Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by FeatherofMaat

Exactly which Federal law or Constitutional decree restricts the ability of states to establish ballot requirements within Constitutional guidelines?

This redneck wants to know.

TheRedneck

If a case is frivolous, which birtherism clearly is, then it should be thrown out on the basis of being frivolous. If the judge does his job properly.

The justice system can and should impeach Obama right now on the basis of several impeachable offenses, such as premeditated murder of an American citizen, and breaking the oath of office by not upholding the Constitution in various other ways.

Forget this birther crap. Realize that if Obama does not get impeached right now over the publicly admitted criminal transgressions already committed, then there is no operational legal system to begin with.

This judge, however, should be found mentally incompetent for the job.

On Thursday 9am, live video of GA court here GA Live Video Thursday 9am Here

Press release here

New video posted at GA Demoncrat website

Very short video. Looks like just raising money.

Link to GA Demoncrat Webpage w video

SEND US $$$$, good fundraiser opportunity... Still looking for solid news that other states may do the same. Finding mostly birther sites, but then again until only a few days ago this was not covered at all by MSM.

Republicans are attempting to remove Barack Obama from Georgia’s Presidential Ballot in 2012.

Five separate lawsuits have been filed to PREVENT President Obama from being on the 2012 ballot. While their arguments are foolish, it still requires a vigorous defense in the Georgia judicial system.

If successful, Georgia would be the ONLY state to *not* have the President on the November ballot.

Democrats can’t allow our state to be America’s laughing stock. We have to fight these lawsuits, two of which are being represented by a sitting state legislator in the State Capitol.

We are putting together the finest legal team in the state to stop these political tricks. We must defend the President against these attacks that could remove him from the Presidential ballot in November.

We need your help. These lawsuits divert precious resources from our goal of turning Georgia blue in 2012.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
If a case is frivolous, which birtherism clearly is, then it should be thrown out on the basis of being frivolous. If the judge does his job properly.

Since the citizens of Georgia passed the law requiring ANY candidate for public office to provide documentation they are in fact qualified to hold that office, this case is neither frivelous and the judge is in fact doing his job correctly. The law requires any candidate to submit documentation showing they can legally run for and hold the office they are going for. In this case, it requires Obama to provide all required documentation in order to legally appear on the ballot in Georgia.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
The justice system can and should impeach Obama right now on the basis of several impeachable offenses, such as premeditated murder of an American citizen, and breaking the oath of office by not upholding the Constitution in various other ways.

The Judicial system has nothing to do with Impeachment, as that responsibility resides with Congress. The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was not illegal. Feel free to check immigration law pertaining to US citizenship and the actions an individual must take in order to renounce that citizenship. His actions clearly meet those established criteria. As a side note if you dont want to be targeted by a drone, then maybe you shouldnt take up arms against your own country, while in a foreign country, and affiliating yourself with a group who is at war with the US.

As far as not upholding other parts of the Constitution you and I are in agreement there.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Forget this birther crap. Realize that if Obama does not get impeached right now over the publicly admitted criminal transgressions already committed, then there is no operational legal system to begin with.

Again the legal system has nothing to do with a Presidential Impeachment. That resides solely with the US Congress.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
This judge, however, should be found mentally incompetent for the job.

He is a State judge and as such deals with the enforcement of Georgia laws. In this case, there is a law in question that Obama is in violation of. The Judge is competent and doing his job. The executive judge who thre4w out the second motion is also doing his job. They are enforcing the laws o the State of Georgia, a law the people enacted.

Is there any reason Obama, as well as every other candidate for elected office at local state and federal levels, shouldn't be required to show they are legally capable of holding it? Why should Obama be exempt?

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by drew1749

 

Why is it that we still can't shut the heck up about Obama's birth! JUST SHUT IT UP! I'm tired of hearing about this BS. Obama is president, get over it. You're all like a bunch of little kids who can't get your way. I mean seriously.

If we all just shut up, what would be the point of ATS.

This place, is for civil discussion.

You are free to join another discussion, or start your own.

Your statement reeks of censorship.

Do you have something to add to the discussion, or just trolling?

edit on 22-1-2012 by kawika because: add quote

Hey sorry I'm just now getting back to you. You have a point about discussion I admit, it's just this stuff makes me so mad. This stuff shouldn't keep being discussed. It's been over and done with for a long time and I'm tired of ignorance about it. Obama has another few months left. Suck it up and vote, then he'll be out of the white house if you hate him so much.

Is it too much to ask?

"Your statement reeks of censorship"

I'm sorry but what? Me not liking to hear annoying conversation isn't really censorship, it's just me being myself.

"Do you have something to add to the discussion, or just trolling?"

I'm not now nor have I ever been a troll. I know I've been gone for a long time (and even when I was very active I wasn't super well known) but come on. Nothing about what I said makes me a troll.

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
reply to post by drew1749

 

I think it's still worthy to question the validity of his history. Yes, he's president. Nothing will change that. But he is planning to run again, and so... I do think it's worth a look see. I think he's dishonest, and I think he's a charlatan. He's managed to fool the majority of Americans into thinking he was something he is not. He is the spineless puppet he promised not to be, whose interests lie in the man with the money.

"I think he's dishonest."

Why though? What has he done (except be president, admittedly that is enough to earn distrust from a lot of people but let's use another reason than that)?

"I think he's a charlatan"

Now I'm probably going to feel really stupid when you respond to this but I have no clue what a charlatan is. I know I've heard it before and that I should know what it means but I just don't. What is it? and on that note why is it a bad thing?

" He is the spineless puppet he promised not to be, whose interests lie in the man with the money."

I don't know. I know Obama hasn't been the best president this first term but I don't mind him that much. I think he's been trying his best to do what he promised to do, somethings just can't be done though.

reply to post by drew1749

You have a point about discussion I admit, it's just this stuff makes me so mad. This stuff shouldn't keep being discussed. It's been over and done with for a long time and I'm tired of ignorance about it.

You realize that the people here who think there is something to it are just as frustrated with you,

seemingly unable to see what is obvious to the most casual observer?

Two sides to every story.

We are split, right down the middle. Us and them.

But, I am not going to call you names, just because you do not agree with me. In fact, I am tired of trying to change peoples mind about this and have mostly been responding to people who ask good questions about ART II and really seem interested in learning about the issues.

There is a story about a karate student. He is talking to his potential new instructor, the Sensei, telling him about all the fights he has won, what a great fighter he is. Sensei is pouring tea for him. As the cup fills sensei keeps pouring and the tea goes all over the table and the floor. He says stop sensei, can you not see this cup is full. And sensei says what you say is true. I can not teach you, you are already full.

I think many people come here and just post without reading the other posts, they do not really try to understand the opposing point of view. They have made up their mind and don't want to be confused by the facts.

How much time have you spent, reading about the constitution, really digging in to this and trying to understand it? Or, do you not need to learn anything, are you already so full of knowledge that our posts are wasted on you?

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Georgia is retarded.

Do they really think the rest of the country views this as a good use of the president's time?

I have NEVER cried racism on ATS, and in the real world I try to maintain the same standpoint, because I think using the race card is simply whining about human nature...

This, however, is blatant racism.

Originally posted by thegagefather
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Georgia is retarded.

Do they really think the rest of the country views this as a good use of the president's time?

I have NEVER cried racism on ATS, and in the real world I try to maintain the same standpoint, because I think using the race card is simply whining about human nature...

This, however, is blatant racism.

How is it racism? The Georgia law affects people running for all public offices, not just Obama and the Presidency. As far as whats good use of the Presidents time that is irrelevant. He is not above the law, and it was his legal staff that has been challenging the claim. The requirement is for a person to produce required paperwork under Georgia law in order to verify that person is in fact meeting all criteria to appear on the ballot.

Its an easy solution.. provide the documents, prove the guy who brought the claim wrong, comply with Georgia law and return to the affairs of state in between campaign stops.

reply to post by snowcrash911

The whole point of the post you just responded to is that there is a hierarchy in the judicial system that apparently most people on here do not understand. The state judicial system is not the Federal judicial system, although there are some issues which are within both jurisdictions.

This case is not. It is within Georgia's judicial system only. The United States Supreme Court cannot weigh in on this. The ultimate judicial authority in this case is the Georgia Supreme Court.

As far as being "frivolous", that is a matter of opinion. Is it frivolous to follow the Georgia Constitution? If it is, is it not also "frivolous" to follow the United States Constitution? And if we do not follow either Constitution, then all laws, which derive their power from their respective Constitutions, are also "frivolous" by definition.

While I will not argue with you that the whole idea of Obama's birth certificate is moot at this point, the fact that the case is going forward in itself shows that it is not frivolous; it is apparently a mandate by the Georgia Constitution and is therefore far from frivolous. It will, if nothing else, set a legal precedent for future elections.

A good analogy would be the OWS protests that happened recently. Were their demands unreasonable? Yes. Were they disorganized? Yes. But did they have the right to protest? YES!

So does Georgia have the right to enforce the contents of their Constitution.

TheRedneck

Wow.

Imagine if these nutters took all that energy and challenged Obama on things like the NDAA....
... they do more to make Republicans look bad than effect the President.

>> Just remember, if you want the attention of adults -- talk about real issues. This citizen nonsense is dead and buried.

reply to post by thegagefather

Do they really think the rest of the country views this as a good use of the president's time?

Do you stop and think about every action you perform, wondering if someone else thinks it is a good idea? Do you ask your neighbor if it is OK to eat a hamburger for dinner? Do you call friends on the phone to ask whether or not you should buy that purchase you want?

Or do you make your own decisions, based on what you think?

So why do you seem to think Georgia should do differently?

This, however, is blatant racism.

You know what is racist? The fact that if I am ever faced with a potential minority member as choice for office, the first thing on my mind will be that if I ever disagree with any action taken by them, ever agree with any action, legal or not, taken against them, or ever have anything unflattering to say about them, I will again be called a racist. It will not matter whether or not my opinions are based on race; all that will matter is that I disagreed with the person.

Do you really think that is helping anyone?

TheRedneck

Here is a youtube video

It has some subtitles in English.

an article link with some comments: Video: Obama Summoned to Appear in Georgia Court


at youtube.


^^^Bob Unruh's Original Article WND.COM

Link to story 23JAN2012

Nothing to do with birthplace.

Who's yer daddy?

The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant's passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant's father was not a U.S. citizen.
Contrary to the Defendant's assertions, the issue presented by the Plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact, and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).


Read more: www.americanthinker.com...

Good summary here

A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama’s name off the state’s ballot in the March presidential primary.

An Obama campaign aide fail and such complaints around the country have no merit.

The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president’s lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

The Office of State Administrative Hearings handles disputes between the public and state agencies.

For example, if the state Department of Revenue wants to revoke a business owner’s alcohol license, the owner could appeal to the Office of State Administrative Hearings.

It also handles ballot disputes.

New story here, unbalanced...

Yup, many hope... Hope and change,

But back to Barack Obama and his eligibility for presidency, many feel that as time approaches, the case will probably be thrown out of court on some technicality. Naturally, being in Georgia, I will stay posted as to what transpires in the days to come…

Originally posted by kawika
Link to story 23JAN2012

Nothing to do with birthplace.

Who's yer daddy?

The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant's passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant's father was not a U.S. citizen.
Contrary to the Defendant's assertions, the issue presented by the Plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact, and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).


Read more: www.americanthinker.com...

And THAT is why all of these people saying negative things about this case is so frustrating...calling people who support it "birthers" and going on and on about the birth certificate. They clearly do not understand what this case is about.

This case is not about where Obama was born.

This case is not about his social security number.

It's about the definition of "natural born citizen", and whether that definition requires your PARENTS to both be citizens for you to be a "natural born" citizen. This case doesn't question Obama's citizenship...just the "natural born" citizen part. There is precidence from the Supreme Court for this definition.

Oh, and THAT'S the part of the definition you must meet to be President...according to the Constitution. Not just citizen, but "natural born citizen". And there may be more to it than just being born on American soil.

So it's not a "birther" issue. Maybe it should be called a "father" issue instead.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


So,

do I get a star or what??

I slave over a hot computer all day, and she gets the stars for a reply to my post... birthers...

Obama defense...

WND reported this week when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.


“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.

“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.

Judge Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.

Ha, congress is gett'n right on that...

Source

New ATS thread here, blowing off court for Vegas

reply to post by thegagefather

You're absolutely right, i think that the president should spend more time and the tax payers money on golf and holidays, and especially killing American citizens, we don't really need to know who's the president and who's stealing our children's future, that's just retarded, who do we think we are????

Originally posted by sweetnlow
reply to post by thegagefather

 

You're absolutely right, i think that the president should spend more time and the tax payers money on golf and holidays, and especially killing American citizens, we don't really need to know who's the president and who's stealing our children's future, that's just retarded, who do we think we are????

personally i prefer the bailouts, over 5 trillion dollars worth. when you are late with payments, they will haunt you and make you feel like a criminal for years if not decades. you work for big banks, wall street, or big corp, you can't make payments and about to go down, they get bailed out with OUR money within days.

that's the same concept here. if you and i steal a social security number and forge some documents, we can spend 30 years in jail. if you work in the white house, you say FU to this nonsense and call it crazy!!!! this is what's wrong with the system today. elites make the rules and they are above the law. the sad part is there are non-elites that accept this process and shun the people that question it. you know who you are, there are posters in here that make me sick. how can you say obama has better things to do as a president?

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Deetermined

 

THe post said there was a guy, from CT, who died in Hawaii.

He died without ever drawing any benefits so his number could be stolen without raising suspicion of fraud.

Grama worked in the SS office and used insider information to find a suitable SS# to use.

THat was the story. Maybe someone can confirm that.

Link to unreliable birther site with SS story

edit on 21-1-2012 by kawika because: added link

The blog post is interesting, but there is a very long comment by exTexasReadhead that is far more thought provoking.

Lots of unanswered questions about our president. If you don't think our media is corrupt ask yourself why they've never vetted Obama.

We know more about Anna Nicole Smith than we do about our president.

Originally posted by kawika
Link to story 23JAN2012

Nothing to do with birthplace.

Who's yer daddy?


The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant's passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant's father was not a U.S. citizen.
Contrary to the Defendant's assertions, the issue presented by the Plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact, and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).


Read more: www.americanthinker.com...

This could* have repercussions for some GOP candidates also:

Could Obama's “natural-born” case in GA affect at least two GOP candidates?

*Personally, I think this is Much Ado About Nothing... but, if GA taxpayers/citizens are cool with footing the bill for this, more power to 'em. *shrug*

At least Obama can get them on the record saying the birthers are nuts (or as your citation puts it: "the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator.")

So there's that, at least.

reply to post by Rren

This could* have repercussions for some GOP candidates also:

If Daddy is naturalized, before the candidate is born, then no problem.

All the guys running now seem ok.

Mitten's Dad was not eligible, but Mittens is.