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.

 

Judge Has [not] Ruled, Obama [not] Off Of Ballot In Georgia! (erroneous news report)

page: 40
122
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


As I just posted, these default judgement are overturned all the time. All Obama's lawyers have to show, a different/higher authority is that the complaint is wrong. They can and have presented evidence in the past as to how this is wrong. The GA court will VERY OBVIOUSLY take the word of the Hawaiian state government and quash this frivolous case.

Obama was RIGHT to not acknowledge this publicly. If he had, every nutjob birther would try and drag him personally into court.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


You quoted it yourself. "must show good cause" . Obamas lawyers told the Secretary of State BEFORE HAND that they would NOT be attending court. Not that there was a good reason not to attend just that they wouldnt be there. WHERE IS THE GOOD CAUSE?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


The good cause is that he's the President and that he's already shown multiple authorities his documentation. In other words, it's frivolous and he's busy. The standard for overturning default judgements is INCREDIBLY low. Which you should know if you're such an expert.


What you'll see is this default judgement overturned, correctly, and the cash dismissed, correctly. The birthers have found a loophole; some cases have to be heard. The judge couldn't simply dismiss this legally, in GA. But, note that the second the birther crowd started to pontificate the judge cut them off. He's not a birther. He wants people to respect his courtroom; he's a judge that's what they're like.But don't confuse that with him agreeing with the birther argument.


edit on 27-1-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 



Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was an attempt to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy.



The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born".[6] On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.[7]
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.[9]

en.wikipedia.org...

So, from this, we can see the clear intent of our Founding Fathers to not allow people of foreign persuasion to gain access to the most powerful office of the govt. The Founding Fathers themselves were grandfathered in by the statement, "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution", for obvious reasons.

The current POTUS is not grandfathered in, and the difference between regular citizen and a natural born explains why not everyone who is a citizen is eligible.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


My issue was with "HollowMan" and his assertion:



as it shows one more step toward small town governments trying to rise above the law.


You say "It's about saying that if the constitution doesn't explicitly state something then states can decide for themselves."

How do states decide things themselves? Through their own state Constitutions, their own rule of law. Now you say "Though the point you've attempted to make is parroted by those of the right that wish the states could ignore the Federal government... "

Let's stick with this case, Georgia is legally deciding through their own state laws who can appear on their own election ballots. This has nothing to do with the Federal government and that was my point I tried to get across in my last post.

It is obvious that the 10th amendment has been twisted since the very foundation of this country. Hell even the founding fathers couldn't agree on Federal vs States rights, and this has continued to this day. But that is not the issue here.

And you thinking the Federal government adheres the limits imposed on it by the Constitution is laughable.
So don't quote a court case as judges can be extremely poor interpreters of the Constitution.

And it actually is exactly as I claim, here is what James Madison had to say about Federal vs. States rights:
(I apologize for the long quote, but the entire quote is necessary to explain my point.)




James Madison, "the father of the Constitution," explained it this way: "The powers delegated.to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce..The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."1 And Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole..The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government."2

Since governments tend to overstep the bounds of their authority, the founders knew it would be difficult to maintain a balanced federalism. In fact, that was one of the central issues raised by the state ratifying conventions as they met to decide whether to approve the new Constitution. Responding to this concern, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that "the people.will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments."3 He believed that "this balance between the national and state governments.forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them."4

However, the opponents of the Constitution strongly feared that the states would eventually become subservient to the central government. Madison acknowledged that this danger existed, but he predicted that the states would band together to combat it. "Plans of resistance would be concerted," he said. "One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations.would result from an apprehension of.federal [domination] as was produced by the dread of a foreign yoke; and.the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other."5


If you want to read more: www.nccs.net...



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 

Thats absolute BS, no judge has to hear any case, it solely by their choice, i have had personal experience with this many times and have had them tell me to my face to find another judge they weren't interested



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings



Dear Mr. Jablonski:I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of StateAdministrative Hearings ("OSAH") has handled the candidate challenges involving your client andadvising me that you and your client will "suspend" participation in the administrative proceeding. WhileI regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to anadministrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As thereferring agency, the Secretary of State's Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearingsscheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, Ido not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judgeto report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of thereport, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to myreview of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in theOSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to thismatter.Sincerely,Brian P. Kempcc: Hon. Michael Malihi (c/o Kim Beal - kbeal@osah.ga.gov)Van Irion, Esq. (van@libertylegalfoundation.org)


WHERE IS THE GOOD CAUSE FOR NOT SHOWING UP?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


This is a crazy bit of illogical "reasoning".

The only way Obama could be a citizen and not be eligible is if he wasn't born in the US, which he was. You don't need to be grandfathered in if you're born here.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bphi1908
 


Every state and everybody has the RIGHT to challenge weather or not a candidate has met the minimum standards as outlined in the Constitution as per being legally able to run for the office of President. Thats why the minimum standards are in the Constitution in the first place. If there was no right to challenge why have standards in the first place



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


I already told you. You simply responding in ALL CAPS doesn't give your confusion any special weight or merit.

You may be confused, but Obama's lawyers and the judge aren't.
edit on 27-1-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Ok I want to run for office of the President. I am a United States Citizen by birth. I am ALSO a Russian citizen by birth. Am I allowed to run for the office of the President of the United States?

NO I AM NOT. Obama is a United States Citizen by birth and IS ALSO a Kenyan citizen by way of his father. PERIOD. He is not eligible. Never was.No President of this country can be the Commander in chief of the Military Forces of this country and have dual citizenship. NOT EVER.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


I am loving all the foot stomping and tantrums this is providing.

Georgia....Great work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Judge is going to have a car accident I am psychically seeing his future.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bphi1908
 


I don't think the Federal Government doesn't try try to grab power. Same as the states try and wrest it away. My point, which I assume you've chosen to ignore, as it suits your ideology, is that the 10th Amendment restates the obvious. The power the Federal government has is limited by the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment didn't in anyway create new specific limits. It simply said, "what's in the constitution is what you got, outside of that, we got it".

However.

The Supreme Court is the final say in all of this (unless you're talking other Constitutional amendments) and they has defined and redefined what rights belong to who.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


Yes you can.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

If I am born in the US, but my parents are immigrants, and their status means that I am a citizen of some other country, I am allowed to be President of the US as I was born in the US.

Bonus point if you can name at least one US President that this description matches. Cause there is at least one, proving you're wrong.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


I cant watch your vid, Can u sum it up for me?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


My father is a citizen of Russia and still lives there. Therefore I am a Russian citizen. My mother is a US citizen born and raised here in the USA. I was born here in the USA. I am a US citizen AND a Russian citizen. I can run for ANY office EXCEPT that of the President or Vice President. THAT is the law of "Natural born citizen" I am NOT natural born. I am a citizen but not natural born. I will NEVER be eligible to be President. That is the law.

I also know what President you are talking about. Arthur. He hid his status of dual citizenship. It wasnt discovered until AFTER his term was over.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by bphi1908
 


I don't think the Federal Government doesn't try try to grab power. Same as the states try and wrest it away. My point, which I assume you've chosen to ignore, as it suits your ideology, is that the 10th Amendment restates the obvious. The power the Federal government has is limited by the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment didn't in anyway create new specific limits. It simply said, "what's in the constitution is what you got, outside of that, we got it".

However.

The Supreme Court is the final say in all of this (unless you're talking other Constitutional amendments) and they has defined and redefined what rights belong to who.




You believe the Federal government has not overreached it's Constitutional mandate? Wow, but fine. You say "what's in the constitution is what you got, outside of that, we got it". Who is we?

And my simple statement is that this case...the one right here...is a State court deciding on a state issue (state election ballot). This has nothing to do with the Federal government or the Supreme court.

With that said I do not believe this case will go anywhere. The presidential birth status is murky but he was elected before so he will again.

I was just arguing the states right to decide on their own state election ballot. Plain and simple.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


You are wrong on both counts. You COULD run for President, just like Eisenhower, who was, as far as the Germans were concerned a German citizen.

Many countries will give you citizenship, based on your family, but the US doesn't care... Think, by your logic, Russia could say, "We confer Mitt Romney Russian citizenship" tomorrow and he'd be ineligible to run for office... Why doesn't Iran do that right now? Hell, North Korea could wipe out the executive branch in about 10 seconds if what you're saying was true.

Basic stuff here people.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyMuerte
Quick apology for the regional slur, I had some backwoods Georgia cops turn some dogs loose on me while I was camping in the woods during a cross country bicycle ride. Turns out the local hospital knew they did this kind of thing for fun. I barely escaped with my life and took dozens of stitches getting fixed up. The hospital staff smuggled me out of town and paid for a three week stay at a KOA so that I could heal. Lucky for me I got away. That being said I have no love of the South.

Back to the Obama thing.

It amazes me just how badly people want this man gone. Would you have preferred a senile war monger and Sarah Palin?

When will people realized that the freaking President is not the real power in Government?
When will people realize that the next President will be just as bad as the last President?
The entire Presidential Election process is a fraud, the Electoral College is a Fraud. The popular vote means nothing, never has and never will.

If you can keep people in-fighting they will never turn against their real enemies. Obamas race and eligibility may have been a well planned move designed to keep the Tea Party types fighting the Hippie types. To put an even larger wedge between the Democrats and the Republicans.

If we are all fighting each other over Obama we will never unite against the real evil doers. Do not think for one minute that this was not designed by the people really running the show........

Now go back to spending your energy trying to prove Obama was not eligible. It is three years late for that and a bit too late to do squat about it. Even if true it and it prevented him from being re-elected but it would not change a damn thing.

The Fed will continue to run the Country the Giant Corporations will continue to make the rules. None of those rules are designed to benefit the middle class.

You want to find the real Usurper don't look to Obama as you are being led to think the President is running the show. If you truly believe that Obama is solely to blame for the mess we are in right now as a Nation, I pity your ignorance.
edit on 26-1-2012 by SkyMuerte because: speeeeling


You are totally right. Also you notice no matter who promises to get rid of Lobbyists and change the hiding of private billion dollar wishes in every bill they never can carry through! Who ever is really in power protects these things. get rid of them and you get the nation back!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bphi1908
 


I explicitly stated that both sides will struggle for power. I can only assume you're a troll at this point.




top topics



 
122
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join