After two hours of hearing from plaintiffs challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for the office of President in 2012, Judge Michael Malihi for the Office of State Administrative Hearings for the State of Georgia asked them to file briefs with him on their positions no later than Sunday, February 5.

The complaints originated on October 25 of last year with a lawsuit filed by the Liberty Legal Foundation (LLF) 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 case has nothing to do with Obama’s birth certificate or his place of birth or how many Social Security numbers he may have. As noted by LLF,

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.”

The Supreme Court’s 1875 Minor v. Happersett ruling stated:

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.

A motion to quash a subpoena issued to Obama to attend the hearing was rejected by the judge, who did not find merit in arguments that the subpoena would require the President "to interrupt duties as President of the United States” and that the subpoena is, “on its face, unreasonable.” Specifically, Judge Malihi wrote: “Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend [and] has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that [his] testimony ... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary.’... Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.”

The hearing was held anyway with lawyers presenting their cases against Obama, the defendant. American Thinker writers Cindy Simpson and Alan Halbert noted:

Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH [Office of State Administrative Hearings] for the court's opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama's name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.

The judge could 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, the American Thinker writers claim that by his ignoring the subpoena, “Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state.” This opinion was shared by Van Irion, the LLF attorney bringing the case against the President:

[He has] decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated ... that he is not subject to their authority. This is the true story from today.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Big Bob said:

Just So We're Clear The question of what "natural born citizen" means has never been settled, and that's not Obama's fault. A list of past presidents this lawsuit would also include: George Washington John Adams Thomas Jefferson James Madison James Monroe John Quincy Adams Andrew Jackson James Buchanan Chester Arthur Woodrow Wilson Herbert Hoover

January 28, 2012

alexa said:

... Honoring the constitution at the state level is a good thing. It's time for the states to take back the constitution too. nd this is the very first step.

January 28, 2012

Nohbody said:

@Big Bob...Just So We're CLEAR here... Sorry to disillusion you (maybe not...you got this WRONG...) but you're misunderstanding what the requirement IS. Article II, Section 1's verbiage that we're discussing: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Do note the "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" part of that. It's a clause that allowed the Founding Fathers or anyone else at that time since it wasn't possible to have Natural Born Citizens, to hold the Office of President. This means that your list has entries in it that quite simply are dead wrong on whether or not they should have held the office. George Washington John Adams Thomas Jefferson James Madison James Monroe John Quincy Adams ...were all Citizens at the inception of the Nation and are EXEMPTED from the requirements of being a natural born Citizen. Andrew Jackson appears to be have been born of US Citizens on US Soil at the time of his birth. So does James Buchanan. Chester Aurthur's eligibility was challenged in the time of his election as Obama's is being right now- but it was shown that his Father WAS a US Citizen as was his Mother...and at the time of his birth. Any allegations were shown to be lies and rumors and nothing more. Woodrow Wilson's parents were Citizens as best as I can find and he was born on US Soil. Herbert Hoover appears to have also been of first generation Citizens on US Soil. Either you're woefully misinformed about what the passage says about who can/can't be president- or you're trying to blow smoke up people's backsides trying to spin this situation with Obama. Barak Obama Sr. was NEVER a US Citizen. Barak Obama II, had to relinquish his US Citizenship (you don't get natural born status back if you do this...) to study in Indonesia like he did. Either condition renders him ineligible. Unlike all the stuff you're trying to claim there.

January 28, 2012

JohnAdamsGhost said:

Oh you gotta love that The propagandist machine at the wheel. You know um . . . Big Bob, misinformed citizenry is the path to destruction. We all put our foot in our mouth from time to time, but you should never do it on a public forum where 99% of the readership are the most informed Americans in the nation. I'm just saying.

January 28, 2012

John Quincy Adams Jr. said:

Of course he's not eligible! It seems EVERYONE is missing the elephant (errr...jackass) in the room. Do note the "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" part of that. Obama wasn't even born at the adoption of the Constitution, let alone a citizen! Of course he's not eligible!

January 29, 2012

The Emotional Chic said:

couple of questions “Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend." He has not yet, officially found, to not be the President therefore would he not be considered an legal authority. With the exception of God , he is pretty high up there as far as authority goes--yeah? How does one relinquish something, without having it to begin with? That does call for a change of phrase with regards to NEVER having been a citizen no?

January 29, 2012

Grajek said:

Devils Advocate For the sake of argument let us assume that President Obama was a U.S. citizen when he went to Indonesia to attend school. Let us also assume President Obama would have needed to renounce his citizenship to attend school there. It is no easy task to renounce one's citizenship. As provided in the THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT "...A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship..." 1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer, 2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy ); 3. and sign an oath of renunciation The key words are "Voluntarily" and "Intent." As much as I hate to admit this, believe me harder than you can know, the case could be made that since he was a minor at the time of renunciation he lacked the capability to "VOLUNTARILY and with INTENT “ relinquish his U.S. citizenship” If he did indeed renounce his citizenship there would be a public record of the act. However that is a double edge sword. On one hand there is a public record as mentioned above but, on the other hand courts have ruled in the past that "...A person who wants to renounce U.S. citizenship cannot decide to retain some of the privileges of citizenship, as this would be logically inconsistent with the concept of renunciation. Thus, such a person can be said to lack a full understanding of renouncing citizenship and/or lack the necessary intent to renounce citizenship, and the Department of State will not approve a loss of citizenship in such instances...." I am not a lawyer so I do not know if at the time of his renunciation the Department of State would have needed to deny his renouncement, Statutory Limit type law, or if anytime in the future a person can claim they did not Voluntarily and with Intent denounce his or her citizenship because they where a minor. Personally, the former would be much more agreeable to me. Then there is the question of his citizenship because his father was never a U.S. Citizen. I have always believed that citizenship was a birth right if you are born on U.S. soil. But, there seems to be precedence to dispute this and a requirement of both parents being U.S. citizens. I know down here in Texas that we have "Anchor" babies, babies born to illegal aliens that have citizenship because they were born IN the U.S. and are entitled to all the privileges that go with citizenship. Also, Big Bob’s argument and list is so ludicrus I could not stop laughing. I thought he was joking. Sadly enough he was deadly serious. I will keep my fears and opinion to myself in regards to that particular post.

January 30, 2012

Bill Whitfield said:

Leader of Men? I would think that with all the contraversy surrounding Obama's past, for over three years now, that finally our elected officials would do something about it, at least an investigation as to what is true and what is a lie. Also, any person with a tad of American Honor would quickly bring these discussions to an end by revealing everything about himself. But Honor is something that Obama knows nothing about, same with Integrity and Dignity, foreign words to our "most intelligent" President ever. I guess that also gives him the right to ignore American Law, huh?

January 30, 2012

R Jensen said:

False president A motion to quash a subpoena issued to Obama to attend the hearing was rejected by the judge, who did not find merit in arguments that the subpoena would require the President "to interrupt duties as President of the United States” Yes, we don't want to slow him down in his duty to screw up this country.

January 30, 2012

J Hutson said:

Presidential Duties????? I guess Judge Michael Malihi wasn't convinced that campaigning was presidential duties.

January 30, 2012

Jim Drake said:

It would have taken an act of Congress Grajek said: >>>>>> For the sake of argument let us assume that President Obama was a U.S. citizen when he went to Indonesia to attend school. Let us also assume President Obama would have needed to renounce his citizenship to attend school there. It is no easy task to renounce one's citizenship.

February 04, 2012

Jim Drake said:

Previous post was truncated. In Perkins v Elg, the Supreme Court (speaking of Miss Elg) stated: "As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles." In the same ruling, regarding expatriation and "voluntary action", the Court stated: "To cause a loss of that citizenship in the absence of treaty or statute having that effect, there must be voluntary action, and such action cannot be attributed to an infant whose removal to another country is beyond his control and who, during minority, is incapable of a binding choice." Obama could not renounce his US citizenship as a minor. The only other means by which he could have lost his citizenship would have been "through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment". The US has no such treaty with Indonesia, nor has there been any such act of Congress.

February 04, 2012