Tweet
Georgia and Birthright Citizenship
American Thinker
Cindy Simpson
2/20/2012
Excerpt:
"Some interesting events have been transpiring in Georgia over the last few weeks. At least, that is, in the right wing blogosphere's view -- the mainstream media orchestrated a complete blackout. And it wasn't because big media missed the show, since I personally saw them holding the spotlights and cameras. The footage was simply left on the cutting room floor.
Georgia is home to some brave citizens who dared to challenge, under state law, President Obama's constitutional eligibility to run for a second term. The three cases stipulated that Obama was not qualified as a "natural born" citizen because his father was not a US citizen. As reported here on American Thinker in a series of columns, the administrative judge found for the defendant, and last week, Georgia's Secretary of State Brian Kemp upheld the ruling -- that Obama's name should appear on Georgia's 2012 ballot.
That decision was rendered even though Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, failed to respond to a valid subpoena, and neither appeared at the January 26 hearings. In the initial stages of the challenges, Jablonski filed motions to dismiss, which were denied. The day before the hearings, Jablonski delivered a defiant letter, over Judge Michael Malihi's head, to the secretary of state, warning that neither he nor Obama would attend. Neither the judge nor Kemp seemed to mind, however. Nor did the media.
As a witness to the hearings, I fully expected the mainstream media to report on the events with the usual "birther" ridicule, but I was astonished to find virtually no coverage at all. Perhaps because the challenges highlighted the less sensational points of statutory construction, judicial precedent, and constitutional law -- aspects of "birtherism" that do not fit the mainstream narrative of crazy "birthers" and conspiratorial theories of a Kenyan birthplace.
Or maybe -- the media did not want to draw attention to the disconcerting fact that Obama and his defense team turned their backs on legal procedure and the judiciary of a state.
Last week, the plaintiffs filed appeals to the Superior Court. One of the filings was a "Motion for Emergency Stay and Preliminary Injunction" -- Georgia's primary is scheduled for March 6. Links to the filings can be found here: Liberty Legal Foundation, Article II Political Action Committee, and Orly Taitz. One of the attorneys apparently had quite an adventure in his attempt to file the motions and paperwork before the deadline, which he documented on his website.
Judge Malihi's decision essentially held that every baby born on US soil is a "natural born" citizen -- regardless of the citizenship, legal or illegal status, and permanent or temporary domicile of either of its parents.
The judge relied entirely on a 2009 Indiana decision that defined "natural born" based on its interpretation of the holding in Wong Kim Ark and the language of the 14th Amendment. Interestingly, the Indiana decision admitted, in a footnote, that the omission of the words "natural born" in the holding of Wong Kim Ark was considered "immaterial." In addition, the 14th Amendment does not contain the term "natural born," and its qualifying phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction," has been the focus of much debate. In fact, one of the framers of the 14th defined the phrase as "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Non-citizen parents, even though they may be subject to our laws while in the US, still owe allegiance to their home countries, as do their children, no matter where born."
.................................................. ............
View the complete article at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...tizenship.html
American Thinker
Cindy Simpson
2/20/2012
Excerpt:
"Some interesting events have been transpiring in Georgia over the last few weeks. At least, that is, in the right wing blogosphere's view -- the mainstream media orchestrated a complete blackout. And it wasn't because big media missed the show, since I personally saw them holding the spotlights and cameras. The footage was simply left on the cutting room floor.
Georgia is home to some brave citizens who dared to challenge, under state law, President Obama's constitutional eligibility to run for a second term. The three cases stipulated that Obama was not qualified as a "natural born" citizen because his father was not a US citizen. As reported here on American Thinker in a series of columns, the administrative judge found for the defendant, and last week, Georgia's Secretary of State Brian Kemp upheld the ruling -- that Obama's name should appear on Georgia's 2012 ballot.
That decision was rendered even though Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, failed to respond to a valid subpoena, and neither appeared at the January 26 hearings. In the initial stages of the challenges, Jablonski filed motions to dismiss, which were denied. The day before the hearings, Jablonski delivered a defiant letter, over Judge Michael Malihi's head, to the secretary of state, warning that neither he nor Obama would attend. Neither the judge nor Kemp seemed to mind, however. Nor did the media.
As a witness to the hearings, I fully expected the mainstream media to report on the events with the usual "birther" ridicule, but I was astonished to find virtually no coverage at all. Perhaps because the challenges highlighted the less sensational points of statutory construction, judicial precedent, and constitutional law -- aspects of "birtherism" that do not fit the mainstream narrative of crazy "birthers" and conspiratorial theories of a Kenyan birthplace.
Or maybe -- the media did not want to draw attention to the disconcerting fact that Obama and his defense team turned their backs on legal procedure and the judiciary of a state.
Last week, the plaintiffs filed appeals to the Superior Court. One of the filings was a "Motion for Emergency Stay and Preliminary Injunction" -- Georgia's primary is scheduled for March 6. Links to the filings can be found here: Liberty Legal Foundation, Article II Political Action Committee, and Orly Taitz. One of the attorneys apparently had quite an adventure in his attempt to file the motions and paperwork before the deadline, which he documented on his website.
Judge Malihi's decision essentially held that every baby born on US soil is a "natural born" citizen -- regardless of the citizenship, legal or illegal status, and permanent or temporary domicile of either of its parents.
The judge relied entirely on a 2009 Indiana decision that defined "natural born" based on its interpretation of the holding in Wong Kim Ark and the language of the 14th Amendment. Interestingly, the Indiana decision admitted, in a footnote, that the omission of the words "natural born" in the holding of Wong Kim Ark was considered "immaterial." In addition, the 14th Amendment does not contain the term "natural born," and its qualifying phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction," has been the focus of much debate. In fact, one of the framers of the 14th defined the phrase as "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Non-citizen parents, even though they may be subject to our laws while in the US, still owe allegiance to their home countries, as do their children, no matter where born."
.................................................. ............
View the complete article at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...tizenship.html