Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

I had been surprised at the laundry list of stuff that was on that subpoena, which included stuff that Obama does not actually possess and probably cannot legally obtain (such as other peoples' Social Security records).

However, experienced lawyers have explained to me that the judges issue the signed subpoenae in BLANK for the various lawyers to fill in, so the judge doesn't see what was asked for until the somewhat later. I expect when the judge sees what Taitz put in the subpoena he provided there's gonna be some fireworks.

As for who can arrest the President, I don't think this question has ever been authoritatively answered. Nixon used his post-presidential Secret Service bodyguards to keep the NY Bar from serving him with the papers related to his disbarment (the Bar was allowed by the court to use the alternate method of posting a legal notice in the newspaper classified ads). Cheney used his VP Secret Service bodyguards to keep the Texas Rangers from questioning him while he was on a bender shortly after shooting a lawyer.

reply to post by kawika


My view is that if Nelson Mandela could go to court to defend himself then Barack Obama can too.

As for the merits of the case I think it is completely bogus:
travel.state.gov...

Despite precedent not being clear it would seem to me that the Supreme Court would have no difficulty in ruling that a person who has citizenship imbued upon him/her at birth qualifies as "natural born" in terms of the constitution.

This whole interesting is nothing but a diversion and will be used by Obama as a political gift right out of heaven because it makes people who think they can win this thing look like batsh*t crazy cooks. It is like handing him at least 15% of the electorate, who may have balked at voting for him on his record, on a platter. With fine seasonings and garnish.

reply to post by kawika


Well the CIA, what they do is delve and assassinate. In regards to this news...finally. Took them long enough in my opinion.

One does not challenge the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land. One challenges individual laws to see if they are permitted or outside the purview of the Constitution.

I think they will ignore it for the short term, then they will claim racism, then, even if he's not on the GA ballot it doesn't effect his chances, McCain won GA last time and The Republican will win this time, he's not counting on getting any delegates from there anyway.

reply to post by yamammasamonkey


That seems likely. I think you are correct.

They just claim that the Georgia people are a bunch of racists and they should just accept things as they are.

Pretty much as we have been doing these three years.

Another thread, stop by and say hello

reply to post by Darkwing01

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:

A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.

May acquire means not at birth... And there is no marriage license... Or witnesses to a wedding.

I dunno, some problems there.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


When I read the title in the front page of ATS my heart froze for a moment, I asked myself, could it be? Could the American system actually have some credibility? I was disappointed when I read this, there are bigger issues, and much more serious crimes which Obama could be charged with and brought in front of the court, instead this?

Isn't it against the constitution to arrest, or execute American citizens without a charge? Well, Obama recently passed a law which allows just that, I don't see any courts complaining, or even attempting to bring Obama in the stance to defend himself against the constitution.

reply to post by Darkwing01

Dear Darkwing01,

Allow me to prove, yet again, that I am the most confused ATSer.

You seem to say three things, could you clarify them for me?

1) The case has no merit.
2) The controlling precedent isn't clear.
3) The Supreme Court will have no trouble with the ruling.
4) It's just a diversion.

Well, once you've said 2), 1) and 4) becomes impossible and 3) becomes unlikely.

You may want to go back in the thread a little to where sad_eyed_lady mentioned the Happersett case back on page 5.

In that case (1875) the Supreme Court made a fairly clear holding, that someone in Obama's situation is not a "natural-born citizen." The President has only two hopes that I can see. Either try to find something in the last 140 years that overrules it, which may be very tough, or get the Supreme Court to overturn themselves.

It doesn't seem to me to be a slam dunk for the President. But maybe you've spotted something that I've missed. Let me know what you've got.

With respect,
Charles1952

Why in the world would our self proclaimed "Most Transparent" president fight so hard to avoid this issue.

What better place to put an end to all this, than a court of law! Go down there with your stamped certified birth certificate (not some e-mailed version or short form non certified) and give it to the court! Case closed, and not just this case but any other present or future squabbles over this issue.

Given as much trouble as the Obama Nation has worked and all the cash spent trying to bury what they claim to be the truth is questionable. Enough already Mr. Transparent put this issue to rest and let's move on to serious issues.

Makes me want to hold him down and take some DNA for testing. See if this guy is for real!

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Despite precedent not being clear it would seem to me that the Supreme Court would have no difficulty in ruling that a person who has citizenship imbued upon him/her at birth qualifies as "natural born" in terms of the constitution.

Actually, precedent is clear. One of the first American cases to recognize birthright citizenship was Lynch v. Clarke (NY Chanc. 1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 3 NY Leg.Obs. 236 -- the judge even mentioned the "natural born citizen" requirement for the Presidency a few times -- in which it was held that the baby, born in the US to two British tourists who took the baby back to Britain with them almost immediately, was a native born US citizen.

This case was cited as authority by the US Supreme Court when it decided US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 US 649, 18 S.Ct 456, 42 L.Ed 890, holding a baby born in the US to two Chinese (who, themselves, were prevented by federal law from becoming citizens) was a natural born US citizen.

The Lynch v. Clarke case was also cited repeatedly by the US Attorney General to show that a baby born in the US was a natural born citizen notwithstanding the nationality of either or both parents. It was similarly cited in US State Dept manuals on the law of citizenship. In fact, until Taitz came along and pretended otherwise, the notion of birthright US citizenship regardless of the parents' nationalities was so thoroughly accepted in US law that there were some law review articles suggesting that the law be explicitly changed to eliminate the phenomenon of "anchor babies".

And then there's the case of Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President (1881-1885), born in Vermont to an American mother and a British father.

So the precedent is very clear and it's very much against Taitz.

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
Why in the world would our self proclaimed "Most Transparent" president fight so hard to avoid this issue.

Avoid what issue?

What exactly is Obama avoiding in this Georgia case?

reply to post by Annee


What issue? How about the issue that hundreds of thousands of people that he represents (he does represent them) do not believe he has citizenship. How about a court of law that has looked at the evidence of a case brought against him and found grounds to not throw it out. How about the general distraction of it all.

I guess you figure since you (yes you personally) don't care there is no issue.

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
reply to post by Annee

 

What issue? How about the issue that hundreds of thousands of people that he represents (he does represent them) do not believe he has citizenship.

So what?

This case is not about Obama. It is challenging what a Natural Born citizen is according to the Constitution.

reply to post by Shoonra

Dear Shoonra,

Thank you for bringing up cases, it's nice to see people doing a little digging.

One very small point, I'm not sure what Orly Taitz has to do with this case. I've forgotten the attorney's name, but this isn't a birth certificate case, and that seems to be her specialty.

Anyway, to your cases. First, Lynch v. Clarke. For that to be precedent it has to deal with the same subject matter. Let's assume it does. It's an 1844 case. Happersett was an 1875 case. To the extent they deal with the same subject matter, Happersett is controlling.

Wong Kim Ark doesn't have that problem, it was decided in 1898, after Happersett. You mention that the holding was that the baby was a "natural-born citizen." I'm sorry to rely on Wikipedia, but here's what they gave me:

"A child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."

That was given as a quote from the holding. So, Wong Kim Ark isn't dealing with "natural-born citizen," and Happersett still stands.

As for Chester Arthur, I didn't know that the Supreme Court ruled on that one. Somebody has to bring the case to court for the Supremes to rule on it. It may be that Arthur just wasn't caught.

I'd like to see some other Supreme Court cases, but it seems that Happersett is still good law.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

When will these crazy nutters give it up?

If they actually think that Obama will show up in a court in the middle of Bum#, GA, they've been smoking too much of the wacky tobaccy.

Yeah... because the pea-pickin country hick citizens of "bumpluck" Ga are less signifigant than his highness the "King"! How dare they!????????????????

er uh... wrong century there "obot"...

Not in this country...

And of course. NOBAMA has access to every media outlet. Can someone post a link to any MSM news column about this?

Dear State of Georgia,

Get a grip and start doing what your supposed to do - like taking care of the needs of your citizens. Aside from being utter nonsense, this is a complete waste of time and money.

reply to post by SelfSustainedLoner

Will you settle for Boston Globe?www.boston.com... ews

There are literally half a dozen more.