Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

Dictator in chief refuses judges order to appear........where are all the " no one's above the law" people now?

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


The birther thing is a non issue anyway (even though this lawsuit has nothing to do with it) no matter where he was born, he's still not eligible because his father was not a citizen (I'm sure this was already mentioned, but it bears repeating) and Obama himself declared he was an Indonesian citizen to get free college. No matter how you look at this guy, he and his minions destroyed our constitution and set a precedent, which I am sure will be used in the near future. Now that he did it, anyone can take our presidency.....anyone!

reply to post by timetothink


And Bush didn't destroy the constitution?

Let's get this straight: One president CANNOT (emphasis on this word) fix everything in 3 short years.

reply to post by The Sword


When did I say anything about him fixing anything (he did make everything worse) I said he is not eligible to be president. A false argument about Bush doesn't change that fact.

reply to post by timetothink

Dictator in chief refuses judges order to appear........where are all the " no one's above the law" people now?

Most of them are over at the new thread....

New ATS thread here

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing

Sure about that?

A Georgia court has jurisdiction to subpoena residents of the State of Georgia. Period. If someone who resides in a state other than Georgia is to be issued a subpoena, the attorney requesting the subpoena would first have to request the Georgia court for a commission and/or a letter rogatory, which would go to a court in the state in which that person resides, and that court would have to issue a subpoena. Orly skipped that step and merely mailed out multiple subpoenas as if they were enforceable (which, they most certainly, are not).

First, what has been repeatedly referred to as a "trial," will not be a trial, but an administrative hearing. Folks, it is being conducted by Georgia's Office of State Administrative Hearings. That should be the first clue about what will actually take place! The entire purpose of the hearing is for the administrative judge to make a recommendation to Georgia's Secretary of State, who is under no legal obligation to adhere to the judge's recommendation

Interestingly, one of the "witnesses" Orly lists is "Custodian of records Assissi [sic] school Jakarta, Indonesia;" so, not only does Orly believe that Georgia somehow has jurisdiction over Hawaii and other states (which, it doesn't), she seems to believe that it has jurisdiction over Jakarta, Indonesia as well. Are you beginning to see the problem here?

Orly is just a nutter!

www.birthersummit.org...

It is not a criminal trial.

He has an interest in the outcome. If he does not care enough to show up, no big deal, but it would be wrong not to invite him.

Showing up, with evidence, is probably the only way he could prevail.

And it is true this is a local event, but the whole world is watching.

reply to post by spoor


Any court that has competent jurisdiction over an issue can issue a subpoena to any person who has relevant information for the issue at hand, regardless of their residency status. Non nationals can ignore the subpoenas of course but not US citizens, and even then it depends on the court ase and agreements the US has with the foreign country in question.

If Hawaii has information relevant to the issue in Georgia then yes, the judge can issue an order for the material to be brought before the court in Georgia. If a conflict develops between Hawaii and Georgia, then it will be resolved by the Federal court system per the constitution.

How do I know this? Because I have been issued a subpoena by a court in a different state because of my involvement in a different matter dealing with the same person in my state.

Article IV section 1 - Full faith and credit clause

States within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

Obama is being required to be present, and the order out of Georgia is valid.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Judges sometimes make bonehead mistakes.

Sometimes I look at court decisions and wonder what qualifies a person to be a judge.

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Judges sometimes make bonehead mistakes.

Sometimes I look at court decisions and wonder what qualifies a person to be a judge.

I am in complete agreement, especially when I see rulings where burglars have been injured breaking into peoples homes, only to sue the homeowner and win.


As far as qualifications go you would be surprised. Some states dont require any formal legal training in order to be a judge. Funnier still is the US Supreme Court and their criteria. Its interesting to see the court system dealing with Obama and his citizenship status when there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that requires Supreme Court Justices to be US citizens.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Non nationals can ignore the subpoenas of course but not US citizens,

The president can. Certainly judges can issue subpoenas, but the president can legally ignore them.

Early in American history, courts became the forum in which it was decided whether the president of the United States would be exempt from such court orders.
...
Justice Chase refused Cooper's request to subpoena the president, but went on to charge the jury and said, "Now, gentlemen, the motives of the president, in his official capacity, are not a subject of inquiry with you. Shall we say to the president, you are not fit for the government of this country?" Justice Chase did, however, agree to Cooper's requests to subpoena members of Congress.
United States v. Cooper (1800)

This case appears to have been the first in which a president could possibly have been subpoenaed, and it was determined that America's chief executive is generally immune from such court orders.
...
United States v. Burr (1807)
Jefferson wrote that, "To comply with such calls would leave the nation without an executive branch, whose agency nevertheless is understood to be so constantly necessary that it is the sole branch which the constitution requires to be always in function." This set a longstanding precedent that a sitting president of the United States could not be forced to appear in court or produce materials relevant to a trial through the use of a subpoena.

Read more: www.answers.com...

This executive privilege has been invoked and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the president.

If Orly or ANY of her cohorts could come up with one speck of real evidence, I don't doubt that it would be looked into further, and it's possible that the Supreme Court could order Obama to appear or at least produce documents, but until there's SOMETHING other than wild conspiracy theories, rumors and mad ravings about the Constitution by those who clearly aren't familiar with the document, then this issue is going nowhere.

As it should.

Today is the 26th.. isn't this supposed to be happening today?

Unless I got the date wrong, I'll be watching this thread closely today for news.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Im familiar with the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The info you posted is not absolute, as it states generally accepted. President Clinton was subpoenaed and had to comply with it. In this case the President is not being sued. The GA law requiring candidates who run for any elected office to show they meet requirements to hold the position is whats being challenged.

reply to post by Xcathdra


True. But there's no evidence to back up the plaintiff's claim (that Obama is not a natural-born citizen) so I doubt anyone would order the president to appear.

They're basing their claim on the fact that Obama's father was not a US citizen... What if Obama's father was dead at the time of Obama's birth and he was born to a single mother in the US? Would he be a natural-born US citizen? Yes.

His father's citizenship has no bearing on the fact that Obama is a natural-born citizen, born of a US citizen on US soil.

This case is frivolous.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by timetothink

 

And Bush didn't destroy the constitution?

Let's get this straight: One president CANNOT (emphasis on this word) fix everything in 3 short years.

I thought 9/11 destroyed the Constitution ?

I thought Bush was the victim.

..................meh

nvm

reply to post by Xcathdra


You should have read the thread. The judge hasn't ruled. Why ATS lets that thread remain in Breaking News is beyond me.

No Ruling in Birther Challenge

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You should have read the thread. The judge hasn't ruled. Why ATS lets that thread remain in Breaking News is beyond me.

My bad and thanks for pointing that out. I jumped the gun so my apologies.

Image that, a new thread on ATS stating a judge is considering ruling Obama's name will not be allowed to be on the Georgia ballot. This following his and his legal counsel's failure to show up in court.

WTH - Annee stated numerous times on this thread this Natural Born Citizen suit was a constitutional issue and had nothing to do with Obama! Why the heck then is this judge trying to punish Obama!

Annee was so certain and I don't mind saying pretty righteous about this fact. To me it doesn't even matter if the ballot issue is true, if the judge is even considering it, it confirms my feeling all along that this suit was always all about Obama.

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
Image that, a new thread on ATS stating a judge is considering ruling Obama's name will not be allowed to be on the Georgia ballot. This following his and his legal counsel's failure to show up in court.

WTH - Annee stated numerous times on this thread this Natural Born Citizen suit was a constitutional issue and had nothing to do with Obama! Why the heck then is this judge trying to punish Obama!

Annee was so certain and I don't mind saying pretty righteous about this fact. To me it doesn't even matter if the ballot issue is true, if the judge is even considering it, it confirms my feeling all along that this suit was always all about Obama.

Use your Google-Fu young one. There has been no ruling by the judge. President Obama is still on the ballot. Annee is correct; this is an issue of constitutional semantics/language (I.E., do you need one or two citizen parents to be considered "natural-born"?]. It's about Obama, because of the people whom brought the lawsuit.... but, ultimately this is an issue of constitutionjal semantic clarity and will have to be decided by the supreme court. Such a decision will take a while to happen (imo). After the 2012 election, so the haters will just have to beat 'em fair-and-square.

Sorry 'bout their luck.