Recently a friend sent me an e-mail about a little known court case in Atlanta, Georgia regarding President Obama's eligibility to be on the Georgia ballot in the November 2012 presidential election.
Plaintiffs in the case say there are two arguments for why Obama should be removed from the November ballot in
Georgia. The first cites an 1875 Supreme Court opinion that says only a “natural
born citizen” -- someone born in the U.S. and whose parents were U.S. citizens
-- can be president. (Obama’s father, who was from Kenya, was not a U.S.
citizen.) The other alleges Obama’s birth, social security and passport records
are forgeries.
The challenges were filed last year with Georgia Secretary
of State Brian Kemp, who referred them to the State Office of Administrative
Hearings. Judge Michael Malihi of the Office of State Administrative Hearings
for the State of Georgia asked attorneys to file briefs with him on
their positions no later than Sunday, February 5.
While the issue of Obama's place of birth has been heard in
several other courts throughout the nation and ultimately found to be without
merit, the issue raised by the Liberty Legal Foundation is a much different
matter.
The Foundation's lawsuit is requesting an injunction against
the Democratic Party that would prohibit the party from certifying that Obama
is constitutionally qualified to run for office in 2012. Without that
certification, says the foundation, Obama’s name would not appear on any ballot
in the general election.
The Foundation says its lawsuit is not related to the so-called
"birther" issue. In a statement it said: "These issues are
completely irrelevant to our argument. [Our] lawsuit simply points out that the
Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two
parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s
birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a
natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant.
Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution reads, in
part: “No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the
office of President.”
Since the only entity responsible for vetting a candidate’s qualifications to hold office is the political party that nominates the candidate, LLF chose to sue the Democratic Party and thus “we ... avoid taking on any state or federal government.” And Georgia has a state law that requires that “every candidate for federal office shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
Since the only entity responsible for vetting a candidate’s qualifications to hold office is the political party that nominates the candidate, LLF chose to sue the Democratic Party and thus “we ... avoid taking on any state or federal government.” And Georgia has a state law that requires that “every candidate for federal office shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
Nevertheless, Obama’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, boycotted
the proceeding -- calling it “baseless, costly and unproductive.” Lawyers for
the challengers said the president should be held in contempt for not complying
with a subpoena.
During last week's hearing, Obama was in Las Vegas giving a
speech to UPS employees.
Kemp said law required him to refer the challenges and
warned Obama's attorneys: “If you and your client choose to suspend your
participation ... please understand that you do so at your own peril.”
One might think a case like this would garner the attention of the national media. It hasn't. At least not yet.
Ask yourself: How many stories have you seen about this case on national newscasts, in your newspaper--anywhere for that matter?
Judge Mahli has the authority to end the matter with a ruling of a default judgment
against the President. Or he could direct the Secretary to declare the
President ineligible to run as a candidate for the presidency. Whatever the
outcome, by ignoring the subpoena Obama and his attorneys have shown their disregard
for the laws of Georgia.
"[Obama] has decided
that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution," said Van
Irion, the LLF attorney bringing the case against the President. "He has
just indicated that he is not subject to their authority.
Obama's behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than (President) Nixon's (during the 1973-74 Watergate hearings), Van Irion continued. "Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorneys show up in court and follow procedure. Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it.
"Obama, on the other hand, essentially said that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn't petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay they hearing. Rather than respecting the legal process, Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely."
The determination of whether or not Obama's name will appear
on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with Secretary of State Kemp. If he dares
remove Obama's name from the ballot you have to wonder what the fallout will be
in other states.
Without a doubt if Kemp does delete Obama's name he and
Georgia will feel the full weight and wrath of the Obama administration and its
lackeys in the U.S. Attorney's office as they send an army of federal lawyers
crashing down on Georgia--quite possibly evoking memories of Gen. Sherman's
march to the sea and the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War.
