On January 3, Georgia State Administrative Judge Michael M. Malihi refused to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges President Barack Obama’s spot on the March 6 Georgia Democratic presidential primary. The lawsuit was filed by various Georgia voters, who argue that Obama does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be President. These voters will now have an opportunity to present evidence, in a hearing set for January 26, unless the January 3 order is overturned on appeal.
The January 3 ruling is four pages, and says that the Georgia law, permitting challenges to the ballot position of candidates, applies to presidential primaries just as much as it applies to any other primary or election. Here is an article about the lawsuit that appeared two weeks ago in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. One of the attorneys who brought the case, J. Mark Hatfield, is a Republican state representative from Waycross who introduced a bill last year, HB 401, to require presidential candidates to submit proof of qualifications. That bill did not pass. Another of the attorneys is Orly Taitz. The case is Farrar v Obama. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for this news.
ALL WE NEED is a case on the merits and we can remove Obama! We have the facts which are all right in this video and sourced by the Library of Congress!
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dbtOoX3exk
Obama is going DOWN!
Here’s a much more interesting and believable story:
Two reviews of new books on Obama’s parents:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n01/jackson-lears/a-history-of-disappointment
Will BHO call out the military and march thru GA — as Gen. Sherman of the Union Army did in 1864-1865 ?
One more EMERGENCY case for the poor suffering SCOTUS folks ???
Again – see the subjects chapter in Book I of Blackstone’s Commentaries.
What was the nation-state status of BHO’s father the second that BHO was born ??? — WHERE EVER BHO was born.
If a very pregnant USA citizen wife of a USA citizen husband has a kid ANY where on the planet, is such new kid a USA natural born citizen ???
How about likewise for foreign folks and their kids ???
Only SCOTUS knows for sure ??? Stay tuned.
The stupid, it burns.
Representative John Bingham 1862 (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Session, pg 1639:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
In 1866 while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law.
The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the Law/Amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and see the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!
What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
Senator Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16
Representative John Bingham again, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards
to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is,
in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writerson that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
Supreme Court Minor V. Happerset:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
A bit of political common sense —
Foreign folks in the U.S.A. —
LEGAL or ILLEGAL or ACCIDENTAL {ship wrecked) — have kids.
Gee — are ANY of such kids *subject to the jurisdiction* of the U.S.A. regime ???
Who’s your daddy and what was his nation-state status the second you were born – WHEREVER you were born ???
GEE — Can’t remember your personal at birth stuff ??? — look up some records about daddy.
How many GOOD records in the BAD olde days ???
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/