“…STRUNK’s instant action is frivolous. … STRUNK [pictured right] alleges baseless claims about defendants which are fanciful, fantastic, delusional and irrational. It is a waste of judicial resources for the Court to spend time on the instant action. Moreover the Court will conduct a hearing to give plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard … as to whether or not the Court should award costs and/or impose sanctions upon plaintiff STRUNK for his frivolous conduct. At the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action.”

Actually making these folks pay the bills for their game should end things pretty quickly.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/zombie-files-in-georgia-court/#more-16257

Yeah. You might not want to put to much money and that appeal, WB.

Where DO you guys find these crackpots???

Regarding whether Obama will be on the Georgia ballot, that is still in dispute since the whole matter is going to a higher court.

And then…

Tisdale v. Obama, the federal district court stated that it is “well settled that those born in the United States are natural born citizens” and calls the claim that Obama (and Paul and Romeny) are ineligible “without merit.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisdale-v-Obama-et-al

Case dismissed WITH prejudice.

The judge in Georgia really threw some (more) water on the birthers today…

1. Their is no credible evidence of birth records being forged;

AND

2. The US Constitution does NOT require two US Citizen parents to be a “Natural Born Citizen.:

Read all about it!

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/judge-obama-eligible-to-1330300.html

I disagree with you, and I have Justice Fuller’s words in the very same case to back me up.

I would agree with you completely concerning Justice Gray declaring Wong a natural born Citizen if Justice Gray had written the words “natural born Citizen” into the majority opinion.

But you are saying that there are two types of citizens: naturalized and natural born.

Certainly, Supreme Court Justices would understand the nomenclature of citizenship. Others in the Appellate and District Courts would understand the terms. Those in the State Court systems would understand also. Court opinions have been broadcast into the public area through newspapers from the founding of the Republic to the 1800’s, 1900’s, down to this present time, extending the outreach into our homes via the radio and TV.

Certainly all the listeners that have ever read a Supreme Court opinion, read newspaper reports or have heard results on radio or TV do not have the necessary legal training to discern the legal nuances in Supreme Court opinions or most probably any other court opinion.

So, it is incumbent upon the Republic’s judges to write clearly, in unambiguous language so that even the most ill-informed can understand their opinions, to prevent any misunderstanding, since the judges are declaring the law of the land, even to future generations.

Since the most of us do not have this specialized knowledge the Republic’s judges have the full burden to correctly state the law and to publish it through the appropriate media.

So I can only conclude that Justice Gray thought Wong Kim Ark was a citizen and not a “natural born Citizen” since he did have the oath-centered obligation to fulfill his duties as a Justice. It is the words of Justice Gray that declared his intention, and he wrote that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen.

If Wong Kim Ark was a natural born Citizen, then it was incumbent upon Justice Gray to write the words “natural born Citizen” in the ruling section of the opinion. Under these circumstances, to only declare Wong a citizen is deceitful.

You have every right to have the opinion that you hold. But the opinion that you hold in this matter does not agree with the Constitution.

The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall 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.)

But Justice Gray did not write the words “natural born Citizen” into the ruling section of Wong. Was it just an oversight? Every word written in the Constitution is written in the document to give a particular and singular effect.

If Wong is actually a natural born Citizen, then Justice Gray has misled the American people, the judicial system, and most probably has committed a fraud upon the Court.
Words have meaning and different words have different meanings..

Did you read the article?

Leo Donofrio quotes Chief Justice John Marshall. You don’t agree with Donofrio obviously. But you do not even agree with Chief Justice John Marshall in his quote or the other quotes that Donofrio uses in the related opinions.

How do I know this? If you agreed with Donofrio you would be agreeing with Chief John Marshall.

But you certainly do not agree. Do not give me crap about only believing Supreme Court Justices
.
Since the rule of statutory construction expresses how the Constitution is to be interpreted, and you do not agree with it (as expressed above), then your interpretation is faulty at best. In fact, it is fraudulent. To ignore this rule is, to quote you, nonsensical.