Obama's inclusion on Georgia ballot challenged

Atlanta Journal Constitution ^

[bushpilot1]

Five Georgia men have challenged President Barack Obama’s inclusion on next year’s presidential ballot, with at least some citing an oft-discredited theory that Obama is not eligible for office because the Constitution says that a president must be a “natural born citizen.”

All the challenges have been made through the Georgia Office of the Secretary of State, which referred them to the state administrative hearings office. Hearings have not yet been set.

[SatinDoll]

Stanley Ann Dunham.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/12/13/founder-of-obamaballotchallenge-com-speaks-with-the-post-email/

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

“I am not at all sure that BHO, Sr is in fact BHO, Jr. (aka Barry Serotoro) biological father.

Correct, sir. Based only on what we have thus far, there is no way of determining with any degree of certainty the NBC status of the current Occupy-er (sic) of the WH one way or another. Games within games within games, it would seem.

[Chewbarkah]

Since the AJC was predictably content-free, can anyone describe the challengers’ legal argument? Are Georgia election officials compelled by law to consider substantive (Constitutional or statutory) requirements for office, and keep substantively disqualified candidates off the ballot? Or can they act as a mere clerk, monitoring perfunctory tasks (submittal of x forms and y petitions by a due date)?

One hopes Mr. Hatfield can cite numerous precedents wherein Georgia election officials have denied ballot access due to candidates’ failures to meet statutory requirements for office (e.g., for minimum age requirements). But to succeed, he must make an escape-proof case for compulsory “substantive qualification.” Even if you force election officials to examine real qualifications, they can still declare forged documents to be genuine, or accept watered-down definitions of natural-born citizen. Hard to win a crooked game.

[Texas Fossil]

correct, but eventually it will come out.

All lies eventually dissolve, the pieces never fit.

[morphing libertarian]

These are unfortunately often political decisions determined by the party of the secretary of the 50 respective states.

In Cal they have previously asked for birth certificates to,determine the age of candidates I believe Eldridge Cleaver was excluded because he did not meet the constitutional age for president.

The SofS for Cal was contacted by many citizens who challenged Obama’s qualification based upon place of birth, but she refused to ask for proof of birth location. She is a democrat.

[BladeBryan]

Steelfish wrote: “By all accounts unless both parents were citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth, the candidate is not a natural born citizen.”

Really? “By all accounts”, you say?

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” — Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), former Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, October 5, 2004

“It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents.” — Charles Gordon, ‘Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,’ 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968).

“It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” — Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).

“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” — Unanimous opinion of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny v. Daniels 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009)

“Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity.” — West Publishing, /Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases/, Volume 5, 1904, quoting Town of Hartford v. Town of Canaan

“After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added, that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.” — In Re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawyer 353, 21 Fed. Rep. 905 (Fed. Cir. (Ca.) 1884), citing Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

There’s more if you want.

[sourcery]

The Supreme Court has greater authority on the question of the Constitutional meaning of 'natural born citizen' than any of the authors you cite. And in Minor vs Happersett, they held the definition to be a person born in the country to parents who are citizens.

[Kenny Bunk]

Doll,

Your research is always welcome. Perhaps some day, all of the stuff on the Mombasa MF unearthed by freepers like you will find its way into doctoral dissertations. God knows the media will never use it!

[Kenny Bunk]

OBTW, Doll. I am interested to learn more about the "scrubbing" phenomenon. I have experienced it, and I wonder how many of us here on the site have.

Soros must spend a fortune on these cyber-sanitizing jobs!

[Kenny Bunk]

The Supreme Court has greater authority on the question of the Constitutional meaning of 'natural born citizen' than any of the authors you cite.

The question of Obama's eligibility is just that, a question. Instead of leaving it to us cyber-brawlers to pro and con this issue, don't you think the SCOTUS ought to get off it's collective black-robed duff and agree to hear a case?

They have strained too mightily to avoid the issue. Explain to me why we pay these people who cannot find it within themselves to do their jobs.

Courts of America: Hear the cases on their merits. Answer the question. One way or the other.

[little jeremiah]

You have seen documents verifying this, then?

[edge919]

The opinions of Jill Pryor, Orrin Hatch, Charles Gordon, Black’s Law, West Publishing and the hillbillies who constituted the Indiana Appeals Court are Trumped by the Nine members of the United States Supreme Court who unanimously decided in Minor v. Happersett that NBC is exclusively defined as “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” This is a class of citizenship distinguished from a class of birth in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents. Only one of these classes was characterized as natural-born as used to satisfy the meaning of the term found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

[djf]

Excellent documentation finds!

I am privileged to add them to my collection!

[DiogenesLamp]

the term ‘natural born citizen’ has nothing to do with the physical act of birth

it has to do with the person’s alliegences at the time of birth. the founders intention was to insure that the person in the office only had allegiances to the United States. as such, if both parents are US citizens at the time of birth, the child ‘naturally’ has allegiances to the US... as there would be no other allegiance possible

anyone that says otherwise it attempting to cloud a simplistic issue to further their own ideological goals

I would say that this is true in some cases, (Obot trolls) however I think most of the public has bought the argument that being "born a citizen" is the same thing as being a "natural born citizen" and if a person accepts that as true, the 14th amendment (in their mind) would make anyone "born here" into a "natural born citizen." It is a simplistic and false understanding of the concept and the purpose behind it.

Unfortunately, too many of the public believe this, and for most attorneys this idea appears to be gospel. We as a nation are suffering for the ignorance of our populace, no doubt brought about by the infiltration of Liberal ideas and thinking into our culture.

[DiogenesLamp]

Absolutely right. What I wanted to say, but probably better put.

[DiogenesLamp]

To run for President a candidate need not be on the ballot in every state. So if Sheriff Joe and the Arizonans follow through, Obama may decide to do without them!

I have said repeatedly, if ANY state throws him off the ballot for failing to establish his credentials, it will not be possible for the Liberal Media to cover up this embarrassment. I believe it will have consequences throughout other states, and regarding the entire election. No one will be able to understand why Obama couldn't simply produce his real birth certificate. I think throwing him off the ballot in ANY state, will cause his eventual defeat.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m not going to take up room on this thread discussing it. That is why we have mail on FR, so I will explain it all there, if you’re interested in reading it.

Getting it all together might take a while, so it may not appear until later this night.

I am very interested in reading it. When I first heard of Barack Obama, I remember hearing constant references that he was from "Kenya", at least until he decided to run for President, at which time people quit mentioning "Kenya."

You are right, a lot of references to him being "Kenyan" have been scrubbed. If you have any screen shots or other evidence, it wouldn't hurt at all to distribute it amongst others for redundancy.

[DiogenesLamp]

There’s more if you want.

Yes, one can always find an unlimited supply of garbage. Your contemporary cites are exactly garbage. Your earlier cites only range back to around 1894 (as near as I can tell. I don't bother paying much attention to your "evidence" anymore.) What is conspicuously absent is any reference to John Jay, or Washington, Adams, Jefferson, any founder or members of the state ratifying legislature, contemporary documents, etc.

Just for kicks and grins, I will post a couple of documents that rebut your theory.

Here is an 1784 act by the Unanimous Maryland State Legislature regarding Natural born citizenship.

Note that the status of "natural born citizen" is bestowed ONLY ON MALE DESCENDANTS. It demonstrates conclusively that the legislature considered Partus sequitur Partem as having the primary role in deciding citizenship. No mention of where such descendents needed to be born was required as it was irrelevant.

--------------------------------------------------------

A lot of Obots wish to bring up Lynch v Clarke in support of their argument. What many of them do not know is that the Legislature of New York quickly rebuked the court's ruling in Lynch v Clarke, and re-established the requirement that children must be born to citizens of New York, and transient Aliens children do not meet the necessary criteria to be regarded as citizens.

Pretty clear to me. The LEGISLATURE overturned the court who declared that a person is a citizen just because they were born in New York. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

[DiogenesLamp]

Soros must spend a fortune on these cyber-sanitizing jobs!

I don't believe Soros financed goons are responsible for all of it. I believe most of it is accomplished in the same manner that most news is distorted by liberal bias. It just happens that those people employed in the Media Industries tend to hire people that act and think as they do, and so the entire system ends up with personnel that are 95% liberal, and are therefore unable or unwilling to see liberal bias in their reporting.

By the same token, there are a lot of Liberal members in other businesses like Yahoo, Google, Justia, and the Universities that will also do things they believe supports the liberal cause such as blocking access to documents, rewriting documents, writing opinions disguised as news, etc.

It is not a "conspiracy" it is a case of a whole lot of partisans individually working to the same purpose; The dominance of their ideas, and the subjugation of ideas with which they disagree.