Birthers lose in court . . . again.

February 3, 2012 | Filed under Birthers | Posted by

Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen. That is the ruling of Georgia Administrative Hearings Judge Michael Malihi.

A story in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution states the following:

Addressing the other claim that contends Obama cannot be a candidate because his father was never a U.S. citizen, Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents.

Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,” Malihi wrote. Accordingly, Obama is eligible as a candidate for the upcoming presidential primary in March, the judge said.

The Georgia judge’s ruling and the Indiana court’s ruling conform to the ruling in the SCOTUS case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person born inside the USA is automatically a natural-born U.S. citizen.

The Columbus, Indiana newspaper The Republic has published a story which says the following:

Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi filed his decision Friday. The complaint contended Obama isn’t a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore should not be on the state’s ballot. Malihi said in his decision that it has been determined that Obama was born in the U.S.

I don’t expect this lastest court decision to deter birthers.  Their denial is as strong as that of the Black Knight, who, upon having his left arm cut off, proclaimed, “It’s just a flesh wound.”

 

 

« « Admission: Journalists are Liberals Not Interested in Facts and Truth
The Truth Is Often Simple; Lies Are Complex » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 3, 2012.
Filed under Birthers.
A refugee from Planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats*. In fair condition. A fixer-upper. Warranty still good. Not necessarily sane.[*Joke in reference to the TV sit-com "Alf", which featured a space alien who liked to eat cats. Disclaimer: No cats were harmed in the writing and posting of this profile.]

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • herddog505

    Words I’d like to hear from the judge but probably won’t:

    “… finally, the plaintiff is charged $1000 for wasting the court’s time, and another $1000 for being a moron.  Now, f*ck off.”

    • Commander_Chico

      Orly Taitz got fined $20,000 in another birther case, she keeps going.

  • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

    Oh, sorry.  I seem to have stumbled on to DailyKos instead of Wizbang.  My bad.

    • Jwb10001

      You’re free to leave you know.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

        Word. You might prefer WND, JINX. CrAzY people live there. You’ll feel right at home.

        • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

          And the brain-dead sites like Democrat Underground and Little Green Footballs are more along your standards, Steve-o.  You can post all your b.s. there and people will kiss your feet for it instead of call you on it and make you run away until the next post appears so you can come back and pretend that you didn’t just have your hat handed to you.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-M-Bray/1531054912 Kelly M. Bray

             Sore loser? Again? For the 60th time?

          • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

            Who’s sore and who lost?  Can’t I be against people using vitriolic rhetoric spawned by the left-wing without being viewed as supporting the people its leveled at?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-M-Bray/1531054912 Kelly M. Bray

             Short answer….No

          • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

            Obviously…

    • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

      Crazy is crazy regardless of whether you’re conservative or liberal. If you’re conservative and dislike Obama, convince the majority of people to vote against him in November. Anything else is undemocratic — something I expect from Orly Taitz who was born and raised in a ruthless dictatorship and still thinks like a good Sovok, but not from Americans. 

      • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

        That’s fine, but is it really necessary to adopt the left’s vicious rhetoric?  It’s bad enough we’re on our way to getting a candidate who is little different from Obummer (Soros at least has that right).  We don’t need to act like them.  Bring it up a notch or two.  Disagree without acting like a leftist.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          Word to the wise.  Instead of railing against a direction in the wind, use that incredible thing called your mind and begin to form statements that back up your argument.  Also provide links.  That helps people to understand that you’re not nuttier than a dingbat.

          • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

            Links, huh?  dailykos.com, democraticunderground.com, talkingpointsmemo.com, littlegreenfootballs.com, rawstory.com, motherjones.com…  Need more? The worst thing about the Republicans right now is that they are becoming more and more like the liberals in word and deed.

        • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

          Belief in democracy is “vicious rhetoric”? When I was but a hatchling, “vicious rhetoric” was something that, like, advocated lynching people or something. Not rhetoric that advocated democracy. Democracy was a value shared by both conservatives and liberals. Still is, right?

          • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

            Yeah, because that’s what this post did.  It didn’t make fun of people.  It “advocated democracy.”  And horse crap doesn’t attract flies.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Pure democracy is bedeviled by the tyranny of the majority, wherein 50.001% may deprive the 49.999% of life, liberty, and property.

          • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

            Utter nonsense. The reality is that any significant-sized minority can make life miserable enough for the majority or can appeal to the better nature of enough of the majority that they plus the part of the majority that agree with them will give them equal rights. Otherwise blacks in America would still be slaves.

            You are repeating a common excuse used by minority tyrants everywhere to impose their rule over the majority, and the history of the United States of America shows that your excuse for the tyranny of the minority over the majority is utter balderdash. America works best when democracy works best. That’s what our history shows.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Your reply is indeed utter non-sense, since the United States has never been a “pure democracy” and since our Constitution was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

          • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

            A constitution is a piece of paper.If the majority do not support it, it will be ignored — much as the 6th Amendment is currently being ignored when it comes to “terror suspects”. 

            There are two possible sources of power: the will of the majority, or the guns of the minority. *THE ONLY WAY THE WILL OF THE MINORITY CAN BE IMPOSED UPON THE MAJORITY IS AT GUNPOINT*. It appears that you believe it is both necessary and proper for the will of the minority to be imposed upon the majority at gunpoint.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

             Anyone who holds that the Constitution of the United States of America is “…just a piece of paper…” is an enemy of the United States.  I further remind you that all Officers and Officials (including all officer and enlisted members of the Armed Forces) of the United States are sworn “…To uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

          • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

            I’m talking reality. *Any* constitution — whether that of the USA, or any other nation — is a piece of paper. It is upheld only if the majority of the people of the nation agree to uphold it — or if it is imposed upon the people at gunpoint, as in the old Soviet Union. 

            There is nothing magical about a constitution. A constitution doesn’t magically force people into obeying it. It is obeyed either because the majority of people agree to do so, or because the majority is *forced* to do so at the gunpoint of a minority, as is the case in, say, Iran today. Why is that simple reality so difficult for you to understand?

          • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

            One last thought: Perhaps you should read some of the writings of anarchy theorists regarding the nature and problem of power. I do not agree with their conclusions as to courses of action (in part because they go from point A to point C via lots of handwaving to skip over the fact they don’t know how to get past point B), but they do an excellent job of locating the sources and operations of power in the real world as vs. fictional worlds where pieces of paper have magical powers. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


            America works best when democracy works best. That’s what our history shows

            Very true.  Too bad we have an electoral system that completely screws independent thoughts and gets worse every year with centralized power.

          • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

            Indeed. That’s a problem. But it’s one that American voters could solve at the ballot box, if they cared to do so — every single one of the SOB’s in Washington got there because they got the majority of votes from their district or state, not because they were imposed by alien lizard people or some other such silliness. I.e., the solution is more democracy — more people voting, more people engaged and involved, more people looking past the vicious lying attack ads at the people and policies behind them and voting for the people and policies who best reflect their vision of America. More democracy is the solution to a malfunctioning democracy, not *less* democracy. Which is why the notion of a minority using the courts to attempt to win at government gunpoint what they could not win at the ballot box annoys me so much.

    • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

      Don’t worry, Jinx. It’s just a flesh wound.

      • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

        See my response to Kelly below.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    The Birthers have been barking up the wrong tree.  They should have been exploring that which has been so assiduously hidden from view:  Obama’s college records.

    Bush, Gore, and Kerry all released theirs, showing undergraduate records in the C range.  Obama could hardly have done worse and remained in school, so there is something else he doesn’t want known there.

    Had he been a Republican acting the same way, the media would have camped out on his campuses and pursued the matter with ferocious determination.

    But he isn’t.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QIVKB3Z2IKSBB4XVILABAZVHYQ John

      Had he been a Republican acting the same way, someone in the school’s Registrar’s Office would’ve leaked his records to the media

    • jim_m

       Obama went to Harvard where they pass out A’s just because you’re lucky enough or connected enough to get admitted.  If he received anything less than an A it is a huge embarrassment.  Grade inflation has been a growing scandal at Harvard for years already.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

        lol… aww look, JIm-M has got his crazy pajamas on today.

        You go Jim!

        At Harvard they just hand out “A”s – that’s why the FBI and CIA recruit Harvard grads like mad. Cause they are dummies…

        • Commander_Chico

          Jim’s actually right.  Once you’re in Harvard, the work is not too tough.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

            And they just hand out “A”s?

            No. I know several Harvard grads. They had to work their butts off.

        • http://scum-and-villainy.blogspot.com/ Evil Otto

           I find it hilarious that the left painted Harvard-grad George W. Bush as a dummy throughout his presidency… and now that Saint Barack is in power, being a Harvard graduate is a sign of intelligence.

          • AlCum

            I find it funny that you “think” Bush went to Harvard!

          • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

            Bush is a graduate of Harvard Business School.  He earned his Bachelor Degree at Yale.

    • y_p_w

      Bush, Gore, and Kerry never voluntarily released their college transcripts.  My understanding is that their grades were listed in their military records, which are subject to FOIA requests.

    • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

      Obama should just do like everybody else who wants their personal life splashed all over the Internet — join Facebook.

      I’m not aware that releasing college transcripts is a requirement for being on the ballot, but if the American people care about such things, they won’t vote for Obama in November and problem solved. Thus far the polls don’t appear to be showing that the American people care about Obama’s college transcripts.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

        I think Obama is on Facebook already.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-M-Bray/1531054912 Kelly M. Bray

       What possible relevance would that have? Just another fishing expedition under the heading..”There must be something there, there must be something there x 20″. The other records were leaked not released

      • y_p_w

        I don’t think anything was leaked per se.  They had military records that included their educational transcripts.  The military records were subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Is that why we still don’t have Kerry’s military records?

          • y_p_w

            I looked it up.  Apparently is was still protected information. However, it wasn’t directly from Kerry.  He authoritzed the Navy to release them as part of his military records in 2005.
            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8127403/ns/politics/t/kerry-got-slow-start-yale-transcript-shows/#.Ty6eYZjelx8I read that Kerry directly placed most of his military records on his personal website, although those were apparently taken down a few years after the 2004 campaign.  W Bush’s military records were obtain through FOIA requests.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Kerry never released his records to the public, and apparently had to file a “Standard Form 180″ to have his records released.  I certainly don’t know the ins and outs of obtaining military records, but it appears that FOIA applies to only a certain portion of one’s records, and the Form 180 to the rest.  According to Wiki:  “After the election, on May 20, 2005, he did sign a Standard Form 180 allowing full release of all his military service records,including his reserve and discharge records, as well as his medical records, to the Associated Press, the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times. Kerry refused a request from the New York Sun to permit the Sun’s reporters to inspect the records.The Boston Globe reported that the material largely duplicated what Kerry had released during the campaign, and included no “substantive new material”.

    • AlCum

       Bush did not release his college records. FAIL.

    • http://twitter.com/ShankedPanda ShankedPanda

       ”
      The Birthers have been barking up the wrong tree.  They should
      have been exploring that which has been so assiduously hidden from
      view:  Obama’s college records.”

      Because questioning if someone born in Hawaii is a citizen is so much crazier than believing the college records of the Magna cum laude graduate of Havard Law are going to be embarassing.

      What reasoning are you capable of if you’re looking at the top of the honor rolls for poor achievement? Do you comb the lists of Medal of Honor recipients looking for pussies? Watch the Olympics to try and spot unhealthy people? Read the Fortune lists to find poor people?

      This is actually stupider than the birthers.

  • Sky__Captain

    I wold love to see the evidence provided by “Barry Sorento” in this case.
    My understanding is that his side didn’t even show up, which should have resulted in summary judgement against Barack.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

      Go get my luggage. It’s the green set by the curb.

      Here’s a buck, Don’t drop them. I’m on Southwest today.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-M-Bray/1531054912 Kelly M. Bray

       Actually if you wanted to get the insult right it would be “Soetoro”, not ‘Sorento”. You sure are not ready to play with the big boys.

    • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

      Captain, did you even bother to read the AJC story? It was up to the plaintiff to prove the charges against the defendent, not the other way around, and the plaintiff failed to prove the charges.

      In the USA a party is considered innocent until proven guilty, unless one is a U.S. senator named McCarthy.

      • y_p_w

        Innocent until proven guilty is the standard in a criminal trial.  This wasn’t even a civil trial.  It was an administrative hearing.  They typically handle things such as whether or not a liquor license should be renewed.  They occasionally handle questions of ballot eligibility.

        In addition to this, administrative hearing cases are considered non-binding. The judges have few powers.  They can quash subpoenas.  They can’t write orders to compel or attend, can’t sign off on search or bench warrants, and have none of the powers that a Georgia Superior Court judge would have.

        What he did was write up a recommendation for the Georgia Secretary of State.

        • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

          Yep. That is what the newspaper stories say.  The judge’s recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State is that President Obama is eligible to be on a presidential ballot.

    • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

      In a civil trial between a plaintiff and a defendant that would be true. This wasn’t a civil trial. This was an administrative evidentiary hearing intended to gather and assess evidence for an administrative decision that is to be made by the Secretary of State. Besides, if you go read the judge’s actual statement, he points out that the birthers insisted on continuing with the hearing even though the Obama team wasn’t in court so that they could put their “evidence” into the public record assessed by a real judge. Well, they did that, and the judge assessed it, and what the judge assessed said “evidence” as being wasn’t pretty. Some folks should beware of getting what they ask for, yo. 

  • The_Weege_99

    Everybody knew this was going to be the result. And they knew it for the simple reason that all the facts support that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    But even that is not a necessary condition for being legally a natural born citizen, since all one actually needs, per US Code, is to have one American citizen parent, regardless of the location of birth.

    Birtherism is no more based in reality than Trooferism.

  • Kurt Rockenbach

    Most of the posters here have a bleak future as attorneys. This case will be appealed and should be, not politically but for closure of whom may be eligible to run for President. Name calling is a clear indication that a person doesn’t understand the RULE of LAW and false logic : i.e. Ad Homonym and an Argument by Mis Direction since where he was born was not an issue (except for Orly) Here are a few quick cut/paste from other sources to explain:
    FACT:  Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment,referred to here as
    “Clause A” and “Clause B” Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.
    Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the
    nation who are “natural born” may be President. According to the rule of statutory construction, the Court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B. There is more…
    United States Supreme Court has said: “Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902). 
    THEN there is also INS Code and accepted interpretations given by the Obama Administration: “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.” 
    “The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” AND Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides: “(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective. Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alien-age that immediately preceded it. Interpretation 324.2(b) provides: “The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase
    the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.”
    So all I am doing is looking at this and stating there is more to it than the “Birther,” argument. It is wrong to suggest this is a naive, stupid, unintelligent, racist argument. It is all fact and current US Law. And you are right..it will be continued, all the way to the Supreme Court (right before the election) for better or for worst. Peace people!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

      Is there anyone here who doesn’t think the birthers are just racists?

      It’s obvious they hate dat black man so much…

      • http://iSnark.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

         Is there anyone here who doesn’t think the worst thing that can happen to you is to have Stephen taking up for your side, on anything?

        • Jwb10001

          I with you on that one.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

            Looks like these two don’t disagree… thanks, guys!

          • http://iSnark.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

             Are you really under the impression your calumny is deserving of counter-argument?

      • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

        Stephen, you haven’t proved racism. Birthers may be driven by a hatred of socialism.

        • AlCum

           What socialism?

          • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

            Surely you jest. Obama’s effort to “spread the wealth” is classic socialism.

          • AlCum

            It is no such thing. You need to bone up on some facts.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7FMXY3DZP7JF7SGSPIOSLLXNE Stephen

            They’re right, David. If you knew what socialism was, you’d know that calling Obama a socialist is a lie.

          • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

            Socialism is defined by the dictionary as state ownership of the means of production. Words have *meaning*, you know. When Obama nationalized GM and Chrysler, that was socialist. As far as I can tell, that’s the only socialist thing he’s done so far, and he re-privatized them afterwards, selling Chrysler off to Fiat and selling GM off to the general public via an IPO, Are there other instances where Obama has taken over private companies that I’m not aware of?

          • Brucehenry

            Hey, aren’t you the Snarky Penguin? How the hell did you wander over here? You’re one of my favorite blogs!

          • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

            Teh Google, my friend. Plus I was amused to find that most conservatives find the birthers as ridiculous as I do,

    • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

      This proceeding can’t be appealed to a higher court because it was an evidentiary hearing, not a trial. The sole responsibility of Malihi under Georgia law (NOT US law, he is a Georgia administrative law judge) was to examine the evidence presented at the hearing and issue a statement of fact and a recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State as to whether Obama met criteria to be on the ballot. Malahi has now issued his statement and recommendation and Georgia law provides for no appeal of an evidentiary hearing other than to appeal the exclusion of some piece of evidence, and since Malahi included every piece of evidence presented by the birthers (but declared it of no probative value), they have no standing to appeal. Secretary of State Kemp’s decision based upon that statement of fact from Malihi could be appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, but under Georgia law the appeal will be successful only if it can be proven that the proper procedure for making the decision was not followed. The proper procedure has been followed, so the Georgia Supreme Court likely hold a preliminary hearing and then issue a summary judgement in response to a petition for summary judgement from the SoS’s office.

      The fact that birthers can’t even be bothered to understand the difference between an evidentiary hearing and a trial is typical and starts with the head of the birthers, Orly Taitz, who issued breathless press releases about a “trial”. I’m beginning to think Orly Taitz cheated on her California Bar exam, because nobody that stupid could ever pass the Bar no matter how much she crammed for it.

      • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

        Being that Taitz continuously overlooks the SCOTUS case of “United States v. Wong Kim Ark”, I also question her legal smarts.

    • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

      Kurt, I cited the SCOTUS case in which SCOTUS clarified what the 14th Amendment says.

    • AlCum

      Kurt, you argument is fatally flawed, being based on the fallacy of false dilemma. your premises are false. Obama is a natural born citizen, and anyone familiar with the issue recognizes that this was never even remotely in dispute. Please do appeal it in order to keep the insanity of the right in front of the electorate so that Obama’s re-election will be assured.

  • http://twitter.com/Carolbaut Carol Dijkhuyzen

    Now it’s our turn to sue once again  this ugly Russian born taitz,the  fines of 20,000 will be higher!in the millions to teach her a lesson…remember we sued one racist politician in Europe…

    • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

      Sue Taitz? Nah. She will self destruct without anyone’s help.

    • y_p_w

      I heard she refuses to pay up.

      What still baffles me is why the State Bar of California hasn’t disbarred her yet.  I read Judge Land’s order to fine her that $20,000, and included a note that a copy of the order was going to be forwarded to the State Bar of California for possible sanctions.

      If you read her motion for findings, it was totally about political posturing and little about the case at hand.  I understand that they get a lot of pro se (self-represented) parties in administrative hearings, but Orly Taitz represents herself as an attorney.  A real attorney could get suspended or even disbarred for doing something like that rather than addressing the interests of her client.

      • http://twitter.com/Carolbaut Carol Dijkhuyzen

        But my in laws are now conferring with their lawyers,to sue her once  and for all,defammation and laster!We sued her already once before as a warning!But this time no more warning!She can’t provide evidence  about  her allegations that was our contention before….My mother in law who is a loaded woman,is an Obama Loyalist have enough of Russian born Taitz….

        • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

          The biggest issue is going to be standing. The next issue is going to be proving harm. This is something that  appears more likely to be resolved in the court of popular opinion than in the court of law, given that the only person with direct standing — Obama — is a public figure and thus under Westmoreland v CBS would have to prove that Orly Taitz knows she’s lying. My guess is that if it ever got to that point Taitz would use the insanity defense to claim she didn’t know she was lying, and having seen her performances on national television, I have to say she would have no problem with claiming insanity.

          • http://twitter.com/Carolbaut Carol Dijkhuyzen

            One of my in laws lawyers has already the health papers acquired from the doctor of ugly Oirly Taitz that she is sane of mind!That could not be distort in one second!The lawyers of my in laws are prepared…..

      • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

        The California bar will basically only disbar you if a) you’re convicted of a felony, b) you steal client funds, or c) you are repeatedly suspended for neglect (i.e., default judgments get filed against your client because you don’t file your motions etc. in time). That’s pretty much it. Anything else — even gross misconduct and incompetence such as Ms. Taitz has displayed — just gets you a disciplinary letter in your file and maybe a finger-wagging session in front of a Bar panel, all which is kept private to “protect the privacy rights of our members”. 

  • Pingback: Judge Michael Malihi Orders Barack Obama Eligible to be on Georgia Presidential Ballot … Good News for Obama, Even Better for Marco Rubio | Scared Monkeys

  • Hawk_TX

    My understanding of the claim by “birthers” is that to be a natural born citizen your parents must be citizens. If you have one citizen parent or are born on U.S. soil you are a citizen but not a natural born citizen. The claim made by others is that in order to be a natural born citizen you simply need to be born to a single citizen parent or born on U.S. soil.

    While there is some evidence to support both views the “birther” side rarely is considered. For instance if the Founders simply meant that a person needed to be born a citizen then why did the wording “born a citizen” get thrown out at the constitutional convention and get replaced with “natural born citizen”. It seems to believe this one has to ignore the term “natural” completely (unless one wants to argue about cesarean section births). 

    Regardless of which view you take it is hard to argue that the Founders did not mean both parents. The reason is that at that time the citizenship of the wife was determined by the citizenship of the husband. Either both parents were citizens or both were not there was no in between. This perhaps explains the lack of a clearer explanation of the meaning “natural born citizen”, because at the time no explanation would have been necessary.

    Finally, those who argue that the fourteenth amendment or other federal laws supersede
    the original meaning fail to recognize that they all sought to address citizenship and not who qualifies as a ‘natural born citizen”. The term “natural born citizen” is only relevant to the office of the president. It would require an amendment to specifically addressing the natural born clause to alter the constitution.

    I am simply pointing out that the “birthers” as this article derogatorily calls them are making a legitimate legal case, which intelligent people can disagree about. To attack them as racist, nuts, or conspiracy theorist simply tells us more about you than them. It is a typical liberal tactic to attack the person and not argue the issue.

    • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

      Erm, George Washington’s parents were not ever citizens of the United States (they died before the United States existed). The office of the Presidency in the U.S. Constitution was explicitly written for George Washington. I.e., even the “original intent” notion is utter balderdash. Not that it matters. The Constitution holds that the Supreme Court gets to define words like “natural born” and the Supremes have already spoken — it means the same thing as “citizen by birth”. The phrase “natural born” was in the Constitution for one and only one reason: George Washington wasn’t a citizen of the United States by birth, because the United States did not exist at the time he was born. Doh!

      • Hawk_TX

        You apparently don’t realize that the constitution states right after the natural born citizen requirement ” or a Citizen of the United States,
        at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,”. This provision was written specifically because nobody could meet the natural born citizen requirement in a newly formed nation. This was not written exclusively for George Washington, it was written for all of the nations earliest presidents as the natural born requirement could not of been met by a president for the first 35 years of the nation.

        As to your second point no part of the constitution grants the supreme court the authority to define words of law, as that would be granting them the authority to write the law. The supremacy clause of the constitution states that the constitution “shall be the supreme Law of
        the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”, this means that a judge attempting to reinterpret the constitution is violating it and breaking there oath of office. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and if somebody wants to change it they should work to amend it and not attempt to corrupt the courts to get the outcome they want.

        • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

          Law is interpreted by courts. That’s what the Constitution says. Take it up with the Constitution, not by me. The courts say that the phrase “natural born” means “born to one or more American parents or on American soil.” If you disagree, that’s just your personal opinion, which, along with $2, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. 

          • Hawk_TX

            Again no part of the constitution says that. If you can find that in there then please site it.

            The courts are tasked with enforcing the law not interpreting it (i.e. writing it)

          • http://twitter.com/badtux99 Bad Tux

            It doesn’t matter. The majority of Americans decided Obama was eligible, as did the House of Representatives when they confirmed him as President. A judicial coup against a sitting President is *not* going to happen in America. Period. All that you and your ilk are managing to do is look like fools while discrediting the Republican brand. Congratulations, you’re helping elect Democrats. Happy?

          • Hawk_TX

            Thanks for admitting you could not back up your claim.

            I see that you have taken up the liberal creed. It (the Constitution) doesn’t matter. Whatever helps you get power.

          • AlCum

             ”Constitution doesn’t matter” is the right wing creed. Fact. The right is trashing the Constitution, under which not only is Obama a natural born citizen, but you are required to accept Hawaii’s proof of it. It’s treason by the right, pure and simple.

        • AlCum

          No judge reinterpreted the Constitution. Malihi’s ruling was in accordance with the Constitution and was a foregone conclusion.

    • AlCum

      On the contrary, it is easy to argue the Founders did not intend natural born citizen to require two citizen parents because the term was in use for quite some time before that era and had always meant born on the soil of the nation even if the parents are aliens. The Wong court went into this quite extensively.

      • Hawk_TX

        The term natural born citizen was known at the time as those born of two citizen parents. You seem to be confusing the British term natural born subject with the term natural born citizen. A natural born subject was made so by being born in the realm of the king.

        This was confirmed by the first congress when they passed the naturalization act of 1790. This act makes it clear that the founders intended for citizenship to be tied to ones parents. The act states “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”.

        The Wong court never addressed the topic of natural born citizenship. It only addressed the topic of citizenship.

        This controversy is not new as Chester Arthur also had a father who was a British citizen. And he worked to cover up his ineligibility when he ran for vice president.

        • AlCum

          You are entirely incorrect, of course, as the Supreme Court itself noted in Wong. The American tradition was the British common law, not in dispute. James Madison himself said birth on the soil is primary, and “no further inquiry is needed” into the parents’ status. You can’t just make stuff up to suit your argument. The naturalization act of 1790 had to do with FOREIGN BORN children of citizens, extending natural born status to them through their parents despite their not being born on US soil. Read the act. It did NOT deal with children born in the US, who were NBC regardless of their parents.

          Wong most certainly did address natural born citizenship for it declared Wong to be one. Suggest you read it.

          It was well known in Chester Arthur’s 1880 campaign that his father was not a citizen since, as US law stated at the time, the entire “born in Canada” rumor was predicated on the idea that his father was still a British subject at Chester’s birth. If everyone believed Arthur’s dad had naturalized already, it would not even have mattered if he were born in Canada since he’d be a natural born citizen anyway. Please try to observe rules of logic.