COURT: OBAMA MUST BE ‘CONSTITUTIONALLY’ ELIGIBLE: ‘Judge denies president’s motion to dismiss challenge to 2012 candidacy!’

[Jake Martinez]

OORAH!!

Posted on WND.com-By Bob Unruh-On January 3, 2012:

“Others, including top constitutional expert Herb Titus, contend that the term “natural-born citizen,” which is not defined in the Constitution, would have been understood when the document was written to mean the offspring of two U.S. citizens. That argument is supported by a 19^th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision

Under that standard, Obama could not qualify, because his father, as identified on the “Certificate of Live Birth” image released by the White House, was a foreign national who came from Kenya to study in the U.S. and never was a citizen.

The ruling came today from Judge Michael W. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings.

In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.

“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”

The decision from Malihi came as a result of a series of complaints that were consolidated by the court. They were brought against Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 election primary ballot by David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by attorney Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.

The judge’s decision was to refuse to dismiss the complaints, an action that had been sought by Obama. He also granted a motion to sever the cases, and he scheduled a hearing at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.

Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona and New Hampshire as well.

Taitz told WND she will present the decision to a court in Hawaii, where she is arguing to have access to Obama’s original birth documentation as it exists in the state, which for many years allowed relatives of babies to simply make a statement and register a birth, even though the child may not have been born in Hawaii.

Irion had argued in his opposition to Obama’s demand to dismiss the concerns that, “The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with plaintiff’s pre-trial order, and apparently authenticated by defendant’s citation to this exhibit in defendant’s ‘Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,’ number 7.

“The lengths to which the defendant goes in order to avoid the one relevant fact is telling. The defendant asks this court to interpret Georgia election code in a way that leaves the code in conflict with itself, goes against the plain language of the law, leaves the law without meaning, and conflicts with common sense. He then cites freedom-to-associate precedent to support an assertion that has never been supported by such precedent, and which would nullify election codes in several states. All of these arguments are futile attempts to distract from the undeniable conclusion: Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president of the United States,” Irion wrote.

He continued, “It is true that some states lack election codes authorizing any state officials to screen candidate selections from political parties. In these states political parties have essentially unfettered authority to determine which candidates appear on ballots. However, these instances represent decisions of the states to not screen candidates. It is the states’ right to decide how to administer its elections. The fact that some states have decided to not protect their citizens from unqualified candidates does not mean that other states don’t have the right to screen candidates. It simply means that some states have left the screening to the political parties.

“Georgia has determined that it is in the best interest of its citizens to screen candidates prior to placement on the ballot.

“Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the defendant cannot meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.5 Georgia election code requires such a candidate to be stricken from any Georgia ballot.”

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

That case states:

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.

Irion said the goal would be an injunction that would deprive Obama of Democratic Party certification.

“Without such certification from the party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election,” his organization said in an announcement when the cases were launched.

Liberty Legal said it is not addressing Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate.

“These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s 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,” the group said.

WND has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into whether Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012. A full report is expected within weeks.

The White House in April released an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama’s father’s nationality. In addition, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated the document image appears to be a forgery.

The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:

http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certific...

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

Source:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eli...

Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

I. Open Letter to Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia: ‘The Rule Of Law Must Be Upheld!’

Right ON!

Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On January 3, 2012:

“January 3, 2012

Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi


Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings


230 Peachtree Street NW


Suite 850


Atlanta, GA  30303

Dear Judge Malihi:

I am editor of an electronic newspaper, The Post & Email (www.thepostemail.com) which covers constitutional issues and government corruption, and I am writing to express my sincerest appreciation for your ruling today which supported Georgia law O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(a) in favor of a voter’s right to challenge the eligibility of any candidate for public office.

For more than three years, a debate has raged as to whether or not the man who occupies the White House is eligible to serve as President and commander-in-chief.  The questions surrounding his eligibility do not have to do with the number of years he has resided in the United States nor his age, but rather, the “natural born Citizen” requirement expressed in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

There are questions about whether or not a person born to a father who was not an American citizen can be considered “natural born” and whether or not Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims.  There are questions about whether or not birthplace is a determining factor for “natural born” citizenship or if it is something else altogether.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear all challenges to Obama’s eligibility on the merits, the American people have been forced to live under the exigencies of a constitutional crisis since the 2008 election.  No public servant in any branch of government has upheld his or her oath and commenced scrutiny of the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause in relation to Obama’s background.  The legislative, judicial and executive branches of government at every level have failed in their duty to their constituents, instead issuing purposely-deceitful form letters, relying on faulty information which they have repeated ad nauseum, and denying U.S. military members discovery so that they might know that the orders they have received are legally issued.

The Congressional Research Service has published four memos to members of Congress which obfuscate and even omit relevant parts of law cases which directly impact whether or not Obama is eligible for the position he holds.  The U.S. Justice Department has managed to have all cases brought to obtain the truth dismissed on technicalities rather than simply presenting the evidence.  It is now clear that our government is perpetuating a charade of mammoth proportions while holding the American people hostage, not unlike that which catapulted the 13 colonies into revolution in 1776 and eventual independence from Great Britain.

The Framers of the Constitution specifically included the term “natural born” for the office of President to indicate a higher level of qualification than simply “citizen.”  Originally, they had used the term “citizen” but changed it after considering John Jay’s letter to George Washington cautioning that the highest office in the land required absolute allegiance to the new nation.

In order for our state and federal governments to operate properly, those elected to serve must respond to those who placed their trust in them. For more than three years, millions of Americans have asked questions about Obama’s eligibility and been rebuked, ridiculed, rebuffed, ignored, or lied to by their representatives.  It is a fact that the term “citizen” is not the same as “natural born Citizen,” yet our elected representatives would have us believe that their meanings are identical.  Judges have used the “no standing” excuse myriads of times rather than hear a case on the merits, whether out of cowardice, fear, lack of principle, or perhaps something more sinister.

True statesmen and public servants are very hard to find in today’s America, and I believe it is accurate to state that confidence in our government is dangerously low.

The U.S. military has a right to know if its commander-in-chief is eligible to issue orders.  The American people have a right to know if the President has foreign allegiances which affect his ability to make decisions in the best interests of their country.  Because of your decision issued today, perhaps we will finally have that opportunity, and for that, I thank you.

During a time when morality, ethics, high standards and doing what is right are rare things, my deepest respect is extended to you, sir, for reading the law as it is stated rather than making excuses for allowing this horrendous situation to continue.  There is an abundance of evidence that many, if not most, judges in this country today issue decisions which are not based on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, but rather, on a whim, a political viewpoint, or worse, a bribe.  For example, if one examines the judiciary in Monroe County, TN, it becomes obvious that our founding documents have not seen the light of day there in a very long time, and the rule of law is nonexistent.  This is what all of America will become if her laws are not enforced.

When we know for a fact whether or not Obama is eligible, the outcome will be dealt with and the nation can begin to heal from the tremendous conflict which has torn it asunder for so long.  Constitutional eligibility is not a Democrat or Republican issue; it is a fundamental constitutional issue which must be addressed.  I believe that today’s decision was the first step in that direction.

Very truly yours,

Sharon Rondeau


Editor


The Post & Email


www.thepostemail.com


[e-mail]


P.O. Box 195


Stafford Springs, CT  06076”

Source:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/03/open-letter-to-judge-michael...

II. Lawmakers: Obama ballot challenge unfairly denied!

Right ON!

Posted on Concord Monitor-By Maddie Hanna / Monitor staff-On January 4, 2012:

“New Hampshire election law officials previously rejected their request to remove President Obama’s name from the ballot in advance of next week’s presidential primary, but that hasn’t stopped several state representatives, who yesterday presented what they said was proof that officials had unfairly denied their challenge to the president’s citizenship.

“Our complaint was denied, but there appears to be an inconsistency in the process of the challenge,” said Rep. Larry Rappaport, addressing several reporters and a group of supporters at a press conference called on the eve of the new legislative session. The lawmakers demanded an investigation into Obama’s eligibility to appear on the state’s primary ballot.

In a new twist on the challenge made in November, when California attorney Orly Taitz appeared before the state Ballot Law Commission to question the veracity of Obama’s birth certificates and Social Security number, Rappaport and other Republican representatives - including Lucien and Carol Vita, Harry Accornero and Laurie Pettengill - say the New Hampshire secretary of state’s office has been inconsistent in evaluating whether candidates meet the citizenship requirement established by the U.S. Constitution.

The representatives - who say Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen because his father was Kenyan - cite two instances from 2007 and 2011 in which prospective presidential candidates were told by the secretary of state’s office they had to be natural-born citizens to appear on the ballot. They see a discrepancy between those actions and statements made during the November ballot law hearing by a representative of the secretary of state’s office, which said its purview was restricted to ensuring that candidates properly filled out their paperwork and paid the requisite filing fee.

Given the precedent for denying a candidate based on citizenship, “we believe the secretary of state should launch an investigation,” Rappaport said. He also filed an affidavit yesterday morning with the state attorney general’s office describing a conversation he said he and the Vitas had in 2009 with Attorney General Michael Delaney, who told them Obama’s citizenship was a question for the federal government and “refused to investigate,” Rappaport said.

He and other supporters seemed to believe that giving the office that affidavit would lead to action. “They’re going to be forced to do something about it, an obstruction of justice, now that they’ve been served with that information,” said Mark Rossetti, a Manchester man who attended and said he helped organize the press conference.

But the attorney general’s office doesn’t plan to respond. “There’s no request in it,” said Associate Attorney General Richard Head, when asked about the affidavit yesterday. “I honestly can’t figure it out.”

Secretary of State Bill Gardner, meanwhile, said the examples cited by the representatives had far different circumstances than the challenges to Obama’s eligibility. In the first situation, an Egyptian man who filed a declaration of candidacy in 2007 was disqualified after the man acknowledged he wasn’t a natural-born citizen.

But the office didn’t learn that as the result of an investigation, Gardner said. He couldn’t remember how it came to his office’s attention that the man was Egyptian, but when it did, the office called the man, and he said he didn’t realize citizenship was a requirement, Gardner said.

In the second example, which happened in 2011, a man wrote to Gardner’s office saying he met all the constitutional requirements to become president - except for being a natural-born citizen, Gardner said. The man had filed a federal lawsuit asking a court to overturn that requirement.

Assistant Secretary of State Karen Ladd sent the man a letter the next day saying the office would not accept a filing for a person who is not a natural-born citizen.

“If the person admits it, then we can take you off the ballot,” Gardner said. “But if you don’t admit it, we don’t investigate. We don’t deal with Social Security or try to find out. We’ve never done that.”

The state Ballot Law Commission is charged with addressing challenges to a candidate’s eligibility, but the complaint that was filed by Taitz and backed by the state representatives alleged criminal activity, which is beyond the commission’s authority to decide, Gardner said.

Head said his office had received a request for a criminal investigation of Obama, “which we declined to do.” He said complaints about the qualifications of a sitting U.S. president should be handled by Congress, and the attorney general’s office would not be investigating questions about Obama’s eligibility.

Representatives at yesterday’s press conference repeatedly tried to distance themselves from the “birther” movement. They are “in no way making a consideration about where he was born,” Rappaport said - and described their concerns as constitutional and nonpartisan in nature.

But state Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley, who attended the event, disagreed with that characterization.

“There’s no legitimate Democrat certainly north of the Mason-Dixon Line that is involved in any way with this,” Buckley said.”

• Maddie Hanna can be reached at 369-3321 or [e-mail].

Source:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/301974/lawmakers-obama-ballot...

III. Video: Press Conference with New Hampshire Representatives Regarding Obama Ballot Access Challenge and Fraud!-Posted on YouTube.com-By bikerbillnh-On January 3, 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OR__vYime8

IV. BREAKING!!! Georgia Court to Hear Natural Born Citizen Case vs Obama!-Posted on The National Patriot-By Craig Andresen-On January 3, 2012:

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=3722

V. SHERIFF JOE TARGETED FOR OUSTER: ‘Faces ‘resign now’ campaign as Cold Case Posse prepares Obama eligibility report!’-Posted on WND.com-By Jerome R. Corsi-On January 3, 2012:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/sheriff-joe-targeted-for-ouster/

VI. Video: Arpaio Slaps Down Critics Who Tell Him to Step Down!-Posted on YouTube.com-By abc15com-On December 29, 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a2Fz5513gg&feature=player_embe...

Americans are waking up!

Thanks to WND’s un-wavering commitment and fortitude many Americans across the country are starting to wake up to the fact that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President, as substantiated by his newly released long-form Certificate of Live Birth, which shows that his father was in fact born in Kenya in 1936. At the time, Kenya was a British colony. Therefore Obama Senior was a British subject by birth (due to the fact that he was born within British-controlled territory). When President Obama was born in 1961, he acquired British nationality by descent, because his father was a British subject by birth. When Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain in 1963, President Obama became a citizen of the newly-formed nation.

Sources:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=358645

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

http://constitutionalreset.ning.com/video/atty-dr-herb-titus-obama-...

Additionally, Several new organizations, to include active websites, were established to educate and mobilize the American public on the significance of “natural born Citizen” and the 2012 Election, along with an initiative to assist ordinary registered voting citizens wishing to challenge President Obama’s constitutional eligibility and name placement on their state’s 2012 primary presidential ballot. The team that established and maintains this website is currently compiling election laws from all 50 states and in the near future will be providing forms, along with sample letters that registered voters can use to file a complaint. Also included is pertinent information regarding those lawsuits and/or complaints that have been filed by state, to include my own.

Sources:

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/superpac-founder-explains-mission-o...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-ballot-challenge-founder-inte...

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/retired-marine-captain-files-obama-...

Word of Caution:  Although its great that many Americans are now beginning to wake up and are actively taking some action to have President Obama taken off the 2012 Presidential Election Ballots we need to keep in mind that those individuals with unlimited sources and/or resources, to include the deep pockets of anti-American George Soros, our own local and national elected officials and others, with the help of the MSM, who have spent years planning and successively perpetrating what I now believe could be the greatest fraud in American history are not going to go down without a fight and thus, as a result, I also believe that now more than ever we need to stick together as Americans (it's no longer Democrat or Republican) at this crucial time when our country and/or Republic needs us more than ever to see this thru. A Republic for which so many Americans have and continue to give their all to uphold and defend.

So the question is: Are you going to be part of the problem by continuing to keep your head in the sand hoping this issue goes away by itself or are you going to be part of the solution by stepping up to the plate and doing what ever it takes to uphold and defend our Republic before its too late?-You Decide.

Note:  My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that relate to this disturbing issue-You Decide:

The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-greatest-fraud-perpetr...

Could the President’s newly released COLB be a forgery?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/could-the-president’s-newl...

Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/is-it-important-to-underst...

Note:  If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts please copy web site and paste it on your browser. Be aware that some of the articles and/or blog posts or videos listed within the contents of the above blog post(s) may have been removed by this administration because they may have considered them to be too controversial.  Sure seems like any subject matter that may shed some negative light on this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.

“Food For Thought”

God Bless the U.S.A.!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E&feature=related

Semper Fi!

Jake