Judge: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate

A state administrative law judge on Friday flatly rejected challenges seeking to keep President Barack Obama from being a candidate in next month's Georgia primary.

In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has maintained a Hawaiian birth certificate that is a computer-generated forgery, has a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is not a natural born citizen.

Last month, Malihi heard testimony and took evidence in a hearing boycotted by Obama's lawyer.

With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification documents, Malihi said he found the testimony presented by lawyers of the so-called "birther" movement and their evidence "to be of little, if any, probative value and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs' allegations."

A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation, Malihi wrote. "None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony," he wrote.

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

Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.

First allow me to apologize for my last post. It was late, I was tired and I was frustrated with you because I am trying to have a valid and honest discussion with you and, to be frank, I'm not sure that you are understanding the issues.

So, if you will, please allow me to address the last comments you made.

Do some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents?

Yes. This is going to the heart of what we know today as the "anchor baby" issue. While it was not an issue in the 1870s, there were some political "authorities" including (but not limited to) Congresscritters, elected sheriffs and local politicians who wanted to ignore the provisions of the Constitution that apply to citizenship, who is a citizen and what rights citizens have and extend the rights of citizenship to anyone born on American soil. That's what they were talking about when they wrote this: Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction (i.e the US) without reference to the citizenship of their parents ( as stipulated in the 14th Amendment). As to this class (those born in America whose parents may not, themselves, have been US citizens) there have been doubts, but never as to the first (natural born citizens. IOW, the justices are acknowledging that the issue of children born in America of one or both parents who are not American citizens creates a question as to their actual legal status). For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts…..”

I'll respond to the last part after I pull in your next comment.

For the purposes of that case was it necessary to solve these doubts?

No. Minor was a female, natural born citizen who sued for the right to vote. I believe that the suit orginated in Missouri (I'm not completely certain of that) and Happersett was the elections clerk who, in accordance with the laws at the time, denied her application for a voter registration card. So, Ms. Minor sued on the basis of being a US citizen as defined by the 14th Amendment.

The justices of the SCOTUS denied her suit on the basis that citizenship status as defined by the 14th Amendment was not at issue. The court determined that voting rights in the 1870s were relegated to male citizens and, since she was not a male, she would not be able to vote. Eventually, women's suffrage was finally approved in the early part of the 20th century. The significant part of Minor v. Happersett remains the fact that the SCOTUS laid down the defintion of "natural born citizen" and that definition/interpretation has not changed since that ruling.

As the result of Minor v. Happersett, under the terms of the 14th Amendment, BHO does not meet the eligibility requirements to be POTUS and he has, as a result, perpetrated a massive fraud on the US. As an attorney, he KNOWS that he cannot be POTUS and both Nancy Pelousy and Howard Dean (both of whom certified that he DID meet the eligibility requirements) are all guilty, at a minimum, of fraud and malfeasance.

This, then, is what is at the heart of the "Birther" movement. It is less where BHO was born than the fact that when he was born, he had only one parent who was an American citizen. As Minor v. Happersett clearly defines, in order to be a natural born citizen (and, thus, eligible to be POTUS), BOTH of BHO's parents had to be American citizens. The parents did not, themselves, have to be natural born, but they had to be citizens of the United States.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.