FULL ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING

For the first time, this morning in Georgia, the question of Obama’s eligibility to serve, became official. No longer the stuff of speculation, no longer dismissible by liberals as something which will never be heard in court, Obama’s eligibility became a matter of an official court record.

For years, Orly Taitz and the Liberty Legal Foundation along with others, have questioned Obama’s legal right to serve. For years, that argument centered on the birth certificate and whether or not Obama was born in the United States.

What made this case and this hearing different, is that it mattered not where Obama was born rather, at the center of the stage, would be the nationality of Obama’s father.

Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen and a great deal of evidence to that point was entered into the official record this morning.

Another linchpin in all of this, is the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” which one must be, by writ of the Constitution, to hold the office of President. According to the plaintiffs in this hearing, that definition can be clearly found in the written opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Minor vs Happersett from 1875.

That opinion, which by the way is backed up by several other Supreme Court opinions, states that for one to be a “Natural Born Citizen” both of one’s parents must be U.S. Citizens.

There is no opinion offered, at any time, by the Supreme Court in conflict with this definition and as the attorneys made clear this morning, while some lower court opinions say something else, they do not override nor do they directly conflict with, the Supreme Court decision from 1875.

If that definition is upheld, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore has no standing to hold th office of President as per the Constitution.

Also entered into evidence were documents, discs and expert testimony calling into question the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate, his Social Security number, his father’s immigration status, his real name and indeed Obama’s own citizenship status.

All of this in the effort to have Obama’s name kept off the Georgia ballot in 2012.

After being subpoenaed to appear and after an endless stream of excuses as to why he shouldn’t, neither Obama nor his attorney were at the hearing.

This means, all the evidence and all the expert testimony was entered into the official record without a response, a peep, or a rebuttal from Obama or his attorney.

This begs the question; Can a sitting President be commanded by subpoena, to appear in court? Many claim Executive Privilege prevents it.

While EP can be claimed and upheld in cases of National Security or where it interferes with sensitive issues of security or the military, in other actions, outside those parameters, a court can compel even a sitting President to adhere to the rule of law.

In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court of the United States, citing many landmark cases, including Chief Justice Marshall’s opinions Marbury v. Madison (1803)and United States v. Burr, said that it was incumbent on the High Court to balance between the president’s need for confidentiality in executing his constitutional duties, on the one hand, and “the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice,” on the other. The Court’s unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger was careful to give great credence to the president’s need for complete candor and objectivity from his advisors. The justices also recognized the need for a great degree of confidentiality for the internal deliberations of the executive branch of government. Chief Justice Burger agreed that, if military or diplomatic secrets were at stake, the Court might reach a different conclusion. However, given that President Nixon’s claims were based on a blanket statement of executive privilege without claiming that any state secrets were at stake, the constitutional duty of the courts is to guarantee due process of law, something that Nixon’s actions were gravely impairing, according to the Court. The justices ruled that President Nixon had to comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued by Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Nixon immediately prepared to turn over the subpoenaed materials to Chief Judge Sirica.

Presidents since Nixon have continued to claim that the special place the presidency holds under America’s constitutional system demands that much of its internal deliberations remain secret and privileged. When faced with investigations, special prosecutors, subpoenas, and impeachment proceedings, President William J. Clinton, for example, claimed that much of what went on in the Oval Office was protected by executive privilege and executive immunity, and that he and his aides should not have to respond to subpoenas. As was the case with President Nixon, President Clinton eventually accepted his and his office’s place under the rule of law. Since United States v. Nixon, executive branch claims of immunity from the normal processes of the American legal system have been tempered by the fact that the constitutional demands of due process of law and justice are likely to outweigh claims of executive immunity from subpoenas.

It is yet to be seen whether the court in Georgia will take action regarding Obama’s failure to appear and the failure of his attorney to participate.

Granted, the mainstream or elite or whatever we’re calling them these days media lean hard to the left and it should come as no surprise that they refuse to give an eye blink toward this hearing. But what of Fox News and even their local Georgia affiliates? Why was nary a word of any broadcast given to today’s hearing?

I suspect it has a great deal to do with their prior position that the birth certificate was real…case closed. I also suspect, that should the Georgia judge find compelling reason to exclude Obama from the state’s 2012 ballot, this WILL become a story.

How often is a sitting President subpoenaed? How often has a sitting President’s eligibility to appear on a state ballot been questioned in court? How often has a sitting President’s birth certificate been questioned as fake under oath? How often has a sitting President’s eligibility to hold office been testified to in court? How often has a sitting President’s nationality been testified to in court?

Never before has a sitting President’s Social Security numbers been shown by evidence and sworn testimony in court as being fraudulent.

The SS number assigned to Barack Obama is from a man born in 1890. It was issued in Connecticut to Obama in 1977 but at that time, again according to sworn testimony and evidence in court, Obama was living in his mother’s house in Hawaii.

One witness in court testified that Obama’s SS number was run through the E-Verify system, the system used to validate a person’s citizenship, and it came back as a high degree of being fraudulent.

At the end of the 2 hour hearing, Judge Michael Malihi adjourned the hearing gathered up all the evidence and the court reporters transcript and returned to his chambers.

At this time, we wait, for how long, we don’t know, for his decision as to whether or not Obama’s name is eligible to appear on the 2012 Georgia ballot.

One can easily suspect, that should he find against Obama in this hearing, a tidal wave of similar cases will be filed in other states. Already, similar cases are pending in some states.

Orly Taitz, the Liberty Legal Foundation and others stand ready to carry forward in such cases.

We also await a decision as to what, if any action, might be taken regarding Obama’s failure to appear and his attorney’s decision to simply not participate under a court subpoena.

Why, if as liberals have claimed for years, all of this is folly and easily dismissed by “facts”, did Obama’s attorney not simply present those “facts” and put an end to it? It would seem that letting it all go unchallenged clearly adds fuel to the fire.

The mere presentation of evidence and sworn testimony today lends a great deal of credibility to the arguments as it is now a matter of official record.

A default judgment should be rendered and no doubt, it will be appealed but we suspect the judge will disallow Obama’s name from appearing on the Georgia ballot. No doubt too, other states will begin to file similar complaints.

The final questions, left unanswered and unchallenged by Obama and his attorney are…Who is this guy Obama really? Who is this who by evidence presented lived in Indonesia and Hawaii at the exact same time? Who is this guy whose SS number indicates he is more than 120 years old and lived in a state in which he never lived. Who is this guy who has been known by at least 2 different names? Who is this guy to which evidence in court indicates is a citizen of Indonesia? Who is this Obama whose birth certificate, shown in evidence and sworn testimony, has been created through layering and computer manipulation and has serial numbers out of sequence with those of others born in the claimed hospital within 24 hours of his supposed birth?

"I thought and understood that McCain was eligible - born to US citizen parents at the US territory which Canal Zone was at the time (Panama Canal).

Leo, of course it has not been adjudicated, notwithstanding two law suits and a half dozen or more Congressional hearings, but here is the gist of what Arizona Professor Gabriel Chin's analysis explained: In 1936 the Canal Zone was one of a few regions used by our government for which a sovereignty agreement had not been signed. The agreement is like a treaty, and must have Congressional approval. It was, apparently, an oversight, and such an agreement was granted in 1937. Thus the evidence that McCain was not even born in the Canal Zone, the base being dependent upon the Colon Hospital just outside the boundary of the Canal Zone, and, by the birth certificate which was provided during one of McCain's eligibility law suits, the place of his birth, is moot.

This is an issue Congress had thought about before, passing a Naturalization Act of 1790, which made foreign born children of US citizens reputed natural born citizens. But that act was entirely withdrawn in 1795 and the term "natural born citizen" replaced with "citizen". At this time there was no "Uniform naturalization code" as the Constitution had assigned congress to create. The only citizen defined by the Constitution was a natural born citizen, a responsibility the framers probably felt too important and too urgent to leave to the legislature. Congress didn't get around to creating their first citizens until 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment. Before that citizens were defined, often using different criteria, by each state legislature. The definitions for different classes of citizens are always changing, but the defintion for a natural born citizen has never been amended or re-interpreted by the Supreme Court. Minor v. Happersett made the Vattel definition into precedent, but the Vattel definition was used in a dozen or more cases before Minor v. Happersett, and in over two dozen after 1874. There is no doubt.

This does not require analysis of "Photoshopped" copies of birth certificates or conjecture about Kenyan relatives. Those were intended distractions. Obama told us he is not a natural born citizen, knowing that with McCain as an opponent, and a captive media, no questions about the law would be allowed, or answered. That code of silence is being honored by most legislators today. The only legislator to defy that code was Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal, who was run out of government by Democrats. Deal is now Georgia's governor, where questions about eligibility are at least being given a hearing.

Some confirmation of the understanding by lawmakers of McCain's deficiency is the Obama/McCaskill (Obama campaign committee chairwoman) bill “To Make foreign-born children of military citizens eligible to the presidency.” To try to pass a law to correct an injury which isn't an injury makes no sense. Dems were frantically working all the angles to insure that McCain would be their opposition. The young attorney at Kirkland and Ellis who submitted the paper 2006 paper to the Chicago Kent Law Review “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement...” was working for McCain defense lawyer and Kirkland senior partner, Christopher Landau. (I have read, though can't find substantiation, that Kirkland's Landau was paid for by George Soros, who certainly provided financial support to McCain related to McCain-Feingold).

Personally, I would approve of an amendment, but don't approve of simply ignoring a Constitutional provision because it seems unjust in the face of McCain's service. It isn't hard to imagine why our framers limited the presidency to natural born citizens. Someone born overseas, albeit to citizens, could spend his entire youth in a different country, living under its laws, but come to live here for 14 years and reach the age of 35, still controlled by bonds to the foreign place of his birth. Some, like Marco Rubio, can be born here of parents who intend to naturalize. The requirements for the presidency were not then subject to our fair employment opportunity laws. The intention was to protect the nation, and, until we, Democrats and Republicans, chose to ignore the Constitution, it had not interfered with our political choices (though it almost did with the Hughes-Wilson election in 1916, where Hughes, perhaps a better choice, was not a natural born citizen). Article II Section 1 eliminates many who might have served as wonderful presidents, but it would have eliminated someone who clearly does not have allegiance to our principles, born to an alien father who was decidedly against the guiding principles of our Constitution.

McCain's ineligibility is certainly germain, but not nearly so important as helping citizens to understand the certainty of our laws. That doesn't mean that courts will deal honestly with the Constitution. Owning General Motors is certainly not an enumerated power. But anyone interested in an exhaustive analysis of Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark, the cases most cited when discussing what the law is, should read Leo Donofrio's Amicus Brief. Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo have shown that there are still honorable attorneys. The thoroughly Alinskyed Orly Taitz has taken another valuable approach by exploring the clues left by Obama as he has lived on the edge of the law for much of his life. Read Minor v. Happersett with Leo Donofrio's guidance. Minor is as readable as Wong Kim Ark is obtuse. Donofrio has disected both of them. And Mario Apuzzo has written dozens of historical essays leading up to having the Supreme Court refuse to hear his case with Col. Kerchner. naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com and puzo1.blogspot.com are, with rxsid's thread on the meaning of natural born citizen here at FR, great sources for analysis for anyone wishing to dig deeper.

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.