"Read all about it"

Georgia court ignores basic rules of interpretation

In Government on February 6, 2012 at 8:16 AM

From the moment I saw Judge Malihi I could tell something was not right!

I had read his many opinions, I was encouraged by them, I believe Van was too! Loads of optimism abounded from the realization that a State Judge would finally stand up to a runaway government using the Constitution to render a decision based on the words in the Constitution. We were hoping that this Judge would interpret the Constitution in a way that would push back a runaway president and his oppressive government. To possibly prevent a socialist progressive from ascending to the highest office in the land! That was evidently not going to happen!

I knew while herding the attorneys in his side chambers to request a default judgement that we were in for long morning, but, I remained hopeful.

This judge did not rule by the law or his real beliefs! When he returned from the side bar he was almost despondent, mad, like a child with a dilemma and now has a tough decision to make. After the side bar conversation he seemed confrontational as if contemplating his next move to appease a very encroaching POTUS!

The tone in the courtroom was different when he reentered! I could tell someone or some element of the machine had tapped into his pockets and this man was doing something he deeply didn’t believe in or was being whipped into shape by unseen force. A quagmire of sorts he has allowed himself to retreat too and be trapped within! A dilemma I hope I never have to face because it means I have to give up on my core beliefs and values and tread among the communists and Socialists that have plans for this country way beyond what I care to comprehend!

His almost constant, disinterested gaze off to his right showed me dishonesty and that he was perhaps in his mind fighting a thought process he was not accustomed to dealing with! The jut of his chin forward and his quick scolding remarks when our attorneys would pry into sensitive areas that may have perhaps revealed more than our naive public or media could comprehend!

Perhaps a position somewhere inside the fed, a lump of cash! Follow this guy! I believe his career is very bright within the fed and the OBAMA administration. Look for Secretary of State Kemps career to take off real soon too. Mark my word!

Breaking News, although I’m not sure how breaking it is anymore, our judicial system is dead. Our constitution has been rendered as parchment only and our America is well on her way to becoming controlled by a Socialist/Marxist regime!

These are my thoughts and in no way reflect the opinion of Liberty Legal Foundation, this is my blog, my thoughts only, although I feel the sentiment may be echoed in other venues! Have a great day!

Georgia Court ignores basic rules of interpretation
2/5/2012

By now many of you have probably heard that the Georgia court ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen. (Link to opinion) More importantly it ruled that any person born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen. According to the Georgia court, a woman from any country can visit the U.S. for one day, give birth, take the baby back to any country to be raised under any culture, and that baby can return as an adult, live here for 14 years and run for President. The end result of this ruling is outrageous. It runs contrary to common sense as well as to established law.

So, what happened in Georgia? The court determined that a clear definition of natural born citizen from Supreme Court precedent was overturned by dicta in another Supreme Court case. Precedent is any statement by the court that is pivotal to reaching the court’s ruling. Dicta is the opposite of precedent. Dicta is a statement by the court about matters that are not pivotal to reaching its ruling. Dicta is persuasive, but it cannot overturn precedent.

In other words, the Georgia court violated a basic rule of legal interpretation by ruling as it did. But wait, there’s more! The Georgia court also violated rules of Constitutional interpretation that have been around since the earliest Supreme Court. Our first Chief Justice explained that no part of the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that leaves any other part of the Constitution without independent meaning. By ruling that anyone born on U.S. soil can run for President the Georgia court concluded that the 14th Amendment was intended to alter article II of the Constitution. Such an interpretation is 180 degrees in opposite to Chief Justice Marshall’s explanation of how to interpret the Constitution.

But WAIT, there’s more! In order to reach this conclusion the Georgia court ALSO had to disregard yet another part of the holding from the Minor v. Happersett Supreme Court ruling. Even if you ignore the rules of Constitutional construction and the rule that dicta can’t overturn precedent, even if you agree with the Georgia court that the definition of natural born citizen in the Minor decision was dicta, you still can’t reach the Georgia court’s ruling. You see, the Minor Court ALSO explicitly ruled that the 14th Amendment didn’t create any new privileges and immunities. So, if a person couldn’t run for President before the 14th Amendment, they couldn’t run for President after the 14th Amendment. This means that the Minor Court explicitly ruled that the 14th amendment didn’t alter the definition of natural born citizen under article II of the Constitution. Yet the Georgia court ignored this Supreme Court ruling as well.

The Georgia court was aware of all of these arguments because these arguments were made at the January 26 hearing and they were included in our written brief after the hearing. Yet the Georgia court’s ruling only addresses one of these three arguments and poorly at that.

The one point of good news from this ruling is that we have FINALLY gotten a court to rule on the merits of our argument. This may seem like a hollow victory, but it isn’t. Before this everyone that has brought a challenge against Obama’s eligibility has been dismissed on procedural grounds. Nothing is more devastating to the rule of law than a judicial branch that refuses to do its job. Before this case we had courts across the country telling Americans that they had no right to enforce the Constitution. That was absurdity at its most extreme. Liberty Legal Foundation found a case that we believed would at least get a ruling on the merits. We hate the ruling we got, but at least we got a ruling. Now we can appeal that ruling. The appeals process now will focus on the definition of “natural born citizen” rather than procedure for the first time since the issue of Obama’s eligibility was raise in 2008.

For all the reasons I’ve mentioned in this message, we will be appealing the Georgia Court’s ruling. We will continue to fight for Constitutional rule of law. Failing that we will continue to force Courts to show their true colors. If our judicial branch will not uphold the rule of law, that fact needs to be exposed to the harsh light of day for all the world to see.

In Liberty,

Dawn Irion
 
Co-Founder
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION

Advertisements
  1. “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….”—- 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.]

    “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).

    And there have been law cases:

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    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.”

    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.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: