OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW

[GALTGULCH8]

http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/today-the-lights-went-out-in-ga-for-obama/

[Selene]

This is troubling:

Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.

As is this:

Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.

[Peter]

Interesting. There is a conspiracy.

Peter

[Selene]

Peter:

This seems to present a prima facie case to discharge the plaintiffs burden and move the case forward.

I am going to try to find out why this lady attorney took the stand which is extremely rare for an attorney to be sworn under oath.

I would like PDS's input on why she would decide to testify. If he does not see this thread in a few days, I will IM him.

Finally, the social security number makes no sense.

According to the article:

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from

1977

. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

He would have been about fifteen (15) years old. However, what is not clear is whether that is the only social security number associated with his name.

Adam

[Reidy]

The one about the date stamps is a new one, and it probably won't be the last; crackpots never run out of new ones.

The one about sequence numbers was refuted so long ago that even I knew about it. Blank, sequentaly-numbered certificates were printed at a central location and distributed in batches to different hospitals which in turn distributed them, in smaller batches, to individuals who might be writing them up. The discrepancy shows that, during the course of 24 hours, either:

- The hospital used up an old batch and started a new one;

- Different people wrote certificates from the piles of blanks at their respective desks.

For the last word on the matter, see: http://www.kididdles.com/lyrics/b011.html.

[Selene]

The one about the date stamps is a new one, and it probably won't be the last; crackpots never run out of new ones.

The one about sequence numbers was refuted so long ago that even I knew about it. Blank, sequentaly-numbered certificates were printed at a central location and distributed in batches to different hospitals which in turn distributed them, in smaller batches, to individuals who might be writing them up. The discrepancy shows that, during the course of 24 hours, either:

- The hospital used up an old batch and started a new one;

- Different people wrote certificates from the piles of blanks at their respective desks.

For the last word on the matter, see: http://www.kididdles...yrics/b011.html.

Thanks. That takes care of one of the points I was concerned about.

I have not followed the hard "fact" based details of this case. I have looked into the Supreme Court cases and the court should rule on this issue when there is a proper fact pattern.

However, nothing about the Supreme Court case history necessarily eliminates O'biwan.

Obviously, if the birth certificate is fraudulent, it opens a rather large door that would lead to an eight lane highway of doubt!

Adam

[Selene]

Well that takes care of the Georgia case!

Not only did Malihi rule in favor of Obama he completely destroyed the credibility of the plaintiffs, their lawyers, witnesses and evidence that the judge found “unpersuasive.”

Shortly after the devastating ruling, Constitutional Attorney Mario Apuzzo, wrote an editorial entitled, “All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision.” http:// puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.htmlParagraph 2 reads, “The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html .

Below is the Arkeny Appellate decision from Indiana:

http://webservices.lexisnexis.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bdigjh&searchTerm=hYcY.ILCa.ZCaS.baac&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

[BaalChatzaf]

The one about the date stamps is a new one, and it probably won't be the last; crackpots never run out of new ones.

The one about sequence numbers was refuted so long ago that even I knew about it. Blank, sequentaly-numbered certificates were printed at a central location and distributed in batches to different hospitals which in turn distributed them, in smaller batches, to individuals who might be writing them up. The discrepancy shows that, during the course of 24 hours, either:

- The hospital used up an old batch and started a new one;

- Different people wrote certificates from the piles of blanks at their respective desks.

For the last word on the matter, see: http://www.kididdles...yrics/b011.html.

Thanks. That takes care of one of the points I was concerned about.

I have not followed the hard "fact" based details of this case. I have looked into the Supreme Court cases and the court should rule on this issue when there is a proper fact pattern.

However, nothing about the Supreme Court case history necessarily eliminates O'biwan.

Obviously, if the birth certificate is fraudulent, it opens a rather large door that would lead to an eight lane highway of doubt!

Adam

It would not make any difference. Lord Obama was born to an American women in American territory. The fact of the matter is that Obama is as American born as I am or you are therefore an American citizen.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[GALTGULCH8]

It sounds to me that they got to the judge. I suppose they made him an offer he couldn't refuse. We will never know what was used to persuade him to rule as he ended up doing. His final argument is in line with the prevailing wisdom, that to meet the eligibility requirement of the Constitution one must simply be born in this country, so it will be widely accepted.

Those who have taken the trouble to read Vattel's Law of Nations realize that both parents must be citizens to meet the definition understood at the time of natural born citizen. They got to him.

Maybe he will write a book which will not be published until he is on his death bed as Copernicus chose to do. Unless they threatened to harm a loved one. I wouldn't put it passed them.

Just as the men he had sex with in the old days in Chicago were killed execution style to keep them quiet there is no stopping the power lusters.

[Brant Gaede]

It would not make any difference. Lord Obama was born to an American women in American territory. The fact of the matter is that Obama is as American born as I am or you are therefore an American citizen.

You don't know enough to back up this statement.

The problem isn't where he was born, but the way the media let him get away with hiding so much information such as school records. As a presidential candidate four or five years ago, he shouldn't have been allowed to get out of the gate.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

It would not make any difference. Lord Obama was born to an American women in American territory. The fact of the matter is that Obama is as American born as I am or you are therefore an American citizen.

You don't know enough to back up this statement.

The problem isn't where he was born, but the way the media let him get away with hiding so much information such as school records. As a presidential candidate four or five years ago, he shouldn't have been allowed to get out of the gate.

--Brant

Where is the proof that he is not an American citizen. Consider who his mother was. Consider where he was born.

The regularity or irregularity of pieces of paper do not change the facts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

It would not make any difference. Lord Obama was born to an American women in American territory. The fact of the matter is that Obama is as American born as I am or you are therefore an American citizen.

You don't know enough to back up this statement.

The problem isn't where he was born, but the way the media let him get away with hiding so much information such as school records. As a presidential candidate four or five years ago, he shouldn't have been allowed to get out of the gate.

--Brant

Where is the proof that he is not an American citizen. Consider who his mother was. Consider where he was born.

The regularity or irregularity of pieces of paper do not change the facts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm not talking about what you are talking about. I'm talking about you not knowing enough to back up your previous statement. Your idea of where he was born is a supposition. The actual, basic supporting document respecting his birth has never been produced. Do I think he was born in Hawaii? Probably. All you are entitled to say is "probably" too. I think the actual birth certificate may have other information on it that Obama would find embarrassing, but not about his citizenship. Maybe about who his father was. Dunno. It seems possible Obama himself has never seen that certificate and doesn't want to be surprised by anything.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm not talking about what you are talking about. I'm talking about you not knowing enough to back up your previous statement. Your idea of where he was born is a supposition. The actual, basic supporting document respecting his birth has never been produced. Do I think he was born in Hawaii? Probably. All you are entitled to say is "probably" too. I think the actual birth certificate may have other information on it that Obama would find embarrassing, but not about his citizenship. Maybe about who his father was. Dunno. It seems possible Obama himself has never seen that certificate and doesn't want to be surprised by anything.

--Brant

What difference does it make. A person born to an American mother on American territory is American. End of story.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I'm not talking about what you are talking about. I'm talking about you not knowing enough to back up your previous statement. Your idea of where he was born is a supposition. The actual, basic supporting document respecting his birth has never been produced. Do I think he was born in Hawaii? Probably. All you are entitled to say is "probably" too. I think the actual birth certificate may have other information on it that Obama would find embarrassing, but not about his citizenship. Maybe about who his father was. Dunno. It seems possible Obama himself has never seen that certificate and doesn't want to be surprised by anything.

--Brant

What difference does it make. A person born to an American mother on American territory is American. End of story.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Oh, yes. President Person. We know all about him.

--Brant

why didn't you say so?

[william.scherk]

This is, I think, apropos for a few threads and a few posters at OL. This reports on a study from the University of Kent (UK). It shows up a pattern of thinking (non-thinking) that has always struck me. It may have struck a few others here at OL. As the years pass and the glory of OL grows, we seem to invite attendance from kooks of various stripes -- fledglings, nest-bound, and those in full flight.

Whether a mix of Libertarian/Islamicist (LM) or God-infused Giant/Rational Perfecto (JNS), Dianetics/Randianism (Crazy belligerent lady) or Postmodernism/Peikoffianism (SB), folks seem to hold contradictory paradigms in their head. And they seem to be able to both rant at length (JNS/SB) and never give up an inch, even when confronted with strong evidence that they are wrong in whole or in part.

This has always puzzled me -- both in my personal/work life, and in my online life.

So, blah blah blah, here's a story that gives a gloss of the study. I think I might add a link to it in some other threads where the kookiepants meets Objectivist Living ....

Contradictions Don't Deter Conspiracy Theorists

Did Princess Diana fake her own death to escape the public eye? Or was she killed by a rogue element of the British secret service?

If you agree with one of these theories, there's a good chance you'll subscribe to both even though one suggests Princess Diana is alive, the other dead, a new study indicates.

It's known that people who believe one conspiracy theory are inclined to endorse others as well. But new research shows that conspiracy theorists aren't put off by contradictory theories and offers a reason why.

"They're explained by the overarching theory that there is some kind of cover-up, that authorities are withholding information from us," said Karen Douglas, a study researcher and reader in the school of psychology sciences at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom. "It's not that people are gullible or silly by having those beliefs. … It all fits into the same picture." [Is This Article Part of a Conspiracy?]

[From http://www.livescience.com/18171-contradicting-conspiracy-theories-mistrust.html ]

[caroljane]

This is, I think, apropos for a few threads and a few posters at OL. This reports on a study from the University of Kent (UK). It shows up a pattern of thinking (non-thinking) that has always struck me. It may have struck a few others here at OL. As the years pass and the glory of OL grows, we seem to invite attendance from kooks of various stripes -- fledglings, nest-bound, and those in full flight.

Whether a mix of Libertarian/Islamicist (LM) or God-infused Giant/Rational Perfecto (JNS), Dianetics/Randianism (Crazy belligerent lady) or Postmodernism/Peikoffianism (SB), folks seem to hold contradictory paradigms in their head. And they seem to be able to both rant at length (JNS/SB) and never give up an inch, even when confronted with strong evidence that they are wrong in whole or in part.

This has always puzzled me -- both in my personal/work life, and in my online life.

So, blah blah blah, here's a story that gives a gloss of the study. I think I might add a link to it in some other threads where the kookiepants meets Objectivist Living ....

Contradictions Don't Deter Conspiracy Theorists

Did Princess Diana fake her own death to escape the public eye? Or was she killed by a rogue element of the British secret service?

If you agree with one of these theories, there's a good chance you'll subscribe to both even though one suggests Princess Diana is alive, the other dead, a new study indicates.

It's known that people who believe one conspiracy theory are inclined to endorse others as well. But new research shows that conspiracy theorists aren't put off by contradictory theories and offers a reason why.

"They're explained by the overarching theory that there is some kind of cover-up, that authorities are withholding information from us," said Karen Douglas, a study researcher and reader in the school of psychology sciences at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom. "It's not that people are gullible or silly by having those beliefs. … It all fits into the same picture." [Is This Article Part of a Conspiracy?]

[From http://www.livescien...s-mistrust.html ]

This is a persistent thread in imaginative fiction, the what-if-they-didn't really die, )Joan of Arc in Holland's Angel and the Sword for example - and the New Testament of course. And yeah, Elvis.

[caroljane]

PS - WSS.

Since OL Customer Service still has not sent my Tshirt despite repeated courteous, rational requests, I am all the more appreciative of the fine pair of Kookiepants you were thoughtful enough to send me.

At least somebody cares.

The Soros cartoon print is just adorable.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I have a pet theory on this that is growing in my mind. People--we humans--think in narratives. It is very rare to think about, say, a glass of water or a sunset or a shoe without having an accompanying narrative attached or running in the background in our minds. Just look at anything, anything in the room around you, and try to turn off imagining what to do with it or how it was used or some mini-story involving it. You will find that it is surprisingly hard to do that for any period of time.

A rose is a rose is a rose--well that ain't so, Joe. A rose is a rose with a story, and if it isn't, it will be if you look the rose a bit.

(I am even coming up with an idea on concept formation that involves narratives. For instance, in the genus and differentia model that Rand uses for concepts, I'm beginning to think the genus would be better served by including narratives, which will add context as one part of the broader grouping, rather than jumping from the blanket term "law of identity" for the whole shebang to "genus." Or maybe, "law of identity," i.e. causality--as I understand it--is another form of saying that certain narratives have to be the way they are.)

If you live in a primitive environment where your narratives of everyday things usually involve direct experience, or myth, I doubt you will find many conspiracy theoriest there. I can't prove that since I just now thought of it, but on first blush, it sounds right. (This might be something to look at later.)

But if you live in a more advanced society where gobs of people are lying to you in public everyday about things you encouter everyday (say, news of a war being fought), and you have believed some of these folks in the past to eventual great pain or embarassment, the narrative you carry upmost in your mind regarding ANYTHING they say from there on out is they are lying and covering up their lies.

That's your default. They lie. And you have direct experience (stories you have lived) to back it up to yourself. You are more certain of that than you are of anything coming out of their mouths.

You are not totally immune to fact. You are just immune to fact as reported by, say, the mainstream media. Or by politicians. Etc. If they say "A," you presume it's a lie right from the start.

I am hugely tempted to fall into this at times. I was a gullible child as I grew up and I have had my share of pain and mocking because of it. But nowadays I try to add to the richness of my own narratives by changing my perspective and running the story again in my mind through that angle.

There's more involved, of course. For example, the default wiring in the human brain leads a person to always have a bias about being right. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong. If a person has a super-thin skin about this and has expressed a conspiracy theory in public, he will adhere to it to avoid saying he was wrong.

I want to continue, but I have to stop for now. This is an interesting topic.

Michael

[william.scherk]

PS - WSS.

Since OL Customer Service still has not sent my Tshirt despite repeated courteous, rational requests, I am all the more appreciative of the fine pair of Kookiepants you were thoughtful enough to send me.

At least somebody cares.

The Soros cartoon print is just adorable.

See http://www.roblox.com/The-Kookie-Pants-2-0-item?id=30929693

[caroljane]

PS - WSS.

Since OL Customer Service still has not sent my Tshirt despite repeated courteous, rational requests, I am all the more appreciative of the fine pair of Kookiepants you were thoughtful enough to send me.

At least somebody cares.

The Soros cartoon print is just adorable.

See http://www.roblox.co...tem?id=30929693

This is outrageous You had the name first. You must hire Piekoff's lawyer and sue.

[william.scherk]

I have a pet theory on this that is growing in my mind. People--we humans--think in narratives. It is very rare to think about, say, a glass of water or a sunset or a shoe without having an accompanying narrative attached or running in the background in our minds. Just look at anything, anything in the room around you, and try to turn off imagining what to do with it or how it was used or some mini-story involving it. You will find that it is surprisingly hard to do that for any period of time.

My memory is a little foggy on this, but when I was studying in Montreal -- and obtained a precious McGill Library card -- I was struggling to understand 'critical theory' in film and literature. I came across a book that was originally written as a PhD thesis. The book, as I remember it, attempted to 're-write' several notable items of literature. All I recall beyond that was that the writer was CRAZY.

Why? Well, the entire re-narrativization of the texts went like this: And then ... and then ... and then ... and then ... and then ... and then.

I kid you not. So, bear in mind that a few nutters have taken your notion to the wall and jumped over the wall and ran into the far distance, beyond we mere mortals.

If you live in a more advanced society where gobs of people are lying to you in public everyday about things you encouter everyday (say, news of a war being fought), and you have believed some of these folks in the past to eventual great pain or embarassment, the narrative you carry upmost in your mind regarding ANYTHING they say from there on out is they are lying and covering up their lies.

That's your default. They lie. And you have direct experience (stories you have lived) to back it up to yourself. You are more certain of that than you are of anything coming out of their mouths.

I learned so much in my early struggles to countermand insanely wrong narratives emerging from the Recovered Memory Therapy cult. The first thing I learned was to check sources in any paper or article or paraphrase of earlier studies/books/literature. Inductiions/generalizations must be explicit, and supported. Anything that smacks of "everyone knows" is specious if not supported, warranted, backed-up (if the generalization is true, then the easiest thing is to provide concrete examples; moreover, if the generalization is true, their will be no counter-examples, no falsification). The work to get at the truth or value of specific statements or claims is absolutely necessary in any rational inquiry.**

This work was onerous at times, but paid off big time; all too often the re-telling was corrupted by confirmation bias, and non-sequitur. And when confronted, the last link in the chain would often turn on a dime into a classic crackpot. They were so heavily invested in the final link in the chain, that they would not go back on their conclusions. They would not even attempt due diligence.

As for the "Lies My Father Told Me," or "Lies of the Media," I have a simple standard that I try to apply -- and it goes right back to what I learned about RMT kooks. Go back to the sources, and look for all the types of bias and re-telling that can corrupt whatever bits of fact that were the raw material for the item. You will be familiar with my MO from when we tussled over Beck's claims ...

So, yes, I think you are part-way there to appreciating what the article describes (I have the full-text).

You are not totally immune to fact. You are just immune to fact as reported by, say, the mainstream media. Or by politicians. Etc. If they say "A," you presume it's a lie right from the start.

This is, I think, a grave intellectual mistake, to presume 'it's a lie.' It is the same thing as presuming 'it is true.' For me, it is only work, honest and painstaking work, intellectual work, that allows a firm conclusion one way or the other (or that may lead to a necessary qualification of the claim).

What reinforced my feelings that I was on the right track was when I landed in a psychology class in College (as a mature student). I discovered that what I thought were arcane rules (from APA, or MLA conventions) were designed to give folks like me the `bread crumb trail to follow, so to speak. Each claim needed a warrant. Each claim of earlier authority needed a cite. And all of them could be examined, and (in a perfect world) were examined.

This was wonderful. I learned the conventions, and used them in my critical essays, but understood they were just the formalism of skepticism (in the scientific "SHOW ME" sense, not in the nihilist/philosophical sense). This stance of skepticism was also useful in every other course I took (History/Geography/Anthropology).

This stance of mine can be extremely annoying, sometimes infuriating. As you intuit, the investment in a conclusion (even in science, where such investment is a bias that need exposing and correcting) can be very large, and the larger the investment, the stronger the attachment, right or wrong, reasoned or not. It is, as we have gone over many times in the past, amour-propre.

I will give you an example of how infuriating this can be, from real life:

Buddy and me were working a renovation/painting job for what seemed like a lovely man. The boss did not dominate his workers by testosterone expressions or simian/primate displays. He was much more of a churchy, nicey leader ... though of course he had to maintain both standards and control of his team.

He decided to take all his team for lunch, at an Asian restaurant. As the eldest, and the host, he dominated conversation, set the topics, led discussion. All the the good until he was going on about his travels and the things he had learned. At one point he was talking about India, how Indian culture kept men and women apart.

He pointed to two groups of people who had sat themselves (at different times, I had noticed) at nearby booths. One was a group of (to my eyes) Persian ladies. The neighbouring group was a set of Punjabi men. Our boss said that it was "Their religion" that caused them to do that (site ladies at one table, men at another).

By this time I had had quite fucking enough of his bullshit, so I piped up my best sweet Scherkian tones: "Which religion? Hindu, Muslim, Jain, Parsee, Thomasite, Buddhist?"

His face engorged with blood. He was grievously offended at my challenge. The table fell silent, He shouted something about "Smart Ass!" and we all dipped our faces to our noodles and endured the resulting Social Awkwardness ...

Of course the folks in the booths were not even fucking related whatsoever, regardless of their race/ethnicity/sect. Boss was full of shit. And he DID NOT like to be exposed.

Me, I like it.

I am hugely tempted to fall into this at times. I was a gullible child as I grew up and I have had my share of pain and mocking because of it. But nowadays I try to add to the richness of my own narratives by changing my perspective and running the story again in my mind through that angle.

Of course! The moment we feel confident in our conclusions while having not done the work of thoroughly testing our own argument -- that is a moment of danger, of self-deception. I catch myself doing it every single day, and (despite a similar reaction to that of FullofShit Boss) I take correction gladly. Correction is essential. This is what I consider the essence of what is called Peer Review, and the open publishing standards of the mature sciences (and in some cases, softer, more qualitative social and psychological sciences). We always need others to check our premises and our arguments.

There's more involved, of course. For example, the default wiring in the human brain leads a person to always have a bias about being right. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong. If a person has a super-thin skin about this and has expressed a conspiracy theory in public, he will adhere to it to avoid saying he was wrong.

Not to put too fine a point on it, there is no "default wiring" in the brain. The enviroment impinges on the brain and rewires it pre-natally and beyond. But what you mean, I agree with. Notwithstanding training and education, the default, evolutionarily-speaking, is to believe authority. If authority lies, dissembles, bullshits or otherwise slops out on the truth gambit, some people can turn on a dime and Trust No One.

Of special interest to me are what I callconspiracy apostates. These are those folks who have been fully immersed in the dogma and dicta and shibboleths of whatever conspiracy (notable the 9/11 'truthers') but have renounced their earlier cultism. If you like I can dig up a link of one or two such exemplars.

It is hard, hard hard to leave a cult-of-belief. We see this with those who have been damaged by Objectivism, like Phil. To leave the cult can lead to self-annihilation (if that is not too strong a word) because of the enormous investment in it.

______________

** An example here on OL was that thread on 'Tapping' / Thought Field Therapy [Five Minute Phobia Cure]; when the originator of that thread was challenged to provide some frigging backup for his assertions, he became abusive. In a word, he revealed himself to be so deeply invested in his (shonky) conclusions that he had left his presumed rationality behind. Even when Monica Pignotti entered the thread, directed attention to her peer-reviewed (and insider) conclusions, the originating poster remained in High Dudgeon, fuming and reactive and (to my eyes) utterly un-equipped for a rational discussion. Tap your way to mental health. Nathaniel Branden recommends it ... blah blah bullshit blah.

Same with the discussion over 'criminality/evul' -- when challenged to provide examples, answer questions, back up assertions with evidence, what?

Fainting dead away, clutching pearls, High Dudgeon.

Ick, ick, and double-ick.

Edited February 8, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Supremes asked: Who is 'natural born citizen?'

Decision whether Georgia case will be accepted expected in fall

Published: 2 hours ago

by Bob Unruh Email | Archive

An announcement is expected sometime in the fall on whether the U.S. Supreme Court will decide just exactly who is a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for all those who would be president.

Officials with the Liberty Legal Foundation confirmed they have filed an appeal of the ruling from the state Supreme Court in Georgia, and a decision by the nation’s highest court on whether it will accept the case is expected over the coming months.

It raises two questions, including whether states can be forced to accept any candidate from a political party for presentation on state ballots even when the candidates do not meet the required qualifications.

The other is the key, “Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II ‘natural born citizens,’ regardless of the citizenship of their parents?”

According to a statement from Van Irion, chief of Liberty Legal, the case that stems from a Georgia dispute “is the first to present the U.S. Supreme Court with a substantive ruling on the definition of natural born citizen under the Constitution.”

“All other cases to reach the Supreme Court on this issue had been dismissed on purely procedural grounds. Liberty Legal Foundation’s case is an appeal from the Georgia courts’ substantive ruling,” he explained. “The Georgia courts refused to dismiss our case based upon procedural grounds. The Georgia courts reached the substantive issue, what is a natural born citizen.

“They ruled incorrectly, but that ruling does allow us to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to address the definition of natural born citizen, instead of simply addressing a procedural issue,” the explanation said.

“Now the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to address the definition of natural born citizen, our substantive issue.”

“The petitioners’ challenge in Georgia state court was based upon an uncontested fact: that the respondent’s father was not a U.S. citizen; and upon the legal conclusion that a person must have two U.S. citizen parents to be a natural born citizen under Article II of the U.S. Constitution,” the brief to the high court explains. “The Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings and Secretary of State ruled that any person born on U.S. soil is a ‘natural born citizen’ as that term is use[d] in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, regardless of the citizenship of the person’s parents.”

But the brief argues that conclusion turns states’ rights on their head, because it would allow a political party to demand anyone be on a state election ballot, regardless of what the election code might require.

In Georgia, the law requires, “Every candidate for federal and state office … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

But the state’s ability to require candidates be qualified is separate from the right of political parties to choose their own candidates, the case argues.

“The right to associate easily coexists with the state’s right to determine the manner of choosing its presidential electors,” the brief argues. “Georgia code does not interfere with the autonomy of any political party’s internal decision making because it does not prohibit the parties from submitting any name…

“The political parties are free to submit Saddam Hussein or Mickey Mouse… However, Georgia is not required to accept such submissions and waste taxpayer money on ballots for such candidates.”

Under the state rulings, “the political parties could choose to list former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton as candidates for the presidential primary, despite the fact that both President Bush and President Clinton are disqualified to run for that office gain by the 22nd Amendment. … Upon such listing the state of Georgia would have no choice but to place these candidates’ names on its ballots.”

The brief also argues the key question about just exactly who is a “natural born citizen,” which not only could impact the Obama campaign but undoubtedly campaigns of future candidates.

The state decision did not follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Minor” definition of natural-born citizen, which is “binding precedent because the court’s definition was necessary to reach its holding. … Unless and until this court revisits this issue, the Minor court’s definition is binding.”

That ruling said a “natural born citizen” was the product of two citizen parents, under which Obama would be disqualified because of his father’s status as a foreign national visiting the U.S. as a student.

The high court in Minor said, “It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

The case was brought on behalf of David Welden, Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell. Handling it are Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation and Mark Hatfield of Waycross, Ga.

Officials with the Article 2 SuperPAC, who have been involved the case, said it originated when the plaintiffs challenged Obama’s candidacy on the ballot before Michael Malihi, an administrative judge who decided without evidence from Obama or his lawyer that he was eligible for the office and his name could appear on the Georgia ballot in 2012.

At the hearing level, Malihi simply threw out all of the evidence and ruled in favor of Obama, who, along with his lawyer, snubbed the hearing and refused to appear at all.

An intermediate court followed suit. Then the state Supreme Court dodged the question.

The plaintiffs had argued before Malihi regarding Obama’s alleged failure to qualify as a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for presidents. Obama has admitted in his writings his father never was a U.S. citizen, and attorneys argued that the understanding of the Founders, and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, defines natural-born citizen as the offspring of two citizens of the country at the time of the birth.

Malihi had been charged with responding to the complaints brought over Obama’s candidacy under a state law that requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

Of all the eligibility cases to be submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices have refused to consider any.

In fact, one justice admitted the court is “avoiding” the Obama issue. Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the issue amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”

“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”

“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”

“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”

[syrakusos]

Suffering the fate of WINSTON SMITH, I found history changed in the archives.

Gulch8 has been flogging this dead horse. So, I did some research. Chester Allen Arthur's father was a wandering Canadian. Arthur's citizenship was challenged - but NOT on the basis of his father's. However, the Wikiepedia article about Chester Allen Arthur changed after I posted here about that. Now it is back.

This challenge is basically silly. You can quote Puffendorf or Montesquieu. But ultimately, in a nation of immigrants, in a global society, President Obama meets the standards. I point out that JOHN QUINCY ADAMS had much the same kind of early life as Barack Obama. living abroad and spending years outside the United States. Newt Gingrich also lived many years abroad albeit on US Army bases in Orleans and Stuttgart. I am sure that George Washington and his friends would have found the very concept of US Army bases in France and Germany hard to understand. Transported to our time, they might have a few words for us on that subject.

[Selene]

Suffering the fate of WINSTON SMITH, I found history changed in the archives.

Gulch8 has been flogging this dead horse. So, I did some research. Chester Allen Arthur's father was a wandering Canadian. Arthur's citizenship was challenged - but NOT on the basis of his father's. However, the Wikipedia article about Chester Allen Arthur changed after I posted here about that. Now it is back.

This challenge is basically silly. You can quote Puffendorf or Montesquieu. But ultimately, in a nation of immigrants, in a global society, President Obama meets the standards. I point out that JOHN QUINCY ADAMS had much the same kind of early life as Barack Obama. living abroad and spending years outside the United States. Newt Gingrich also lived many years abroad albeit on US Army bases in Orleans and Stuttgart. I am sure that George Washington and his friends would have found the very concept of US Army bases in France and Germany hard to understand. Transported to our time, they might have a few words for us on that subject.

Michael:

You will notice that I have never used any of the "sources" that Gulch relies on because they have no standing in American jurisprudence.

There is an issue as to the definition of "natural born citizen" and its specific Constitutional meaning which has not been clearly defined by SCOTUS.

There were, I believe two (2) SCOTUS cases which I have cited in other threads that barely touched the issue.

As far as the marxist who currently occupies the White House it is not going to matter whether he is or is not a "natural born citizen" pursuant to the Constitution.

However, this issue needs to be clearly determined. Bobby Jindal and Rubio have a similar cloud over their "qualification" to run for President.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

If Obama is re-elected the (those) American people will have spoken.

--Brant

~flush~