstitution.net...
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Face his accusers? For what?
The wording of the Constitution?
Van Irion is the lead counsel and founder of Liberty Legal Foundation. Van is a Constitutional attorney, admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also a Patent attorney, adjunct Law Professor at the University of Tennessee, former medical researcher, published scientist, and former Republican candidate for Congress for TN03. Van was endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul in his Congressional campaign along with former Reagan White House staff and speech writers.
Originally posted by kawika
I went to the White House website and checked his schedule.
It is completely cleared off for next week.
It just says, no public schedule.
Pres Schedule Link Here
So, maybe he is going to Georgia.