Of interesting note: Georgia Supreme Court Justice Nahmias was born in Atlanta on September 11, 1964. He attended Briarcliff High School and was the state's STAR student in 1982. He attended Duke University, where he graduated second in his class and summa cum laude in 1986, and Harvard Law School, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1991 and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review (along with President Barack Obama). I wonder if he will feel to recuse himself?
For the sake of interest I have had a few people ask me already "So, What does this mean? I mean, How is it different from what has been going on?"
That is a good question as with all of the cases not a single one has had any reasonable action and this has led even Obama's camp to gloat that there's been hundreds of challenges filed and they all are garbage. In fact that has become a mantra of Obama supporters and Obama himself in some of the latest campaign commercials that have showed John McCain taking the higher ground then say Mitt Romney because John McCain chastised his supporters harder and Obama would like Mitt Romney to tell Donald Trump to quit blowing his nose on Obama. Here's their Campaign Commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Qao_iBNlk For the sake of calling Obama a "good person" McCain is really saying here and now the guy who has blatantly lied, misled, deceived, and fraudulently represented himself to the American People with his long form birth certificate, his draft registration, his social security card, hid every document he could from the general public like his college records his traveling identity visa's, and any authentically genuine form of identification used daily by the general public, is a "good person". Further, Obama want's Romney to take up the mantra and drink the Jim Jones Kool-aid.com farce.
Of course the Media has had a field day with Wolf Blitzer-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFDRaqx5dDM and Greta Van Susteren http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/05/30/trump-obama-... both taking swipes with Donald Trump about the issue they called him on. I guess they think if Trump says' he's voting for Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney ought to be able to shut the Donald's mouth? Well, in a nut shell here's what is different. #1 - Obama has won most of the cases because of what's called "standing".
Most of the people bringing the challenges to Obama through the Court were not running for President and didn't have campaigns hurt by Obama's malfeasance against the Constitution's demands for a natural born citizen. Well I'm running as a Democratic Party candidate, I have standing and have been hurt by Obama's willingness to cheat the rules 50 states have agreed is the Supreme Law of the Land.
#2- Its just not me waving my magic wand saying Obama's not a natural born citizen because he's got foreign allegiances to his father, but I have submitted in my complaint 2200 hours of investigations by a cold case posse designated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Now whatever you think of Sheriff Joe, the main idea in this was to clear Obama. That didn't happen and in fact the opposite happened. These two working facets are penetrating the Obama Forgery Gate, and unless Supreme Court Justices want to throw the book out of what they are suppose to be about, sooner or later the Obama house of cards is going to come down in a hurry. You know the most dis-concerting thing about this is, its a guy like me, whose really poor, actually fighting for the Constitution while Mitt Romney's got millions and hasn't bothered to look under the carpet, but continues to sweep Obama's fraud under the carpet. That's not the kind of President we need right now. Leaders find ways to lead, and believe it or not, our Constitution created our Economy and made America great. I think most politicians and probably most of the people only care about the economy. Well, if they cared about the economy they'd see its the Constitution of America that made our Economy great. Let's keep it, and get our economy back on track!
Keep you posted on what's happening..here's the latest commercial if you missed it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTJkId_GBis&list=UUymbINcxgM2q9H..
Also seen here on Tea Party.org : http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/press-release-judy-v-obama-discretionary-application-for-review?xg_source=activity
Please help or assist Cody if you can in this valiant stand for our United States Constitution. He's done this all by himself and needs your help if at all possible. Cody needs help in traveling expenses, postage expenses,printing expenses,and advertising expenses to sure up this challenge as viable. We all on this site hopefully want our U.S. Constitution to remain viable and solvent. Well if no one lends a hand, or would give $3 or $1,500, or $2400 to help a man who has taken a stand for the Constitution and made it this far legally, what exactly are you telling your self, your family, or even your God?
These are indeed tough times. The recession has hurt America. While politicians may disagree on how to fix the economy, hopefully there is one thing we can agree on. Obama is not eligible and is a usurper. If you believe God inspired our Constitution, really believe that, then you have to understand violations have consequences. How many politicians running for President that have stood up for our Constitution in the eligibility requirements have you supported lately? By Word? By Deed? What does your record say to God? (Reflect upon this personally) Its YOUR record to give, just as he gave and inspired our Constitution. There is no doubt that people support what is important to them, however when our priorities become mixed up, everyone does understand how the wind from God's nostrils can "change" your "hope" to your regret. Please consider lending a hand and visiting Cody's website as a Patriot for America and our Constitution.
Sincerely,
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign
www.codyjudy.us
www.codyjudy.blogspot.com
YouTube:CODE4PRES Check out Cody's new single Appropriately Released on Memorial Day 'The Lion's Share'
Appeals courts, and the Supreme Court of Georgia is an appeals court, decide cases based on the law, not on facts. So all the stuff you submitted regarding Obama's birth certificate allegedly being forged will be ignored.
ReplyDeleteOnly your claim that an NBC requires two citizen parents might be looked at, and it will be thrown out--as was the case of all the appeals of NBC status for Obama. All the courts--four state courts and one federal court--have ruled that the meaning of NBC comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents, and in the two (at least) appeals of these decisions, the higher courts have always rejected the appeal, meaning that they found nothing wrong with the ruling of the lower court.
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not the parents.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Moreover, his view was not alone:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
In fact, birthers and two-fers tried to convince the members of the US Electoral College of the parents requirement, and not one member changed her or his vote out of the belief that two citizen parents required. Not one. And four state courts and one federal court have now ruled specifically on Obama’s case that the US Supreme Court defined the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case and that it said that the meaning comes from the common law and that it includes every citizen born in the USA.
Let's hope for our Constitution's sake, and the idea that Representatives and Senators were given different qualifications then the Office of the President specifically to avoid foreign influence at the head of our military as CIC.
DeleteUntil 2/3rds of Congress adopts a different qualification for the office of the President I think the U.S. Supreme Court has 'avoided this' specifically because I'm right.
Senator Hatch hasn't done the Constitution any favors with those infamous remarks and I hope it comes back to bite him for the Constitution's sake.
Moreover, hummmmm, you sound like a lawyer, Birthers trying to convince the Legislature of anything doesn't amount to "Upholding the Constitution" as the Courts have at times rejected based on the Constitution, what the Legislature tried ramming down our throats.
You paragraph of Edwin Meese- I agree "Citizens" , then you make the jump to "Natural Born Citizens" which doesn't fly at all. He doesn't have any Constitutional ground if he did say that as Ronald Reagan's A.G. Thank goodness he wasn't appointed to the bench. ;)
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen here in America comes from what I say it does in my Appeal.. The U.S. Constitution's precedent - Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.
Thank you for your comment. I suppose you'll be very happy if my Appeal is granted wont' you?
Cheers
Just so you know. I had a conversation with David Nahmias well over a year ago and asked him, point blank, is an Anchor Baby eligible, under Art. II Sec I Cls V of the Constitution, to become POTUS and he answered, unhesitantly, YES. Got the same answer from my Senator, Saxby Chambliss. I do hope that if your case is heard you don't get him. Chances are high that they will do to you what they did to me... Deny the appeal with no explanation.
ReplyDeleteCarl-
ReplyDeleteThat's awesome for you to relate and I thank you so much! Very appreciated.
I may request his personal "recusal" then. Did you know that he was Pres of the Harvard Law Review along with Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama when you were going in on your appeal?
One of the things I thought about with your developement at the GA. Supreme Court was of course they don't have to say "Why" in their decision on an Application for Review, however, "Standing" may have played into their decision at least it could have based on the argument coming out of the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court I mention in my Application.
Lawyers need to remember the lessons we have learned rather then continual hit their head on the same brick wall.
I'm sure not saying you should not be complimented for your efforts though and I do applaud you for the publicity you provided in your case and the education of many to what our Constitution means when it comes to the qualifications of the Office of the President held in our Constitution.
Please let me know if you knew about the working association between the two at Harvard if you will.
All the best!
Re: "I had a conversation with David Nahmias well over a year ago and asked him, point blank, is an Anchor Baby eligible, under Art. II Sec I Cls V of the Constitution, to become POTUS and he answered, unhesitantly, YES."
ReplyDeleteThat is because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, not to the parents. There actually have been federal and court cases that have ruled this way. For example:
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Notice that the father entered the USA illegally butg that the children are Natural Born Citizens.
Other cases simply say that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens. For example:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
What makes the third daughter different from the other two children? She was born in the USA.
And there is this case, which birthers chose not to appeal to the federal court system (wonder why not???? Probably because they knew damn well that they would loose):
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”--- Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)
YOu will lose your appeal. The court might be nice enough to point out to you that the Wong Kim Ark case came after the Minor vs Happersett case and hence overturned it (if Minor v Happersett was a ruling, which it wasn't. It was what lawyers call "dicta.")
The Wong Kim Ark case said quite clearly that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law. Hence, not from Vattel or from some concept of Natural Law. And the court ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats and invading armies.
Well,I suppose at this time you can argue yourself blue in the face... but so far your winning, so why argue? lol
DeleteDo you really believe an enemy of the U.S. should be able to be President? Are you that open? Do you think any Foreign Dictator's offspring should be able to become President?
Come on, you know better.
But that's exactly what your saying, my question to you is "Why?"
Why are you arguing so hard for foreigners at the head of our Military and at the head of our Gov.?
What's your name?
When a higher appeals court rejects an appeal without giving an explanation the reason is in virtually every case that the higher court agrees completely with the lower court.
ReplyDeleteThat's not exactly true and you know that. I mean , are you a mind reader of the Justices or something?
DeleteJust to purpose one example of that being contrary, don't you leave as a for instance, a Justice understanding the issue is good but the standing is not accomplished?
That would be a reason to reject an appeal and we have proof that its happened, and the Justices didn't have to say anything.
We are suppose to be smart enough to figure it out and learn from what the 9th Circuit court of Appeals said in the ruling: Presidential Candidates have standing because they can show hurt, above Citizens, Military Personal, Retired Military,family, Legislatures, Senators and Sheriffs. ;) Well I'm exaggerating a little but not much.
I was thinking maybe you should give your advise to Obama ;) lol instead of me?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.coachisright.com/will-obamas-fate-be-decided-in-florida-on-june-19th/
Will June 18 be the day the Obama Candidacy goes down in flames in the Florida courtroom of Judge Terry Lewis? The judge who made the call in the historic 2000 Gore V. Bush presidential election case isn’t backing off from requiring Barack Obama appear before him to present evidence supporting his claim that Natural Born Citizen (NBC) status doesn’t really mean a child born of two citizen parents also born in the USA. (1)
Democrat Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, a duly registered Democrat voter of Broward County (an Al Gore stronghold along Florida’s southeast coastline) is bringing the challenge to Obama’s inclusion on Florida’s Presidential ballot next November.
His attorney Larry Klayman cites the Supreme Court decision in Minor v. Happersett from 1875 as defining just what NBC means. “The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present security and other risks for our nation,” (2) Klayman says in an exclusive story only covered by WND.
Re: "Do you think any Foreign Dictator's offspring should be able to become President?"
ReplyDeleteHave you ever heard the name Svetlana Stalin? Her married name was Svetlana Alliluyeva. Well google it.
You will find that she was not like her father, not at all. Now, she was not a Natural Born US citizen, only a naturalized US citizen. But your question implies what do I think should be the case if she were born in the USA.
And the answer is that I believe that the voters have the right to vote for her or to vote against her, just the way that they have the right for and against all the other 300 million or so of us who were born in the USA.
Well, you have explained yourself very well. One thing about America is we don't subscribe to being "Fair" or "non-discriminating" or "non-judgemental". We believe in our Constitution and it has lasted throughout the ages of our Nation far outlasting any one persons life time. The wisdom in its fundamental principles are offensive to others at times because it essentially was not made for the "World" but for the United States.
ReplyDeleteYou know no power exist by the peoples vote to abolish it or change it except by 2/3rds Congress.
Summation- about 10 attempts were made to change it
since Obama began his career as a politicians. They all failed. That's a Legislative Wall that says we will discriminate, we will judge, we will protect others from coming in our house and ransacking it.
You know other Countries could choose to model a Constitution exactly like ours, but its unique and has been a jewel for the U.S.
We offer Citizens a chance to be Kings and Queens in this land. We offer Citizens a chance to raise their Princes and Princess in their own home. We offer you your own place like a Kingdom.
So many others understand that what we do offer is a chance to be a King in your own House... that is what being a Citizen in the U.S. means.
Those qualities are worth protecting, and any foreign citizen naturalized anyway, would if they love this Country, fight to protect the principles that have made it found in our Constitution. If they want to change it, they have 3/4 of Congress to present their ideas too.
Voters don't have a right to vote for unqualified unconstitutional ineligible candidates by the demands of our Constitution's values and principles.
That is our morality... and while the world may think of better ideas that's fine. As soon as they offer what we do by adopting our Constitution that has protections built in it for precisely the kind of suggestions your coming up with, then I can only say, "Try looking at the positives of our Constitution" it offers so much.
This is an awesome Country and if our Legislature would abide by the Constitution we have we wouldn't be in the mess we are. We have a hard enough time keeping ourselves in check to it.