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: 46
122
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 




The parents can be Citizens by Birth or they can be Citizens by Naturalization after immigrating to the USA. But to create a "natural born Citizen" of the United States both parents must be Citizens at the time the child is born in the USA.

Wrong. Repeat for emphasis: the citizenship status of the parents has zero bearing on the American Natural Born Citizenship status of a child born on U.S. Soil with the minor exception of foreign diplomats with diplomatic immunity and invading armies.


See this legal reference book used by the founders and framers of our Constitution: Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 212, Emer de Vattel, 1758-1797.

Vattel had no impact on the Framers of the Constitution, and Vattel specifically says that British Law, which most definitvely did influence the Framers, defined born on the soil as the sole requirement for Natural Born Citizenship. Read Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 214, Emer de Vattel, 1758-1797.



The overwhelming majority (probably 95%+) of citizens in the United States are natural born Citizens.

Not sure about that, quite possibly true. Do you have a link to the U.S. Census statics?


It is from the group of natural born Citizens that our founders prescribed in the presidential eligiblity clause in Clause 5, Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution that we shall choose a President and Commander in Chief of our military as a strong check against foreign influence via birth allegiances on the person in that singular and most powerful office.

Mostly wrong. It was mostly to ensure that royal families could not reestablish themselves in the American political system, but your sentiment is never-the-less not a bad reason.


One needs all three citizenship legs to be a natural born Citizen and have sole allegiance and claim on you at birth to one and only one country -- the United States: 1. Born in the USA. 2. Father must be a U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized). 3. Mother must be U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized).

Wrong.
If one is Born in the USA to parents that are not diplomats with immunity or part of an invading army, that is all that is required for Natural Born Status. End of story.

(Wikipedia: US Nationality Law: Birth within the US)

If one is Born OUTSIDE the USA, then and only then does the status of the Parents come into it.

If both parents are citizens (natural or naturalized), and they meet certain other criteria (married and residence) the child is a U.S Citizen. If one parent only is a citizen (natural or naturalized) and meets certain other requirements (married, age and residence) then the child is a citizen.

It is unclear whether citizens born abroad are natural born citizens or a naturalized citizens, but they are definitely one or the other, as there is no other class of citizen.



Like a three legged stool if you take away any of these three citizenship legs of the requirements to being a natural born Citizen, the child is born with more than one claim of allegiance/citizenship on them at their birth and thus they are NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States, and as in the analogy of a stool designed to stand on three legs and it is missing a leg, it falls down, likewise the person's claim to natural born Citizenship fails if the person does not have all three citizenship legs required to be a natural born Citizen at the time of their birth.
See the below Venn Diagram which logically and graphically shows how a natural born Citizen has the intersection and unity of all three Citizenship statuses at birth.
Read this essay " Of Trees and Plants" on basic logic which explains that being simply a "Citizen at Birth (CAB)" does not necessarily make oneself a "natural born Citizen (NBC)" at Birth.
Natural born Citizens are overwhelmingly the largest subset of all American citizens. The location of birth being in the U.S. to a U.S. father and U.S. mother ... all being U.S. Citizens at the time of birth is the only way one achieves natural born Citizenship status.


The above stuff is 100% wrong due to the arguments presented above. No further comment is necessary.

edit on 28/1/2012 by rnaa because: grammer




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 




Natural born Citizenship is gained by the laws of nature not by any manmade law or statute or even a constitutional amendment granting that status.

Natural born Citizens need no act of man for their Citizenship was created by nature and nature's Creator. Natural born Citizens of the United States have sole allegiance to one and only one country at birth ... the United States.


Wrong. Natural born Citizenship is gained by the CUSTOM of the nation, in some cases this is a specific legal framework enacted by the government of that nation, and in other cases is it is simple common law.

(source)

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)




No foreign power or country can claim their allegiance under U.S. law or the Law of Nations.

OK, now you are getting all mixed up with your concepts. Are you really comparing the efficacy of U.S. Law to a 250 year old book written by some random Prussian working in the Swiss Civil Service? Are you saying that that 250 year old book is actually somehow definitive as international law?

Leave out that nonsense, and you are right: foreign law has no effect on U.S. Law. And vice versa. And that is precisely why the U.S. doesn't care about dual citizenship and further, that is why dual citizenship has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizenship what-so-ever.



Over 95% of Americans fit that requirement i.e., born in the USA of two U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized) parents.


100% of Americans are either Natural Born or Naturalized. Most Natural Born Citizens undoubtedly have parents that are U.S. Citizens, but not all, and in case you didn't notice our President is not one of them.



Natural born citizens are the 3 Leaf Clovers of the American citizens, Not the 4 Leaf Clovers. It is from those 95% of American citizens that our founders and framers directed us via Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution that we shall choose our President and Commander-in-Chief, not a dual citizen son of a foreign national and British Subject father, and being born a British subject himself via his father, as is the case with Obama's birth status.


Again, this is just rhetoric and your conclusions have nothing to do with the reality of the world you are living in. In the previous sentence, you claim that U.S. Law is superior to foreign law in the U.S., and then in this sentence you deny that superiority. Dual citizenship is a result of foreign law, not American Law. If the state of having dual citizenship affects American Natural Born Citizenship, then that means that foreign law is the controlling law for American Presidential eligibility.

There is no way for you to wish this away or wave it off. If possessing dual citizenship (or the temporary possibility of dual citizenships as did Obama) negates Natural Born Citizenship, then foreign law trumps U.S. law and your previous assertion is false. No second generation Greek, no second generation Italian, no Jew, could ever be President, because despite the citizenship status of the parents, those countries extend citizenship to the children of their citizens without exception and without reference to U.S. law; those children are therefore dual citizens. This was the case for Spiro Agnew, Dwight Eisenhower, and others.

But if, as I agree, No foreign power or country can claim their allegiance under U.S. law holds, then the possibility of dual citizenship is immaterial to anything, including Natural Born Citizenship status.

It is a binary relationship, one or the other is true, not both, and there is no other possibility. So which one do you hold to be true?
edit on 28/1/2012 by rnaa because: fix markup

edit on 28/1/2012 by rnaa because: mistyped sentence structure



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 




Why wasn't the Full Faith and Credit Clause used ?


In my opinion, it probably will be. The recommendation to the SoS hasn't yet been made and so we have no way of knowing what the Judge will consider in reaching that recommendation.



All Obama's lawyers had to do was produce a real certificate I thought.


I believe that that has been done, by hand, to the SoS, but that is at least 4th hand information. and not independently confirmed, so it might be BS. I don't know if the judge also has one, but certainly the Vattelist complainants entered images of both versions of the BC into evidence and stipulated that the information on them were correct (they had to in order to assert that BHO Senior was not an American). In any case, the GDP has until February 5 to file any information they feel might be useful to the judge. Jablonski is the GDP's lawyer, by the way, not Obama's. The challenge is against the Georgia Democratic Party for trying to put an (allegedly) ineligible candidate on the ballot, not against Obama personally.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by spoor
 


Listen to Carl Swenson on a live interview at the link I posted above where he reiterates that the judge told him and others in chambers that he is going to issue a default judgement AGAINST obama.


If what he is even saying is actually the truth and not just his 'opinion', can any public lawyers on here tell us whether or not a 'default judgment' can be issued in an administrative law action? each area of the law has its own rules, and although I have heard of the term 'default judgment', it is typically judgment for the other party on the technical ground that the respondent has not showed up or responded by answer to service of process - it is not a decision on the merits.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by averageGuy505
 


Originally posted by bphi1908
This isn't small town governments we are talking about here, it is state authority, more specifically it's the state of Georgia. "Trying to rise above the law" you say? Do states not have the right to enforce their own laws as governed by their own state Constitutions?


Originally posted by averageGuy505
sure, as long as it doesn't violate Federal Law. Where I went to school the history class taught us about an event called the "Civil war". The outcome decided that Federalism is the rule of law in America. Evidently, you missed that class or you didn't go to school here.

I'm fascinated by those who don't know their history as they always pick battles already fought and decided.

Alas, it is entertaining.



I am glad your school taught you about the "Civil war" that was a very important period in this nation's history. It doesn't seem they taught you the definition of Federalism however.

You state Federalism was only established with the Union victory over the Confederacy in 1865.

What type of government was in place from 1787 to 1865? Do you want a hint?

It was Federalism, shocking I know.

I too am fascinated by those who don't know their history... even more by those who claim to have some sort of intellectual superiority over others while not having even a basic understanding of what they are writing about.

Here's the definition of Federalism:
Merrian-Wesbster - the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units

Britannica Encyclopedia - Political system that binds a group of states into a larger, noncentralized, superior state while allowing them to maintain their own political identities.

Federalism in this country was established in 1787 with the drafting of the United States Constitution. Now there were two forms of Federalism, this is where you (or you teacher's) confusion lies.

The first is Dual Federalism which states that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign.

The second, Cooperative Federalism, asserts that the national government is supreme over the states.

While Dual Federalism isn't dead the US government now operate under Cooperative Federalism, the shift being a slow process. Taking hold over time as the Federal government grew through the 1800's up into 1900's even.

Sooooo now that we got that one tiny mistake cleared up let's move on to why you posted in the first place!

I said:


This isn't small town governments we are talking about here, it is state authority, more specifically it's the state of Georgia.


And you replied:


sure, as long as it doesn't violate Federal Law.


I have explained this before in other posts in the thread, I am speaking about Georgia's right as a sovereign state in this union to handle their state elections. More specifically, in regards to the case that this thread is about, Georgia's right to decide through their own State Constitution who is allowed on the ballots in that state. You with me still? Nowhere in there is Georgia infringing on the Federal governments authority or law. The Federal government is actually not involved in this case at all! Not the Legislative branch, not the Judicial branch and certainly not the Executive branch nada! Just because the citizen Barack Obama is a defendant in this case does not mean the Federal government is involved.

Now with that said this may change based on the ruling of the judge presiding on this case but as the case stands right now this is Georgia's fight.




Evidently, you missed that class or you didn't go to school here. Alas, it is entertaining.


I most likely did miss that class and I certainly did not go to school there, where ever there is. And thank you were right that was entertaining.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   


If what he is even saying is actually the truth and not just his 'opinion', can any public lawyers on here tell us whether or not a 'default judgment' can be issued in an administrative law action?
reply to post by duality90
 


IANAL, but I believe what the judge offered was to accept the submissions of the challengers without having to go through with the public hearing. Since the Georgia Democratic Party chose not to appear to challenge the birther's testimony, there was no reason to waste everybody's time.

There is no 'judgement', this was not a trial, it was a public hearing. The judge will make a recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State.

Both sides have until February 5 to submit further materials. Orly will undoubtedly do a dump of everything she has ever seen. Jablonski will probably submit a birth certificate, an affadavit that Obama has been a resident of the US. as a President, Senator, and State Legislator for more that 14 years, and the Library of Congress White Paper on Citizenship.

The judge will review the information he has been given and make his recommendation. The SoS will either accept or reject the recommendation. Obama will appear on the Georgia primary ballot. Birtherdom will meltdown.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bphi1908
 




More specifically, in regards to the case that this thread is about, Georgia's right to decide through their own State Constitution who is allowed on the ballots in that state.


You are correct.

I will only add that the State of Georgia cannot add any additional eligibility criteria for Federal Office above those defined in the Constitution. They cannot, for example, impose term limits on candidates for the House of Representatives or Senate, nor can they introduce a religious test of any kind.

They can demand candidates petition for access to the ballot to ensure the States time and money is not wasted on frivolous candidates. They can demand that candidates meet the Constitutional eligibility requirements, so that the election process is not compromised by ineligible candidates distorting the results for eligible candidates. They cannot insist that a candidate be born in a hospital, have a birth certificate layed out in some specific format with handwritten signatures of the delivery doctor, or a Social Security Number.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





Vattel had no impact on the Framers of the Constitution


Vattel was on the required reading list according to Ben's autobiography.

LINK TO TEXT OF QUOTE BENS AUTO BIO

I think it was significant. It all fits.


The American people not only deserve to have
answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over
Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age
20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. .. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport,
or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia
passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a
U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on
the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in
1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian
passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport
that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in
Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport
that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship
he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian
step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the
American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born”
American citizen between 1981 and 2008..



edit on 28-1-2012 by kawika because: add quote

edit on 28-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err

edit on 28-1-2012 by kawika because: add quote



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kawika
I think it was significant.


The only reason you think it was significant is it fits your distorted view of reality - however in the real world Obama is the legal POTUS!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 


Again, no link to your off site text. Don't bother, its worthless if it spouts this nonsense:



Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.


That lie has been exposed so long ago that you must have still been in diapers. For crying out loud, do you not think for your self, ever?

Far from being on the "no travel" list in 1981, Pakistan was the subject of a positive tourism campaign in the New York Times.

You are beyond ridiculous, you do at least understand that much don't you?

By the way, Ben Franklins copy of Vattel did not contain the phrase 'natural born citizen', and furthermore, if any of the framers paid any attention to the book, they certainly did not pay any attention to his views on citizenship, other than to note in passing perhaps that Vattel understood that English law followed jus soli while Swiss law followed jus sanguinis.

As evidence:



“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)

edit on 28/1/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


If you guys cant get him on "natural citizen" you'll go after him another way. Sheesh, when this attempt fails they will resort to, Mom used drugs during birth therefore not a natural birth. LOL.
Too bad you guys jumped on this so quickly as it turns out to be so not true in the first place.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Here is a snippet of news dated 27JAN


Decision on Georgia Presidential Qualifications Expected by February 3
January 27th, 2012
On January 27, the Administrative Law Judge who is hearing the challenge to President Obama’s spot on the Georgia Democratic presidential primary asked that post-trial briefs be submitted by Wednesday, February 1. Previously the deadline for such briefs had been February 5. It is expected that the Administrative Law Judge will then rule by February 3. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.


Source here



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


you seem to be very well versed in law and seem to know your books from the mid to late 1700's probably required reading for a law student... anyways no matter how we look at it or cut the crap so to speak, it is a large issue concerning Obamas birth if it was so clear if it was so cut and dry if it was so so so easy why cant he get on all his media resources as the POTUS and spell it out simply so simply that every "redneck" every "naysayer" and every "citizen" that he is legit. Obviously previous attempts if any (if you want to call them that) were not good enough, and seriously if it were me Id want to squash that madness right aways simply because it should be super easy and simple. This information should be addressed by the POTUS and not debated on ATS if it were in fact true Obama is a citizen then he should prove it. As I see it the American public really does want to know and they should have the truth spelled out to them, even if it is spelled out like we were all idiots so everyone however smart or dumb can know the truth. Burying people with almost 300 year old documents does not help the cause it is so far out to believe this stuff is followed unless it benefeits the government.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


If you guys cant get him on "natural citizen" you'll go after him another way. Sheesh, when this attempt fails they will resort to, Mom used drugs during birth therefore not a natural birth. LOL.
Too bad you guys jumped on this so quickly as it turns out to be so not true in the first place.


I think one (of two or three with merrit) very plausible theory is:

Obama is the son of Malcolm X and Betty.

They feared for their son's life and made arrangements.

Ann Dunham family was active in CIA ops with Malcolm X.

And Ann & "son" were off to a foreign nation (Indonesia) out of "danger" with a new name.
They "returned" when the heat died down.

Many "family" album photos are fake.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


I heard they changed it to the third. See post above.

Link

I know, it seems like the mods are picking on the rational people and letting the trolls get away with murder. I like this site though. Take a break. Do some deep breathing or yoga or something. It's all good.

K



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


Don't let the Mods bother you.

They have a job to do.

They follow the prescribed T&C sets.

Not always their fault.

Keep going with this, there ARE a few issues that are not making sense (yet).

Moving this thread was no big deal. Just standard procedure.


ETA: Always remember, when you hit nerves, there is paydirt and resistance





edit on Jan-28-2012 by xuenchen because:




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


I have pretty much been a watcher here till today but I have to say that I agree with you. I have gone to your links and they all seem to check out. I have never been to before it's news but I will check it out as well. Hopefully I will see some of your posts there. You seem like you have an idea what you are talking about. Hope to hear your views again. Thanks for the eye openers.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


If you guys cant get him on "natural citizen" you'll go after him another way. Sheesh, when this attempt fails they will resort to, Mom used drugs during birth therefore not a natural birth. LOL.
Too bad you guys jumped on this so quickly as it turns out to be so not true in the first place.


I, personally, have never posted anything about any of the other "birther" stuff. This is the only angle that I have found to be interesting or somewhat plausible. Actually, I think Obama is at the end of his one and only term, so "getting him" is not my goal.

FYI--the "natural born citizen" issue also calls Romney's eligibility into question, due to HIS father. So I wish everyone would stop thinking this is just an "I Hate Obama" position.

Instead of approaching this from an "I will defend Obama no matter what" perspective, perhaps you should read some opposing views about the issue.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
edit on 28-1-2012 by _SilentAssassin_ because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join