Posted on 01/29/2012 10:40:15 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
Though we’ll not know the outcome of the Georgia hearing regarding ballot eligibility for the nation’s number 1 undocumented worker until the first part of February, Barack Obama’s high-powered attorney apparently suffered an attack of rapid, shallow breathing just before the courtroom drama was about to unfold.
One day prior to the scheduled hearing before Administrative Judge Michael Malihi, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski addressed both a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp AND an email, directed to the Secretary via one of the court’s hearing officers, asking Kemp to cancel the hearing.
Georgia law allows “any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” to file an objection to that candidate’s inclusion on the State ballot. (1)
Such objection filings go to the Secretary of State who makes a determination to either overrule or pass them along to the State Administrative Court for disposition.
Michael Malihi was the Administrative Judge to whom a number of these objections were directed by the Secretary and he found them worthy of pursuing in court.
The dozens of similar suits questioning Obama’s eligibility, filed in other venues around the nation were dismissed because the plaintiffs “lacked standing”—that is, were unable to prove direct, personal damage if Obama were to be permitted to remain in or run again for the office he holds.
But Georgia law trumped that defense, throwing Obama and Jablonski into uncharted waters. And forced to follow the new tack of actually having to lawfully and properly PROVE Obama’s eligibility, in the weeks since the original filing, Jablonski had pretty much emptied his quiver on behalf of the acting president.
On January 3rd his motion for an outright dismissal of the lawsuits was denied by Judge Malihi.
And on Friday the 20th, his motion to quash subpoenas...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
“Yeah federalism!”
I am so with you brother!!!
Riots and bloodshed in the streets will allow Obama to assume the power of military dictator as given in the Annexes to the 2007 Homeland Security Act/Patriot Act, as well as recent National Defense Authorization Act to imprison citizens indefinitely without a hearing.
Just what the progressives wanted in order to forfeit sovereignty to the United Nations to continue NWO.
Near as I can determine the Feds do not have jurisdiction over the Georgia ballot eligibility law.
See the Virginia Primary Ballot Access event earlier this year.
You racist, you.
“It’s possible that Obama may not be allowed on the Georgia ballot. However, all of those weeping Democrat Party socialists in Georgia will still be allowed to write in the name “Barack Hussein Obama”. Just think how long it will take to examine and tabulate all of those write-ins. “
I thought of that too. But it won’t matter because he will not be eligible in GA. As far as I know then those write ins will not count.
Thanks for the ping! :)
Did SCOTUS have jurisdiction in the matter of how the State of Florida decided its electoral vote assignment in 2000? Whether they did or not, they took it.
I think I disagree, though I am no expert. It would seem to me if the evidence showed that he had not proven his qualifications, would that not mean that even if he was the winner in a write in campaign, he would still not have proven his eligibility.
Would he not still need to prove NBC status meaning two American parents at the time of his birth?
In the Second Session of the First Congress, the term natural born citizen was defined.
As early as March 26, 1790, Congress did in fact pass a law defining a natural born citizen, and stated that it had to be a person born in the US of two US parents who were citizens at the time of birth.
Here is the text from the Congressional Record:
FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 4. 1790
CHAP. III.—An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and Hours of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
APPROVED, March 26, 1790.
Repealed January 29, 1795.
These were the founders. They did not interpret someone else’s intent. It was their intent, expressed within mere months of the ratification of the Constitution.
A rule needs to be established on this, regardless of Slick Willard, Jindal, Rubio, or anyone else is disqualified.
Correct. And it was the biggest miscalculation the Democrats ever made, IMHO.
SCOTUS has been desperate to avoid facing the decision concerning a definition behind Article II, Clause 5, of the U.S.Caonstitution. The holding in Minor v. Happersett has been used in determinations of 25 Supereme Court cases.
Can anyone have realistic expectations of SCOTUS overturning former Supreme Court decisions because a usurper is of African heritage?
Can anyone have realistic expectations of SCOTUS overturning former Supreme Court decisions because a usurper is of African heritage?
If we use Congress, the media, and other "vetting" sources as a benchmark, the answer is unfortunately yes.
If there are those that would do so, they are the same type of person who would "riot" if Barry lost in a free and fair election.
People shouldn't be a prisoner to such fear.
“If we use Congress, the media, and other “vetting” sources as a benchmark, the answer is unfortunately yes.”
Who’s this “we”: you got a donkey in your pocket?
They don't own their homes and the stores belong to the Koreans.
SCOTUS had jurisdiction because both were on the ballot.
If Georgia refuses to put Obama on the ballot, who can force them to do so...in violation of Georgia law?
I don't see it.
Sure a liberal Federal judge or two will take a shot, but they D E F I N I T E L Y do not want this in front of the USSC.
Who’s this “we”: you got a donkey in your pocket?
You must have missed the "unfortunately" in my statement.
I remember the riots in Pittsburgh a LONG time ago after MLK was shot. National guard troops set up .50 cal machine guns at the South end of the Liberty Tubes, separating downtown Pgh from the South Hills. Needless to say, NO BODY came out of the Liberty Tubes headed south!
Okay. I see where we’re talking past one another.
I maintain that the Supreme Court is NOT going to overturn 134 years of carefully crafted, Constitutional decisions concerning natural born citizenship on their part, all for the benefit of a usurper who is of African descent.
You’re addressing the ‘anyone’ in my statement. You claim that “Congress, the media, and other “vetting” sources”” will do so, using their past behavior “as a benchmark”.
I really don’t care what the idiots in Congress, the LSM or other “vetting” sources believe, they aren’t going to be able to dictate to those nine justices, one part of the trinity that makes up our Federal government.
Ain’t going to happen.
If Democrats try to make this a Federal issue, I predict the outcome will disappoint them.
No kidding about being in Atlanta. I’m mapping out the safer routes to and from work.
How do they appeal? I though you couldn’t introduce new evidence in an appeal.
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.