A Rat Called Tandem.

[UPDATED: 2:12 PMCindy Simpson’s top headline article at American Thinker is also a must read. Excellent analysis as usual.]

What happened in Georgia is what we refer to in poker as, “playing to a script”. It’s like something out of a Frank Capra movie. The citizens head to court to fix a Constitutional wrong, and the State court appears to be tough on the feds, standing up to them bravely flexing their muscles in the name of their citizens. Nice script. But it’s so very transparent.

Everyone needs to read Mario Apuzzo’s in-depth exposure of the blatant flaws in Judge Malihi’s holding, wherein you will experience a brilliant researcher exposing a truly defective legal opinion.

I only have a little bit to add. My remarks will be brief, and focused upon Judge Malihi’s sad failure to address the issue of statutory construction, which I explained thoroughly in my last report, The Dirty “little” Secret of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.

But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:

“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). 

The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.

Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:

“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ” (Emphasis added.)

Yeah, dude. Whatevah. Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just two weeks ago he said that was forbidden.



Leo Donofrio, Esq.

[See commenting rules here.]

2 Responses to “A Rat Called Tandem.”

  1. naturalborncitizen Says:

    One word about the attorneys not accepting a default decision. And that word is BRAVO! The attorneys deserve credit for standing by their principles. This was not about humiliating Obama in some hollow victory where they could all pat themselves on the back. This was about getting the judicial branch to confront the law and to make a decision on the merits.

    The Court wanted no part of issuing something on the merits based upon Judge Malihi’s own opinion. They forced his hand, and in doing so exposed important information concerning the depth of the greatest national security issue this country faces today. This decision by Malihi, and the other judicial decisions which fail horribly at following stare decisis, have exposed the Commander In Chief’s office to being taken over by the child of the very worst foreign despots. The country will probably never recover from this change.

    The plaintiffs and their attorneys were not looking to win a hollow victory, but to fairly request judicial determination of the issues. It took great courage to do that, and in doing so they exposed the ugly truth. Their arguments, and those in my brief, (which according to the Court rules, should be part of the public record) are far superior to those in Judge Malihi’s decision, which is devoid of historical accuracy and important context, particularly in that he never discusses the genesis of English common law on this issue, which is Calvin’s Case. He doesn’t discuss it because he can’t do so and justify his opinion.

    And now national citizenship as well as POTUS eligibility rests on the back of Justice Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark, a case which no Judge has ever had more of a personal stake in. Our legal system is a joke because of this. The rest of the world will also recognize the fraud on the court perped by Gray and now followed by so many others. But now that the evil truth of the decision in WKA is becoming common knowledge, history, as it always does, will record those who decided to opt for lies.

    History has no blind allegiance to despotism. History is ruthless, and it will not be governed. The truth always outs. And those who are on the wrong side if it, live in shame.

    Word up.

  2. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Below is an interesting essay by my famous anonymous researcher. Enjoy:


    The message is pretty straight forward. Or is it? Since no point is identified, other than that of where the sign is placed, is identified, “THIS POINT” would be understood to be where the sign is placed. If you’re in a truck, going beyond it is prohibited. An exception to the prohibition is provided for pickup trucks. (For the sake of this argument; the authority to place the sign and impose the restriction is accepted.)

    What is a truck?

    Additions might always be made to the trucks in the United States in two ways: first, by being built domestically, and the second as imports. This is apparent from the sign itself, for it prohibits all trucks, with the exception of domestic pickup trucks.

    The sign does not, in words, say what a domestic pickup truck is. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. The common usage, the nomenclature of which most people are familiar, it was never doubted that those motor vehicles with an open body and low sides and a tailboard, used for hauling/towing, were trucks. These are the “pickup trucks”, as opposed to dump trucks and tractors. Some people go further and include as trucks, sport utility vehicles (without regard to hauling/towing). As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this examination, it is not necessary to resolve those doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that pickup trucks are trucks, and that by being a pickup truck, they are exempted from the prohibition mandated by the sign.
    The word “trucks” is certainly comprehensive, when used in this sign. Tractors (the front half of an 18-wheeler) and dump trucks are included in the prohibition as trucks. That would certainly not be denied. In fact, the whole purpose of the sign was to prevent them from proceeding along the path.

    I would now ask the readers to answer two questions:
    By saying “These are the “pickup trucks”, as opposed to dump trucks and tractors. Some people go further and include as trucks, sport utility vehicles (without regard to hauling/towing)”
    Was the statement left open so that sport utility vehicles could be considered to be pickup trucks? Or does that statement only leave open the possibility that sport utility vehicles may be added to the classification known as “trucks”?

    Why was this examination of words presented to our readers? It was a primer. It prepared the reader to recognize that they have the knowledge to examine and dissect words.
    Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    If you read this, “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first”
    and determined that those born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents, might also be natural-born citizens, you probably read this
    “These are the “pickup trucks”, as opposed to dump trucks and tractors. Some people go further and include as trucks, sport utility vehicles (without regard to hauling/towing)”
    and determined that sport utility vehicles were pickup trucks.

    What most people cannot understand (and this author would agree) is how “Some people go further and include as trucks” is understood by some to be leaving the door open to have the sport utility vehicle be considered to be a “pickup truck”, when a reading of the text itself only left the door open for sport utility vehicles to be classified as “trucks”.
    Your determination is important! You see, some judges in Indiana, and a judge in Georgia, would read the statements
    These are the “pickup trucks” and “Some people go further and include as trucks, sport utility vehicles (without regard to hauling/towing)”
    and conclude that the statement left open the door for sport utility vehicles to be classified as “pickup trucks”.

    We all have a tendency to read into what was written, so as to suit our own needs. This is the primary reason we insist that our judges be impartial. We wouldn’t want a judge who owns a sport utility vehicle to be the one who determines if a sport utility vehicle should be classified as a truck. This would be true even if the benefits of such classification would be of little consequence to the judge.
    –This makes me wonder!!! (as any reasonable person should) How much incentive would it take before a supposedly impartial judge (or panel of judges) would go well beyond that of including sport utility vehicles within the classification of motor vehicles know as “trucks”, (a door clearly left open by any reasonable interpretation of the words) to that of concluding that sport utility vehicles are “pickup trucks”?
    Even if we would go so far as to consider the door to be left open, whereas to contemplate including sport utility vehicles as being among the classification known as “pickup trucks”, is it not incumbent upon the person(s) who chose to conclude that a sport utility vehicle is a pickup truck to provide us with the criteria used to arrive at their conclusion? Without providing the basis for the decision, isn’t the real door that gets left open, the door which provides for any vehicle to be classified as a pickup truck?

    Words have meaning. When we decide that those meanings no longer serve a useful purpose, and abandon them in favor of popular sentiment, we accept that we now live in a world where a word can mean anything or nothing at all. Am I the only one who sees that? Am I the only one who recognizes the inherent dangers associated with accepting that to be our future?
    I don’t care which side of this debate you’re on. Sometimes we have to recognize that things go far beyond “NOW”, and recognize the future impact of accepting that which most people recognize to be an unfounded interpretation of words.

    Now read the sign at the top again.

    Do you think that all domestic trucks are domestic pickup trucks?

    Are all domestic trucks, made in the USA?

    Is it possible to have a distinction between the types of trucks, and still have all trucks manufactured in the USA be domestic trucks?

    Believe it or not, some people say that all domestic trucks have to be domestic pickup trucks. Their reasoning??? Because all trucks can only be domestic or imported.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: