A pitched battle and a skirmish

If Hussein wants to be on the ballot in Georgia he has to rally his troops one more time:

For the first time in dozens of court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a judge has ruled that Obama must, in order to be a candidate on the Georgia ballot for president in 2012, meet the constitutional demands for candidates for the office.​

Freely offered here for Hussein’s consideration allow me to paraphrase a few lines from King Henry V’s pep talk to his troops:

“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our Socialist dead.”

“And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in America, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That I am worth my breeding; which I doubt not.”

“I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The scam's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'Allah for Hussein, Socialism, and Prophet Marx!”

One judge in Georgia is going where federal judges fear to tread:

The ruling came today from Judge Michael W. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings.

In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”​

As I understand it the states decide whose names go on the ballot. Van R. Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation says this:

He continued, “It is true that some states lack election codes authorizing any state officials to screen candidate selections from political parties. In these states political parties have essentially unfettered authority to determine which candidates appear on ballots. However, these instances represent decisions of the states to not screen candidates. It is the states’ right to decide how to administer its elections. The fact that some states have decided to not protect their citizens from unqualified candidates does not mean that other states don’t have the right to screen candidates. It simply means that some states have left the screening to the political parties.​

While Hussein’s crack troops are fighting a pitched battle in Georgia an eligibility skirmish is underway in Arizona:

In the coming weeks, it will be decided whether transplanted radical attorney-activist and “community organizer” Randy Parraz can force Arpaio to resign before the sheriff’s Cold Case Posse has a chance to deliver a report in February.

Parraz, who has made his career applying Saul Alinsky-style community organizer tactics for radical leftist movements in the U.S. and Canada, has told WND that Arpaio “has to go.”​

Community organizers eat, too; so after reading about Parraz’s background, I had to wonder how many tax dollars this guy pocketed in his lifetime? For starters who paid for his education:

Parraz, born in California in 1967, has an elite education, having received his Bachelor’s degree from the University of California at Berkeley, a Master’s degree from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California at Berkeley.​

The thing about “activists” is that an investigation usually shows that taxpayers first educated, then supported, them. That makes all of us responsible for their actions. Once they land a permanent spot at the public trough in government, or the education industry, the public —— you and I —— feeds them til death do us part.

In 2010, Parraz ran unsuccessfully as a Democratic Party candidate challenging Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain in his re-election bid.​

Sheriff Joe targeted for ouster
Faces 'resign now' campaign as Cold Case Posse prepares Obama eligibility report
by Jerome R. Corsi

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/sheriff-joe-targeted-for-ouster/

Parraz is still in the trenches because he failed to unseat McCain.

Finally, Hussein losing either conflict does not bode well for his future prospects. Losing both would be a major disaster.

The following comprehensive article is in two parts:

Court: Obama must be ‘constitutionally’ eligible
Judge denies president's motion to dismiss challenge to 2012 candidacy
By Bob Unruh

For the first time in dozens of court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a judge has ruled that Obama must, in order to be a candidate on the Georgia ballot for president in 2012, meet the constitutional demands for candidates for the office.

A hearing has been scheduled later this month for evidence on the issue that has plagued Obama and his presidency since long before he took office. At issue is the constitutional requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.” Some allege he was not born in the U.S. as he has claimed and, therefore, is not eligible.

Others, including top constitutional expert Herb Titus, contend that the term “natural-born citizen,” which is not defined in the Constitution, would have been understood when the document was written to mean the offspring of two U.S. citizens. That argument is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision

Under that standard, Obama could not qualify, because his father, as identified on the “Certificate of Live Birth” image released by the White House, was a foreign national who came from Kenya to study in the U.S. and never was a citizen.

The ruling came today from Judge Michael W. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings.

In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.

“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,” the judge wrote. “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.”

The decision from Malihi came as a result of a series of complaints that were consolidated by the court. They were brought against Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 election primary ballot by David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by attorney Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.

The judge’s decision was to refuse to dismiss the complaints, an action that had been sought by Obama. He also granted a motion to sever the cases, and he scheduled a hearing at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.

Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona and New Hampshire as well.

Taitz told WND she will present the decision to a court in Hawaii, where she is arguing to have access to Obama’s original birth documentation as it exists in the state, which for many years allowed relatives of babies to simply make a statement and register a birth, even though the child may not have been born in Hawaii.

 

PART TWO:

Irion had argued in his opposition to Obama’s demand to dismiss the concerns that, “The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with plaintiff’s pre-trial order, and apparently authenticated by defendant’s citation to this exhibit in defendant’s ‘Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,’ number 7.

“The lengths to which the defendant goes in order to avoid the one relevant fact is telling. The defendant asks this court to interpret Georgia election code in a way that leaves the code in conflict with itself, goes against the plain language of the law, leaves the law without meaning, and conflicts with common sense. He then cites freedom-to-associate precedent to support an assertion that has never been supported by such precedent, and which would nullify election codes in several states. All of these arguments are futile attempts to distract from the undeniable conclusion: Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president of the United States,” Irion wrote.

He continued, “It is true that some states lack election codes authorizing any state officials to screen candidate selections from political parties. In these states political parties have essentially unfettered authority to determine which candidates appear on ballots. However, these instances represent decisions of the states to not screen candidates. It is the states’ right to decide how to administer its elections. The fact that some states have decided to not protect their citizens from unqualified candidates does not mean that other states don’t have the right to screen candidates. It simply means that some states have left the screening to the political parties.

“Georgia has determined that it is in the best interest of its citizens to screen candidates prior to placement on the ballot.

“Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the defendant cannot meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.5 Georgia election code requires such a candidate to be stricken from any Georgia ballot.”

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

That case states:

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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.​

Irion said the goal would be an injunction that would deprive Obama of Democratic Party certification.

“Without such certification from the party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election,” his organization said in an announcement when the cases were launched.

Liberty Legal said it is not addressing Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate.

“These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” the group said.

WND has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into whether Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012. A full report is expected within weeks.

The White House in April released an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama’s father’s nationality. In addition, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated the document image appears to be a forgery.

The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant: [Go to link to view image.]

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/

 

The skirmish goes badly for Parraz!

Resign now’ protest against Sheriff Joe fizzles
Arpaio targeted as he prepares to release Obama eligibility report
by Jerome R. Corsi

Randy Parraz, the activist-attorney who WND reported has publicly targeted Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Apraio in a politically motivated campaign to force him to resign, staged a poorly attended protest Wednesday morning at the sheriff’s downtown Phoenix office.

Parraz posted on his Facebook page details of what he called the “Sheriff Arpaio Special Action”, calling for protesters to assemble in downtown Phoenix in the lobby of the Wells Fargo building at the corner of Washington and 1st Avenue.

“Please dress professionally,” Parraz cautioned protest participants. “Citizens will define what it means for MCSO (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office) to cooperate with Dept. of Justice. Please invite others to attend.”

Arpaio, under fire for a Justice Department report claiming his office discriminates against Hispanics, plans to release results next month of his Cold Case Posse’s investigation of Barack Obama’s eligibility for Arizona’s 2012 ballot.

Witnesses reported to WND that, at most, 10 to 12 protesters attended the event, including what appeared to be several members of the “Occupy Phoenix” movement, who carried signs that referred to the movement’s “99 Percent” theme.

The handful of protesters were almost outnumbered by the news media covering the event, including news photographers who followed the protesters with hand-held video cameras.

The protest featured a cardboard box fashioned to represent a coffin draped with an American flag that the protesters carried into the lobby of the Wells Fargo building and on the building’s elevators to Arpiao’s office.

A sign on the flag-draped “coffin” read: ” $100 Million Misspent Public Funds Taxpayers’ Dollars.”

Also on the box were pictures of recalled Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce and Arpaio with the word “RETALLIATION” written in capital letters below the photographs.

The protesters and the accompanying camera-carrying news media brought the flag-draped “coffin” with them as they went upstairs, with the entire group fitting into two elevators to ascend to Arpaio’s office.

The protesters, after being denied access to Arpaio’s office, presented the flag-draped “coffin” to a representative of the sheriff’s office.

Although he organized the protest, Parraz was not observed among the protesters on the scene.

According to a brochure and press hand-outs read out loud by a protestor standing outside Arpaio’s office, the Wednesday protest action was organized under the auspices of the Citizens for a Better Arizona, the 501(c)4 tax-favored and supposedly “non-partisan” group Parraz has formed to oppose Arpaio.

Parraz’s prior arrest record

WND research has discovered that Parraz’s career as a Saul Alinsky-trained “community organizer” includes a previous arrest.

According to a Dec. 8, 2001, Orange County Register report, Parraz, then an AFL-CIO organizer in Garden Grove, Calif., was arrested for failing to disperse along with 15 others involved in a protest supporting Hispanic immigrant hotel workers.

The newspaper reported that Parraz was observed shouting orders in Spanish to the estimated 200 protesters who were carrying signs and chanting up and down Harbor Boulevard in front of the Crowne Plaza Hotel and the Hampton Inn.

The arrests occurred after protesters who gathered in the middle of the intersection at Harbor Boulevard and Chapman Avenue caused traffic to become clogged.

About 40 police in riot gear at the scene made the arrests to clear the intersection and prevent injuries.

Parraz explained to the newspaper that the AFL-CIO had recently transferred him to Garden Grove after realizing that 31 percent of Orange County had become Hispanic, with 51 percent of Santa Ana, the county seat, being foreign-born.

“I was transferred here because there is a huge potential for labor to expand and grow in Orange County,” Parraz told the Register.

On Oct. 1, 2008, Parraz was arrested on suspicion of trespassing on government property and disorderly conduct outside a Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting after deputies of the Sheriff’s office had ordered him to leave the meeting for speaking out of turn.

According to a report by McClatchy-Tribune Regional News on Oct. 1, 2008, Parraz alleged his arrest constituted “harassment” by Arpaio.

Sheriff’s office spokesman Capt. Paul Chagolla disagreed.

“He violated the law and he was arrested,” Chagolla told reporters. “He was instructed to leave. He was given a lawful order. He did not comply. And he was arrested.”

On Dec. 17, 2008, four people were arrested at a subsequent meeting of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The protest was staged by the Maricopa Citizens for Safety and Accountability, the group Parraz organized to seek Arpaio’s removal from office. The four were arrested for disruptive behavior that involved aggressive applause for speakers critical of the sheriff.

According to the New York Times, three of the four arrested in the 2008 incident were members of ACORN, the radical national group. ACORN had joined in an active alliance with the Maricopa Citizens for Safety and Accountability to oppose Arpaio.

The New York Times noted that the crackdown at that Board of Supervisors meeting brought the tally of arrested anti-Arpaio activists to nine in the previous three months.

Organized Canadians in ‘Battle of Seattle’

Parraz has also admitted organizing protesters in 1999 against the World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference in Seattle. An estimated 40,000 protesters engaged in street violence, which in protest lore was subsequently tagged as the “Battle of Seattle.”

WND asked Parraz what his involvement was in organizing the Seattle protests.

“It was part of my job,” Parraz explained to WND in a telephone interview. “I worked for the National AFL-CIO, and the National AFL-CIO was one of the few sponsors of that particular action. So, I was assigned to Vancouver, to work with the labor movement in Canada, to mobilize people to come down to Seattle for the action.”

The Seattle Times reported on Dec. 1, 1999, that protestors clad head-to-toe in black, with black masks and combat boots, threw newspaper boxes and garbage cans into the street, broke windows throughout downtown, spray-painted the anarchist logo of an “A” in a circle on walls, windows and police cars, while puncturing the tires of police cruisers, limousines and other vehicles.

What developed into a five-day full-scale urban riot, Seattle police were unable to contain the urban violence, despite using tear gas and firing rubber bullets to disperse crowds.

Before the street violence was brought under control, part of the city of Seattle was put under curfew as Washington State Gov. Gary Locke issued an emergency declaration calling for 200 National Guard troops and 300 State Patrol officers to assist Seattle police.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/resign-now-protest-against-sheriff-joe-fizzles/

 

So a Georgia voter has exercised his right to challenge the vote.

It will go to court, and President Obama will easily demonstrate to the court that he is eligible, the case will be dismissed, and Birthers and WND will cry foul once again.

See- didn't take me three pages to get my point across.

 

To SFJEFF: You can reduce all of your responses to three words: Obama is eligible. I prefer posting more details like the compilation in the following two part article:

January 6, 2012
Academia Shrugs: Obama's Citizenship and the Presidency
By Cindy Simpson

The obstacles in Barack Obama's path to the presidency have been overcome, or covered over. Rather than merely avoiding the contentious question of Obama's "natural born" eligibility, America's academic establishment has muffled discussion on the inextricably related issue of citizenship law in our country, in the greater context of immigration reform.

The first instance of academia's cloak-throwing was noted in an American Thinker article which described the revision made by Professor Larry Solum to his scholarly paper that addressed Senator McCain's eligibility, "Originalism and the Natural Born Citizenship Clause." The original version was published in 2008. Without saying it explicitly in his footnote of explanation, Solum's revision implied, subtly, that he also supported the eligibility of Obama, with his one citizen parent instead of two -- yet Solum did not include citations or references that defended his rationale for the change, nor has he published papers since that discussed this aspect of the issue.

Solum's unsupported rewriting was mentioned again in the more recent article, "The Great American Memory Hole." That column also described the strange and related story of "JustiaGate" -- the "mangling" of text and citations, for approximately a three-year period beginning mid-2008, on Justia's database for 25 Supreme Court decisions that directly cited the particular case of Minor v Happersett. It so happens that Minor contains a succinct definition of "natural born" citizenship (essentially, born in the country to citizen "parents," plural) that attorney Leo Donofrio contends represents binding precedent. In addition to the anomalies noted at Justia, Donofrio discovered a complete block of relevant text missing from Ex Parte Lockwood at Cornell -- a case that Donofrio argues further proves his assertion that Minor's statements on citizenship are binding precedent vs. dicta.

Cornell's Professor William Jacobson countered that Justia is not utilized by "practicing lawyers," but it is revealing to note that both Jacobson's Legal Insurrection blog and the WSJ Law Blog, for example, recently and frequently link to Justia's Supreme decisions, and that Google searches often list Justia as a top hit -- reinforcing the reality that Justia's Supreme Court database does indeed maintain a significant voice in the court of public opinion.

Shortly after Donofrio's findings and further claims regarding the precedent set by Minor, Professor Jonathan Turley published a post by contributor David Drumm entitled "Holdings, Dicta, and Stare Decisis." The last sentence of Drumm's post refers to the Wikipedia article on Minor as further support for his assertion that the "natural born" comments are dicta; however, that particular Wikipedia entry was revised only a couple of months ago (soon after Donofrio's assertions) to include the very paragraph that Drumm cites. Comments on Drumm's post now number over 1,300, bearing witness to an ugly war that continues to rage among anonymous commenters. The revision history for the Wikipedia entry reveals similar battle scars.

"In the Spirit of Truth," Donofrio has, via his "Natural Born Citizen" blog, invited other attorneys to directly challenge his assertions:

The definition of natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent; Ex Parte Lockwood acknowledged Minor as precedent for the definition of federal citizenship; and the statements in Minor fit the description of precedent established by the Court in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States.​

Will any accept the offer, or, along with other legal academics, will attorneys continue the "bizarre birther intellectual dance" described by Jacobson that sidesteps reasonable questions of law and spins around only the infamous birth certificate?

In his original paper, Solum's description of "natural born citizen" closely followed Justice Waite's wording in Minor, yet Solum indicated that the meaning of the term simply derived from "general agreement." (Solum attributed his later revision to "a matter of inclusion.") I have been unable to locate other articles addressing the eligibility of either candidate that examined the Minor definition. That is astonishing, for whether the statements in Minor were dicta or precedent, they were still directly relevant; yet many insisted that the term "natural born" had never been defined by the Court.

In early 2008, at the request of the McCain campaign, Professor Laurence Tribe and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson presented a memo to Congress stating their opinion that McCain was a natural born citizen, though born in the Canal Zone, "by virtue of his birth ... to US citizen parents." The memo became the basis for Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by both Obama and Clinton, clearing the path for McCain's eligibility.

Professor Gabriel Chin responded to the Tribe/Olson opinion in a lengthy analysis titled "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship." Chin quoted the Minor natural born definition in a footnote but without further elaboration. In his conclusion, Chin noted that the statutes that precluded the eligibility of McCain, whom he described as "not only not a race-baiter but disapprov[ing] of race discrimination," were the result of "antique technicalities of the legal regulation of race." Although Chin did not mention it, the fact that those who raise the issue of Obama's eligibility are called racist seems even more ironic.

In 2011, describing "birthers" as focused only on Obama's place of birth, Chin asserted that "neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has weighed in on the question" of natural born citizenship -- neglecting to recall his own reference to Minor and specific citation of its definition in his 2008 paper.

Professor Peter Spiro, in his 2008 scholarly article supporting his favorable opinion of McCain's eligibility, concluded with this general remark: "The prospect of a dual-citizen president proves the obsolescence of requiring our chief executives to be natural born citizens." Spiro's statement appears to suggest that dual citizens are not natural born, yet he did not acknowledge the dual citizenship claimed by Obama on his campaign website and further confirmed by the State Department. Factcheck also affirmed Obama's dual citizenship, but dismissed it as irrelevant based on the opinion of an anonymous blogger.

After Obama released his long-form birth certificate in 2011, Spiro published another article, "Birthers' Next Line of Retreat: Obama was a Dual Citizen!" in which he denigrated "birthers" as "conspiracists," called the dual citizenship question a new "bizarre sideshow," and referred readers to the "excellent explanation from factcheck.org."

In the 2008 article on McCain, Spiro asserted: "Constitutional questions do not require constitutional decisions. If non-judicial actors -- including Congress, editorialists, leading members of the bar, and the People themselves -- manage to generate a constitutional consensus, there isn't much that the courts can do about it."

However, Spiro and other academics have failed to similarly address Obama's eligibility, much less with a level of scholarship or seriousness (if Chin's and Spiro's 2011 articles quoted above are any indication) that would appear to justify such a "consensus."

 

PART TWO:

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) circulated three memoranda on presidential qualifications, the first dated April 3, 2009, the second, March 18, 2010. The first report addressed the eligibility of both McCain and Obama; the second focused primarily on Obama's birth certificate and whether citizens had "standing" in the eligibility suits, yet both reports failed to mention Minor.

Following the activity in the blogosphere over whether Minor's definition was binding precedent and the new state ballot challenges, CRS issued a third report, titled "Qualifications for President and the 'Natural Born' Citizenship Eligibility Requirement." Without stating the reasons behind the report's preparation or its requestor, the author, "Legislative Attorney" Jack Maskell, asserts that based on "the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars," not only are both McCain and Obama natural born citizens, so is anyone born on U.S. soil (irrespective of the citizenship or domicile status of either parent), and even some who were foreign-born, as long as they had at least one citizen parent who fulfilled previous residency requirements.

According to Dr. Jerome Corsi, "rather than advance the eligibility debate with a truly scholarly analysis, Maskell produced ... a footnoted polemic aimed at appearing scholarly to prop up Obama's eligibility defense." And unsurprisingly, this third report dismisses the definition in Minor as mere dicta.

The two-step process followed by the court in Minor (to first answer whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen and secondly whether that status gave her the right to vote) was discussed in another article, "Citizenship Jeopardy." The "presumed" citizenship of Hamdi and Obama's recent drone target, al-Awlaki, was analyzed -- "presumed" being the adjective used by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Hamdi v Rumsfeld, a 2005 case that argued that Hamdi, as a U.S. citizen by virtue of the "birthright citizenship" practice (born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizens), was entitled to habeas corpus.

The controversy over "birthright citizenship" centers on the citizenship and domicile status of the parents and is thus unavoidably related to the definition of "natural born" citizenship as it pertains to Obama. The political tension surrounding immigration reform and charges of racism levied against the "birthers," combined with the tragic yet effective distraction of the birth certificate, have further contributed to this contentious issue.

The hot button of immigration reform was addressed in another article that mentioned the 2005 congressional hearing, "Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty," in which all participants seemed to agree (some reluctantly) that the 14th Amendment (as well as the really very narrow ruling in Wong Kim Ark) did not guarantee or mandate the grant of citizenship to the children, born in the U.S., of aliens.

Although opinions differ over the application of the amendment as it relates to the temporary or permanent, legal or illegal status of the aliens' presence -- if the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase is not redundant (to "born in the country") and in fact alludes to the concept of allegiance -- the legality of the non-citizen parent's border-crossing seems far less pertinent than the intent to domicile. In addition, while many claim that the parents' status is irrelevant to the rights of the child, derivative citizenship laws appear to support the opposite view.

A few years after the hearing (and coincidentally, when Obama came on the scene), discussion of citizenship was labeled "birther" talk, with conservative pundits like Mark Steyn referring to "rinky-dink technicalities" and attorneys such as Mark Levin (who led the call for Clinton's impeachment based on the technicality of lying under oath) loudly refusing to even courteously acknowledge what seem to be very valid, interesting, and timely questions:

Does mere birth in the US, regardless of circumstances, guarantee citizenship?

If foreign-born naturalized citizens are required to renounce past foreign citizenship, should a status of dual citizenship at birth (the result of the birthright citizenship practice as well as the 1922 Cable Act which no longer required that women lost their U.S. citizenship upon marriage to an alien) necessitate a renunciation of the foreign citizenship by the child at majority?

Does the dual citizenship of a large and growing proportion of our population have implications for our national security?

And if naturalized citizens are not qualified for the presidency, should dual citizenship at birth likewise preclude eligibility?​

According to Dr. John Eastman, it was not until around 50 years ago that "popular perception" grew into the "idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status." Eastman asserts: "We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough."

Has such "gradual" thinking replaced the Constitution? Will the convoluted reasoning enshrined in Wong Kim Ark and the "unabashedly result-oriented approach" in Plyler v Doe continue to shape the character of our nation's citizenship and sovereignty?

In this nation of immigrants, assimilation was once a cornerstone of our desire to build a cohesive national character. Today, assimilation has been replaced by multiculturalism, "press 2 for Spanish," and voting materials printed in foreign languages. The children of "birth tourists" are granted U.S. citizenship. And the oath sworn by naturalized citizens requiring rejection of past foreign citizenship is no longer enforced.

Concern over whether popular elections should trump valid questions of constitutional law (with related lawsuits dismissed for lack of "standing" or "particularized injury") combined with the apparent absence of a formal mechanism to ensure the legitimacy of candidates creates a slippery slope further heightened by the symbolic nature of the question:

Does the current commander-in-chief, sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, actually have the right to hold that office? Do the "folks" he serves have a right to ask that question and have it respectfully answered?

Professor Chin wrote: "The rule of law would be mortally wounded if courts, Congress or the executive could legitimately ignore provisions of law they deemed obsolete ... It would be a grim moment in history if the very oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution' that made a person President was also a falsehood that defied the document." Chin was referring to a McCain presidency, but should not the same sentiment apply to any president, including Obama?

Constitutional experts who were once vocal opponents of birthright citizenship have failed to opine on the very related eligibility issue. Does their silence imply that they now believe that a birth certificate is the only requirement for citizenship? In an article discussing Marco Rubio's eligibility, Solum was quoted as saying that the birthers' "arguments aren't crazy," but declined to elaborate.

Will academia break that silence by addressing the question of Obama's eligibility with at least the same attention and level of scholarship given to McCain's? And will academia assist our nation in reforming immigration policies that comprehensively address and resolve the issues created by the birthright citizenship practice and growing proportion of dual citizens?

According to a new study posted on Professor Turley's blog, law professors rank second among professions "that pay the most for the least amount of work." Maybe they can find time in their busy schedules to educate us on these issues, in a scholarly, and not political, fashion.

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...gs_obamas_citizenship_and_the_presidency.html

 

Unfortunately for you birtheers, not a single member of congress agrees with you. Nor does a single member of the judiciary. That's why you've lost every legal challenge to date and why obama is still POTUS.

 

Well at least you quouted one credible source- the CRS.

That is what I should have done from the beginning. Great detailed analysis.

But since you already have, I will just quote the Indian Court of Appeals- actual legal experts:

"Based upon 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."

But of course, Americans all know this. We all know this. Everyone born and raised here knows this. We all learned it growing it up. The voters knew it, the Electoral College knew it, Congress knew it, Chief Justice Roberts knows it.

The CRS and the Indiana Court of Appeals is just reiterating common knowledge.

So yes, once again I it takes me less than 2 paragraphs to state what everyone knows- anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, except the children of Diplomats. And Obama was and still is our legal President.

 

To SFJEFF: Indiana Court of Appeals! If you want to mix and match do it in an original message.

Nevertheless, Hussein stands a good chance of being kept off the ballot in several states.

 

there is actually zero chance he will be kept off any state ballots.

 

Only if you define 'good chance' as "the viability of a snowball in the core of the sun" as a 'good chance'.

And I have the stats to back me up:
Last election: on the ballot in all 50 states.
Birther wins in court: zero

Birthers have had an absolutely perfect record of failure. I fully expect they will meet our expectations this time too.

 

To SFJEFF: Congress and the federal courts were determined tp protect “their president” from the outset; so it was always a big mistake thinking they would even take up the matter.

Hussein was on the ballot in all fifty states in 2008. That won’t be the case this year because ballot eligibility is decided by state legislatures and state judges if there is a challenge.

And let’s not forget Pelosi’s involvement in getting Hussein on all of those state ballots in 2008:

The Theory is Now A Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583

Also, let me remind you that “lack of standing” was the method federal judges used to keep the case from going forward. Now, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering standing in a new light:

The judges had observed: “These plaintiffs argue that they have standing because, as candidates running against Obama in the 2008 election, they had an interest in having a fair competition. … If Obama entered the presidential race without meeting the requirements for the office, they contend, the candidates did not have a fair opportunity to obtain votes in their favor.”

The opinion from the panel of judges Harry Pregerson, Ray Fisher and Marsha Berzon explained the concept is called “competitive standing,” and they affirmed it as legitimate grounds for concern.​

See the article for full details:

Eligibility appeal seeks level election playing field
Current standard 'denies redress' when unqualified candidate on ballot
by Bob Unruh

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/eligibility-appeal-seeks-level-election-playing-field/

 

Hussein is losing the skirmish in Arizona. The pitched battle in Georgia ain’t going too well either.

I must say that there are more wheels within wheels in this presidential election than in any election in my lifetime. One wheel is ballot eligibility.

Another wheel drives the Democrat party's nominating convention. If a bunch of states keep Hussein off the ballot before the convention he might not run. If the states rule after Hussein is nominated that would trigger a write-in campaign in those states Hussein is not on the ballot.

A write-in campaign would set yet another wheel in motion. As I understand it the full, accurate, LEGAL, name of a write-in candidate must be written out for the vote to be counted. So do his supporters write Barack Hussein Obama, or Barry Soetoro? No one can say for sure.

Finally, after looking at stiffs the Republicans are running, I must admit Hussein’s trials and tribulations are at least entertaining.

BY LINDA BENTLEY | JANUARY 4, 2012
Obama eligibility challenges move forward in Georgia

‘[A] minority of Americans have an absolute right to be protected from a non-natural-born-citizen being elected President’

ATLANTA – On Jan. 3, 2012, Georgia Administrative Law Judge Michael M. Malihi, who consolidated several cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be placed on the primary ballot in Georgia, issued an order denying Obama’s motion to dismiss those challenges.

In a footnote, Malihi stated, “Because defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied, in the interest of efficiency, the court finds it unnecessary to wait for plaintiffs’ responses before denying the motion.”

In November, Attorney Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation filed a challenge in the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, on behalf of Plaintiff David Welden, challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be placed on the state’s primary election ballot.

Attorney Orly Taitz, on behalf of plaintiffs David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, also filed a challenge to Obama being placed on the Georgia presidential primary ballot, as did Attorney J. Mark Hatfield, who filed separate challenges on behalf of Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell.

Irion, in possibly the only objection already filed to Obama’s motion to dismiss, stated, “Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the issue presented by the plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court,” and cited Minor v. Happersett.

He went on to say, “It is undisputed that President Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. To plaintiff’s knowledge Mr. Obama has never denied the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen, nor has he ever made any statements contrary to this fact.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizens’ as ‘all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.’”

While the Happersett court went on to state that there were other sub-categories of people who may or may not fit within the broader term “citizen,” Irion pointed out it did so only after specifically identifying the narrower category “natural-born citizen.”

Irion argued, “Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S.
Supreme Court. Therefore, the defendant cannot meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of President.”

Georgia Election Code states: “Every candidate for federal and state office … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

Despite the clear language of the code, Obama claimed, in his motion to dismiss, the law doesn’t apply to presidential primaries.

Irion called that argument “absurd” and stated, “If the state of Georgia intended presidential primaries to not be considered elections it would not codify the administration of such primaries within Title 21 of Georgia’s codes, entitled ‘Election Code.’”

Irion argued the code does not include an exception for presidential candidates because the legislature didn’t intend to make such an exception.

Pointing to the absurdity of Obama’s argument, Irion said in order for it to make sense, the presidential primary would need to be administered without candidates.

“However,” he wrote, “Georgia Election Code specifically requires the political parties to ‘submit to the secretary of state a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot’ … the list of names submitted by the parties to the secretary of state are ‘candidates’ in the presidential primary.”

Irion noted the relevant portion of statute states, “The secretary of state … may challenge the qualifications of any candidate prior to the presidential primary.”

He said, “Since no one has been elected to the office of President of the United States for the term of office beginning in January 2013, today is still ‘any time prior to the election of such candidate.’”

Irion called Obama’s conclusion that the issue raised by Welden was “soundly rejected by 69,459,897 Americans in the 2008 elections” “offensive to the Constitution” and said, “This statement reflects a complete lack of understanding regarding constitutional protections.”

He argued, “Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy without a constitution. In a Constitutional Republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon protected rights of a
minority.

“The Constitution is an anti-majoritarian document; meaning that it protects individuals from invasions and usurpations by the majority. Constitutionally protected rights are held inviolate regardless of the majority’s desire to violate them. Without such protections any law enacted by Congress would be valid, even if it denied an individual their right to life, liberty, or property.”

Without such protections, Irion said, “Congress could legalize the killing of all Jews, for example, as was done in World War II Germany. Constitutional requirements are absolute, and must be followed regardless of how popular or unpopular such requirements may be, because they are in place to protect the minority.”

Obama’s “presumption that the popular vote overrides the Constitution demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Constitution and emphasizes the critical role played by this court in protecting Americans from a tyrannical majority,” wrote Irion.

Further, Irion stated, “Contrary to the defendant’s statement, a minority of Americans have an absolute right to be protected from a non-natural-born-citizen being elected President.”

Malihi agreed with plaintiffs’ arguments that Georgia Election Code mandates “every candidate for federal and state office” shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought, both the secretary of state and electors of Georgia are granted the authority under the code to challenge the qualifications of a candidate, and plaintiffs timely filed their complaints challenging the presidential candidate’s qualifications in the presidential preference primary.

Malihi said, “Statutory provisions must be read as they are written … Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden.”

Reiterating the section of code stating “every candidate for federal and state office” must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, Malihi said he has seen no case law limiting this provision, any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating the provision doesn’t apply to the presidential preference primary.

In his order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss, Malihi found Obama is “a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

Taitz was almost moved to tears upon learning of Malihi’s ruling and said, “Finally, after three years of battle, for the first time a judge ruled that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied.”

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2012/120104/frontpage-eligibility.html

 

What "pitched battles" in Georgia.. The birthers are considered snaggle toothed illiterates.

 

Like monkeys with typewriters, eventually Birthers were bound to get something correct.

Birthers finally filed an action that wasn't on the face of it frivolous. Georgia state law allows any voter to challenge the ballot. This has absolutely nothing to do with merit- it is a right accorded to any voter. It would be no different than if a voter challenged Bachmann, claiming she is a witch and witches cannot be eligible- that case would be allowed also.

I look forward to this case. The judge will listen to the dreck that Birthers call evidence, the President's attorneys will provide the court with the certified copy of his birth certificate, and the judge will issue a judgement that the President is eligible.

Then you and the rest of your fellow travellers will declare this court to be part of the Konspiracy too- and likely call the judge a traitor.

Thats what Birthers do.

 

LOL... still with this (*)(*)(*)(*)?

I like that Flanders actually believes Obama will not be on the ballot in all 50 states, or that he won't get the nomination.

Umm... he won the Iowa caucus by appearing on a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing videoconference screen in Iowa and saying "Please vote for me!" How much of his billion dollar reelection fund do you think that took? $500?

He'll be on the ballot in 50 states, uncontested. He will be handed, uncontested, the DNC nomination. Anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional.