User Tag List

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 86 of 86
  1. #81
    Jonesing for Sources Blackjack 4 Champion Let It Ride Champion Spurs Poker Solitaire Champion Free Cell Solitaire Champion Joker Poker Web Champion P O K E R Champion Texas Holdem Poker Champion Deuces Wild Champion Spider Solitare Four Suit Champion Solitaire Champion Fruit Slots Champion Slingo Bonus Bet 21 Jumbo Champion Centipede Classic Champion Marble Motion Champion Yeti Sports 1- Long Shot Version Champion Yeti Sports 1 Long Ass Shot  Champion Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    home
    Posts
    7,044
    Thanks
    2,365
    Thanked 1,084 Times in 740 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by I Know These Things View Post
    Since these people are attorneys with knowledge of the law, I simply put their comments up to show their thoughts on Obama's attorney. That's all it was so stop assuming things. How did Georgia violate it's own laws and rules?
    You didn't answer my question. Should I repeat it for you or do I take your non-answer as your admission that you do agree with the attorney not licensed to practice law in the state of Georgia, the attorney who filed the action which is the subject of the OP, that a Georgia state court has the lawful "final" authority to decide a US constitutional issue?

    Relative to the comments you rely on, it would appear that they have never heard of "judicial notice" and that they are themselves unfamiliar with Georgia law. As cited by the attorney for the defendant in the motion to quash: "Subpoenas issued by Georgia courts do not have extraterritorial power." Hughes v. State, 228 Ga. 593, 187 S.E.2d 135 (1972)

    You do realize that Georgia does not have the authority to second guess or alter the actions of the State of Hawaii or the state of Hawaii's state agencies or elected officials, don't you? You do know that Georgia state courts cannot trump or alter or circumvent the decisions of the federal judiciary relative to issues involving the US Constitution, don't you?

    I never said Georgia violated its own laws, I said it would appear that the administrative judge of the state of Georgia violated the laws of Georgia if he issued subpoenas as your title to this thread and your OP imply.

    Relative to the attorneys you quote and their opinions about Obama's attorney's filings, I think Rasselas' responded quite nicely to their silliness:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Looking at the actual motion, I don't see the 'messiness' that the one attorney mentions. The argument of the motion is as follows:

    1. The only relevant document is the birth certificate, which has been available for a while now, and which the plaintiff has seen. All the rest of the documents are immaterial.
    2. The eligibility of Obama to be president has been established by the electoral college, which has greater authority in this area than does the state of Georgia. The state of Georgia participated in the electoral college decision.
    3. A subpoena from Georgia cannot require anything from outside the state, by GA law.
    4. The request for documents has less probative value than value as a means of attacking the president politically.
    5. The plaintiff has been sanctioned by other courts for exactly the same behavior.
    6. The subpoena goes beyond the legal scope of a subpoena by asking that the plaintiff be given access to the documents before the hearing; this request violates GA law.

    All of these are valid points.
    Here is a website you might want to visit on a regular basis. It covers all the birther conspiracy nonsense. Obama Conspiracy Theories | The Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories

    I like its quote of the day:

    Quote of the Day

    To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Court’s 1874 decision in that case.

    -- Associate Professor Joesph Hylton
    -- Marquette University Law School
    Here is another write up you might want to read. It fully debunks the birther arguments you and others cling to and it does what Orly Tatz and the others filing these birther cases tend to avoid and that is cite the case and statutory laws which support its position.
    What to expect from the Obama birth certificate hearing - Atlanta Conservative | Examiner.com
    -----------------------------------------
    "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus." ~ Galatians 3:28

  2. #82
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    292
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 47 Times in 35 Posts
    Well, wake me up if Obama is not going to appear on a state election ballot.

    This was getting me to thinking though, during the 1860 election, Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in, if not all, at least MOST of the Southern states at the time. While I doubt they did it legally, my thinking is that they probably at least tried to make it look like the failure to put Lincoln on the ballot was a function of state law and otherwise done at least under color of law. What was their schtick for that?

  3. #83
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    13,130
    Thanks
    686
    Thanked 1,654 Times in 1,185 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by newpublius View Post
    Well, wake me up if Obama is not going to appear on a state election ballot.

    This was getting me to thinking though, during the 1860 election, Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in, if not all, at least MOST of the Southern states at the time. While I doubt they did it legally, my thinking is that they probably at least tried to make it look like the failure to put Lincoln on the ballot was a function of state law and otherwise done at least under color of law. What was their schtick for that?
    It was easy--they just didn't count those votes at all:
    Although the only votes counted were those cast in states that had not attempted to secede from the Union, elections were held in the Union-occupied states of Louisiana and Tennessee, with Lincoln carrying both.[1]
    United States presidential election, 1864 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Even when alternative views are clearly wrong, being exposed to them still expands our creative potential. In a way, the power of dissent is the power of surprise. After hearing someone shout out an errant answer, we work to understand it, which causes us to reassess our initial assumptions and try out new perspectives. “Authentic dissent can be difficult, but it’s always invigorating,” Nemeth says.
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...#ixzz1mzxuiVUm

  4. #84
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    292
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 47 Times in 35 Posts
    No, I'm talking pre-secession.....1860...Lincoln, Douglass, Breckinridge, Bell, all those guys....Lincoln wins, but he's not on the ballot in the South....1864...naturally that is McClellan and Lincoln, but the Southern states at that point are in open rebellion, so naturally they're not even bothering to hold an election for the Union's President!

  5. #85
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    13,130
    Thanks
    686
    Thanked 1,654 Times in 1,185 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by newpublius View Post
    No, I'm talking pre-secession.....1860...Lincoln, Douglass, Breckinridge, Bell, all those guys....Lincoln wins, but he's not on the ballot in the South....1864...naturally that is McClellan and Lincoln, but the Southern states at that point are in open rebellion, so naturally they're not even bothering to hold an election for the Union's President!
    Well, let me take a stab at this. Before about 1875, the ballots were not customarily printed by some local government agency. Each party printed its own ballots, with the name of each candidate for office on that ballot. Voters were expected to get a ballot from the party of their choice and then drop it in the ballot box, for one and all to see. The secret ballot, with all the candidates names, printed by government, was an innovation that didn't become universal in the US until about 1892. Until then, Kentucky actually had an 'oral ballot' that required voters to register their preferences out loud to a vote counter.

    Anyway, the availability of Republican ballots at polling places in the South would have been directly proportional to the guts of the very few Republicans who lived there. They would be responsible for printing the ballots and getting them to polling places, then standing there waiting for someone to select their slips of paper. Considering the polling places (often taverns or livery stables) were dominated by men, being an unpopular politician could actually be hazardous to one's health.
    Even when alternative views are clearly wrong, being exposed to them still expands our creative potential. In a way, the power of dissent is the power of surprise. After hearing someone shout out an errant answer, we work to understand it, which causes us to reassess our initial assumptions and try out new perspectives. “Authentic dissent can be difficult, but it’s always invigorating,” Nemeth says.
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...#ixzz1mzxuiVUm

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Rasselas For This Useful Post:

    new_publius (20th January 2012)

  7. #86
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    292
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 47 Times in 35 Posts
    OK, good dig, I figured the inquiry might at least illuminate how a Presidential candidate might be precluded, and actually that turned out not to be the case, but still worth the historical footnote I suppose!


 
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2