Obama, hypocrite in chief at the National Prayer Breakfast, and orchestrator of a bodyguard of lies Obama, hypocrite in chief at the National Prayer Breakfast, and orchestrator of a bodyguard of lies

Obama eligibility challenges go forward

The Obama eligibility issue never went away, as many lawyers raised challenges in several State courts. Now several cases in Georgia will go forward, after a judge refused to dismiss them. Other challenges are pending in New Hampshire, Arizona, Alabama, Tennessee, Hawaii, and other States. If any of them succeed, this could change the dynamic of the election and the health care reform bill debate.

Obama eligibility issues: Georgia

At least three groups of people sued in Georgia to say that the Secretary of State should not place Barack H. Obama on any primary or other ballot. Nor should the Secretary of State certify an election of Presidential electors who have pledged to vote for Obama in the Electoral College. The reason: Barack H. Obama is not eligible to the office of President. If he is not eligible, then any Presidential Elector who votes for him would violate the Constitution. That document says in relevant part:

No person, except a natural-born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President.

The law in Georgia says that any candidate, before he appear on a ballot, must qualify, under the Constitution, for the office he seeks. This is the heart of the Obama eligibility argument, and the reason for the challenges.

According to WND, the three different Obama eligibility plaintiff groups are:

  1. David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth. Attorney Orly Taitz represents them.
  2. David Weldon. Attorney Van R. Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation represents him.
  3. Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell. Attorney J. Mark Hatfield represents them.

Of the three, Orly Taitz is the most famous. She has repeatedly filed motions in the courts in Hawaii, seeking to enjoin the health department to release a long-form birth certificate. Several courts in other States have fined Taitz for, as they held, filing frivolous motions. But a ruling yesterday by Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings suggests otherwise.

Judge Malihi found, and ruled, that:

  1. Barack H. Obama must be Constitutionally eligible to be listed on a Presidential primary ballot. That his election is a federal election does not matter. (Under the Constitution, State legislatures set the “time, place and manner” of elections of Senators and Representatives, and also have direct and sole power to “direct” the choice of Presidential Electors.)
  2. The Georgia Department of State, and any voting citizen and lawful resident of Georgia, have standing to challenge the eligibility of any candidate.

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. 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.

Obama Long-form Birth Certificate: subject of fresh Obama eligibility challenges
Obama's long-form birth certificate, as released by the White House

Attorney Irion issued this press release after Judge Malihi’s ruling came down. Irion was the only one to file an opposition brief. That might be why his client’s case will be the first that the court will hear, on January 26, 2012. The court will then hear the Swensson-Powell case, and will hear the case by Taitz’ plaintiffs last of all.

The Georgia court has removed every procedural obstacle to the three Obama eligibility cases and will now judge them on their merits. The various cases raise two kinds of issue:

  1. Whether Obama was born in the United States, or outside it. Taitz, in particular, is not satisfied with the Obama birth certificate that the White House released last April.
  2. Whether, regardless of where Obama was born, he can qualify as a natural-born citizen, given that his father was a British colonial subject. This is Irion’s argument, and it matches exactly the argument by Nick Purpura and Don Laster of New Jersey, in their comprehensive case against the health care reform bill (Purpura v. Sebelius, Docket No. 11-7275).

Last fall, Craig Andresen offered the case of Minor v. Happersett (1875). The Supreme Court then ruled that:

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.

Obama’s father was never a citizen of the United States. Emmerich de Vattel, in The Law of Nations, said that no person not born in-country of a citizen father could be called a natural-born citizen. Purpura and Laster cited the Minor case and two others (Venus in 1812, and Perkins v. Elg) to support their view that the Supreme Court agreed with Vattel (and in fact cited Vattel in those two other cases). Andresen reminded his readers again two days ago that the Minor case would be significant in the case of Weldon v. Obama that the Georgia court will hear three weeks from today.

Purpura told CNAV yesterday that he was watching the Weldon and other Georgia cases closely and looked forward to using a favorable ruling to show that his own Obama eligibility challenge is valid.

Obama eligibility in other States

Obama eligibility cases and arguments are pending in other States:

  • Liberty Legal Foundation has cases pending in Tennessee and Arizona.
  • Yesterday, three New Hampshire legislatures delivered an affidavit to the New Hampshire Attorney General giving their reasons for an Obama eligibility challenge.
  • A resident of Alabama has raised an Obama eligibility challenge in his State.
  • Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, opened his own Obama eligibility investigation as a “cold case.” The Obama administration has raised a trumped-up charge of racial discrimination in response. Furthermore, a habitual activist is trying to have Arpaio recalled from office. But a recent anti-Arpaio rally drew only 12 to 15 participants, and the event organizer was not among them.

Related:

ARVE Error: need id and provider

[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /][subscribe2]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.


Terry A. Hurlbut

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

Comments (63)

  • I still think the best way to challenge Obama’s eligibility is his acceptance of student aid as a foreign student. I don’t know all the particulars of the requirements, but I bet there was a signed statement made by him under penalty of perjury that he is not a citizen of the United States.

    It might well be worth looking into in a serious way…..

    • In fact, Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, had her passport altered to eliminate any mention of her son, this after her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, took young “Barry” to Indonesia.

  • If any of those points prove to be true it doesn’t mean he is not eligible to be president. He was born in Hawaii.

    • Maybe he was born in Hawaii. Regardless of that, his father was a British colonial subject.

  • I think there is a precedent about presidents with foreign born parents.
    I don’t recall any objection to these six other presidents with foreign born parents.
    • Thomas Jefferson‘s mother was born in England
    • Andrew Jackson‘s parents were both born in Ireland
    • James Buchanan had an Irish father
    • Chester A. Arthur had an Irish father
    • Woodrow Wilson‘s mother was English
    • Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother

    • Chester A. Arthur got away with it and shouldn’t have.

      Thomas Jefferson qualified as “citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.”

      Jackson might be another one who got away with it. Same for Buchanan.

      The others had citizen fathers but non-citizen mothers. The father is controlling, according to Vattel.

      • It seems to me and there are precedents, that being born in the U.S.A meets the requirements of a natural born citizen. Until a court rules otherwise Obama meets the requirement of a natural born citizen.

          • This is interesting

            From the U.S. Code made available by the US House of Representatives

            The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
            (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
            (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
            (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
            (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

          • Fine as far as it goes. But citizen-at-birth and natural-born-citizen are not the same concepts. One is a subset of the other; that is all.

  • Slock wrote:
    If any of those points prove to be true it doesn’t mean he is not eligible to be president. He was born in Hawaii.

    Geno points out:
    I do not dispute that he was born in Hawaii. However, if he took student aid as a foreign student, that could be construed to mean he renounced his US citizenship. In that case he would no longer be eligible because he’s a non-citizen.

    Further, it’s highly likely he signed papers he isn’t a citizen so he’d be caught in a politically poisonous Catch-22…. on one hand, he may have renounced his citizenship while on the other hand, he may have perjured himself to get the aid.

  • Geno wrote
    I do not dispute that he was born in Hawaii. However, if he took student aid as a foreign student that could be construed to mean he renounced his US citizenship. In that case he would no longer be eligible because he’s a non-citizen.
    Further, it’s highly likely he signed papers he isn’t a citizen so he’d be caught in a politically poisonous Catch-22…. on one hand, he may have renounced his citizenship while on the other hand, he may have perjured himself to get the aid.

    Slock responds:
    Below is the process of renouncing a U.S Citizenship. It is clear to me that falsely receiving foreign student aid cannot be construed as renouncing your citizenship. Obama may have perjured himself it may be politically poisonous but it does not make you ineligible to be president.

    ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION
    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 or Consulate); and
    3. sign an oath of renunciation
    Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds,

  • You’re missing the point here. This decision has absolutely nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility: it’s about whether or not some people have the standing to being suit.

    So, yes, it’s gone forward. Who cares? Obama is still the president – about to be elected for a second term – and nobody of any repute says otherwise. Nothing has changed.

    • Not yet. But a court will, for the first time, hear the merits of an Obama eligibility case.

      • The “hearing” will consist of:

        Judge: Do the attorneys for President Obama have any evidence?
        Obot: Your Honor, we’d like to introduce this certified copy of President Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii into evidence.
        Judge: It’s properly authenticated under the applicable rules of evidence, and I admit it into evidence.
        Orly: LET ME FEEENEEESH!
        Judge: I rule for Obama.

  • When it comes to “birthers” and in particular their law cases, I am always left wondering what will happen of one of these goes ahead and Obama is vindicated, if the court does agree that he is a natural-born citizen and he is eligible to hold the office of president? Will they turn around and apologise? Will any of them admit defeat? Or will a new set of reasons be tirelessly brought froward until he has served two terms and is no longer eligible on those grounds.

    • What will the detractors do when the Supreme Court finally applies precedent and vindicates the Obama eligibility challengers?

      • I would like to think that they would join the side of the law and initiate impeachment proceedings against him.

        But I feel precedent is not on your side. Potentially three past presidents are in the same boat as Obama, with a non-citizen father, the US has always maintained a straight forward jus soli pricipal to citizenship (otherwise anchor babies wouldn’t be an issue) and the 14th amendment has always been read to support this. Natural-born citizen in English common law was always understood to mean having been born in the King’s realm, English common law being what the founding fathers worked within and as no attempt has been made in the US to redefine it since, this definition still prevails. The supreme court has ruled as such in US vs Wong Kim Ark 1898.

        Interestingly enough in 1983 the UK abandoned jus soli in favour of one citizen parent rule. As it was part of English common law, jus soli continued until 1986 in Australia when they also introduced a one citizen parent rule. The US is still in line with the rest of the Americas though where jus soli is almost universal.

        • That applies to the privilege of voting. It is not strong enough to make one eligible to the office of President or Vice-President.

          • Okay, lets get back to hypotheticals. Lets say that the Supreme Court actually hears one of these case, it goes to trial, the SCOTUS follows an arguments similar to what I proposed and rule Obama eligible. Let say it was 9-0. What do you do then?

  • Honestly, they’ll probably cast a wary eye to the sky, as pigs will be flying.

    As much as the rabid right want to justify their ranting as anything but, the whole birther deal is nothing more than thinly veiled racism.

    God knows what Terry and his ilk will do when a Mormon gets into the White House.

  • 4 years later and you people are still obsessing about this non-issue?

    I am not an Obama supporter, but even I can see that it all comes down to race.

    America can’t have a black president so this black man must not be an American. Since he hasn’t committed any impeachable offense, the only way to remove him from office is to develop some trumped-up citizenship objection.

    When I applied for a copy of my birth certificate from the state of PA, I received something that looks very much like the certificate provided by the state of Hawaii representing the President’s birth certificate.

    If you are conservatives, why are you challenging the right of the State of Hawaii to determine who is their citizen and who is not?

    To you, “conservative” means conserving the power of the white race.

    Get over yourselves and enter the 20th century. Maybe by 2050 you can enter the 21st century.

    • Well, now, if Allen West were to run for President…! Now there’s a real stand-up guy. Oh, yeah, now that I think of it, he does look like a classic, kick-*** Zulu warrior. He looks better the longer I look at him.

  • I’m sure Allen West would be thrilled to hear you call him a Zulu, Terry.

    I’m guessing that comment of yours means you would vote for a black candidate, if the GOP ever puts one forward.

    Which, we all know, will never happen. Arizona, Texas, Tennessee and half a dozen other Red states would secede immediately; Joseph Farah would self-immolate himself during a live feed on WND; the world as we know it would end.

    • I think this retired officer would understand the reference perfectly, without any help from me. The Zulus were without peer as individual warriors. The only reason the British beat them was that the British had the better technology and had the discipline to apply it effectively on the battlefield.

      You do realize that you used a redundancy in the rest of your lines, I trust?

  • It only becomes a redundancy when I’m proven wrong.

    In fact, I’ll put my head on the block now – there will never be a black Republican president, nor even a serious presidential contender, in our lifetime.

    I would love to be proven wrong, but I know I won’t be.

    • “Self-immolate himself” was the redundant expression that you used.

      And by the way: tell me again why the Bobbies are not allowed to cross The Green Line into Little Mecca in London.

      • How does that have anything to do with the discussion at hand? Also why won’t you give me any hints on what you plan to do in a worst case scenario for your cause, does it need to be kept secret?

        • Ask the other commenter why he has a 1960s view of America when his society has problems of its own.

          • If we are going to continue down this tangent and the expense of the actual issue, riddle me this, why is it in a year when the Republicans absolutly romped home of the 32 African-American Republican candidates running only 2 won a seat? That doesn’t strike you as statistically unlikely?

          • One thing you’re failing to account for is the regrettable tendency of African-American voters to accuse any African-American candidate of treason to his race if he does not advocate more of the same kind of handouts that they have been getting ever since Lyndon Baines Johnson.

      • What’s this green line thing? I live in London and have never heard anything about this.

        • You deny, then, that the Muslim quarter of your city is a no-go zone even for the Bobbies?

          • There’s no such thing as a “Muslim quarter” in any British city. Places like Tower Hamlets have larger than average Muslim populations, but there’s absolutely no “no go” area there, nor in other cities such a Birmingham or Leicester. You’ve clearly been misinformed on this one.

          • Maybe—or maybe not. Maybe the situation over there is more dangerous than you care to admit.

          • What on earth are you talking about? The Green Line is in the holy land. The London green line is a bus company whose routes do not demarcate predominantly Muslim areas.

          • Terry, this is just rubbish. There’s no such problem! Please provide a source for your claims or stop digging yourself further into the hole you’re in.

  • I can only guess that Terry is going the red herring route, seeing as I am not English, do not live in England, and have no idea what the green line and little Mecca are (Googling “bobbies green line little mecca” provides no links either. http://www.google.co.za/search?q=bobbies+green+line+little+mecca&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a We might need to wait for an article)

    Either way, it’s still irrelevant to the fact that the GOP will never support a black presidential candidate. They might love to put one forward, but them good ol’ boys south of the Mason-Dixon line won’t stand for it.

    • Your e-mail address gives you away, or else is a quirk of Yahoo that even I did not reckon on. Why is the domain name of your e-mail address “yahoo.co.uk” if you do not live in England?

      And I say again: the Muslim Quarter of London is, insofar as I have been informed, a no-go zone even for the London Metropolitan Police.

  • Well, for the same reason that the Google link in my post ends .co.za. It just happens that I opened that account when I lived in the UK and kept it.

    That said, you really, really need to check your sources before making such statements. There are no “Muslim quarters” in any British cities, and certainly no no-go zones. Not even in London. Not even in Bradford, which has become so Muslim that even Yorkshire has home-grown Muslim cricketers.

    So, now that that’s settled (unless have a source for your assertion) can we get back to the issue at hand?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.



© All Rights Reserved. Conservative News and Views.

Back to Top