Judge Michael Malihi Orders Barack Obama Eligible to be on Georgia Presidential Ballot … Good News for Obama, Even Better for Marco Rubio

 

Barack Obama wins the battle, but Democrats may have lost the war …

President Barack Obama has won the court battle in Georgia that questioned his right to be on the 2012 Presidential ballot due to his citizenship. Judge Michael Malihi dismissed the challenges that contended Obama has a fake Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid US  identification papers. The Judge also dismissed the the claim that Obama was ineligible to be a candidate because his father was not a United States citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

President Barack Obama’s name will remain on the Georgia primary ballot after a state law judge flatly rejected legal challenges that contend he can not be a candidate.

In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has a computer-generated Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is ineligible to be a candidate because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

The findings by Malihi, a judge for the State Office of Administrative Hearings, go to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who will make the final determination. Last month, at a hearing boycotted by Obama’s lawyer, Malihi considered complaints brought by members of the so-called “birther” movement.

The court battle was over the definition of “naturalized citizen” and whether Barack Obama met the threshold in order to be able to run for President. The US Constitutionstates that to run for the highest office in the land a President must not be just a citizen, but a naturalized citizen. As stated at Wizbang, the judge’s ruling and the Indiana court’s ruling conform to the ruling in the SCOTUS case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where it was ruled that a person born inside the USA is automatically a natural-born U.S. citizen.  So what happens when one has dual citizenship? How about the child of illegal aliens?

Addressing the other claim that contends Obama cannot be a candidate because his father was never a U.S. citizen, Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents.

Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,” Malihi wrote. Accordingly, Obama is eligible as a candidate for the upcoming presidential primary in March, the judge said.

The birther’s need to pretty much give it a rest when it comes to trying to disqualify Obama from running for office because of citizenship. Its a losing battle. There are far too numerous things that Obama has done since becoming President that would disqualify him from a second term. Namely his dereliction of duty to “We the People” and his full speed Deadhead liberal/socialist agenda against the will of the people.

However, before Barack Obama and the Democrats have a party, they may want to hold the champagne and party poppers. Don’t ask for things they might come true. Obama may have won a victory, but guess who this decision paves the way for in future President elections … can you say Marco Rubio? Birthers had claimed that Rubio was also not a natural born citizen, because his parents were not US citizens at the time he was born. According to the above precedent, it does not matter. This also clears the way for Rubio to become VP, if he accepts.

But, as the Miami Herald points out, “natural born citizen” has never been defined. While some would contend that anyone born inside the U.S. would and should be considered citizens, birthers disagree. They rely on old writings that apparently stem from the nation’s founding to claim that an individual must be born to two U.S. citizens in order to be “natural born.”

Rubio, who was born in 1971 at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, doesn’t fit that bill. In fact, his parents didn’t become citizens until 1975.

I wonder how many Democrats are going to question Rubio’s citizenship in the future after defending Obama’s? Although the two are drastically different sets of circumstances. No one is questioning that Rubio’s birth certificate is a fake. Mark my words, this decision will come back to haunt Democrats in the future when a Republican, conservative, Tea Party Hispanic Cuban runs for office. Can you say President Marco Rubio?



If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Senator Marco Rubio (FL-R) Calls For Eric Holder to Resign
  • Florida Republican Primary for Senate 2010: Rubio Up Big … Rubio 54%, Crist 36%
  • GOP and Tea Party Super Star Florida US Senator Marco Rubio Endorses Mitt Romney
  • Barack Obama Ordered To Appear Before Atlanta Judge in Case Challenging Whether he is Qualified to be President of the United States
  • Senator Marco Rubio (FL-R) to Obama … You are Turning America into a “Deadbeat Nation”




  • Comments

    17 Responses to “Judge Michael Malihi Orders Barack Obama Eligible to be on Georgia Presidential Ballot … Good News for Obama, Even Better for Marco Rubio”

    1. David W. Robertson on February 4th, 2012 4:41 pm

      The SCOTUS case of “United States v. Wong Kim Ark” pertains to a man who was the son of Chinese immigrants. Neither of the man’s parents were U.S. citizens. Yet, the Court ruled that the man was born a citizen of the USA by virtue of the fact that he was born in the state of California. According to this particular SCOTUS decision, both Barack Obama and Marco Rubio are natural-born citizens of the USA.

      What birthers overlook is the fact that U.S. citizenship is obtained by one of two ways. Either a person has citizenship at time of birth (Obama, Rubio), or a person gains citizenship through naturalization (Schwarzenegger). The U.S. Constitution states that a person must be a U.S. citizen at time of birth in order to be eligible for the U.S. Presidency. So, Obama and Rubio are eligible, but not Schwarzenegger.

      If Obama manages to be re-elected, then I would be in favor of “President-elect Rubio” in the year 2016.

    2. A Texas Grandfather on February 5th, 2012 12:04 am

      This judge built a “strawman” argument based on the 14th amendment to reach his flawed decision.

      The 14th amendment was never fully adopted by the required three-fourths majority of the states. The theft of this amendment by the Republicans and the subsequent illegal ocupation of the southern states by the U.S. Army troups following the “Civil War” is known as “reconstruction”.

      I would not be suprised to learn that this judge was told to find for the Obama elgibility or loose his family. More “Chicago” style politics.

    3. rightknight on February 5th, 2012 1:52 am

      Who gives this Judge the authority to: “Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has a computer-generated Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers”?

    4. Texan on February 5th, 2012 4:50 am

      David, you’re wrong.

      A natural-born citizen, as ruled in SCOTUS case “Minor v. Happersett”, is one of whom BOTH parents (Obama’s father is Kenyan), were US citizens at the time of their birth:

      “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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

    5. ehancock on February 5th, 2012 12:14 pm

      The reason the judge ruled the way that he did was (1) birthers did not prove that Obama was born outside of the USA; (2) every US citizen born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen.

      No. Minor Vs Happersett is not a ruling. It is DICTA, and it says right in the case that the court did not have to decide the definition of citizenship, much less Natural Born Citizenship.

      However, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision (which followed the Minor vs Happersett decision and hence would have overturned it, if Minor vs Happersett actually was a decision, which it wasn’t) ruled that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.

      “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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”— Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

      “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    6. A Texas Grandfather on February 5th, 2012 6:53 pm

      According to the original clause for natural born citizen in the Constitution and the use of the work of Vatel in determining a “natural born” citizen as was done by our founders, neither Obama or Rubio are qualified.

      Many people have a misunderstanding (some on purpose for a political reason) of the difference of “native born” and “natural born”.

      The Senate judicial committee can say anything they want about their understanding of the constitution and it does not change one thing about its meaning. Even though the 14th ammendment is without proper ratification, Senator Bingham explains in his presentation of the amendment that it was not changing the meaning of the original clause of the constitution. His remarks can be found in the Congressional Record.

    7. ehancock on February 6th, 2012 11:00 am

      Further to Bingham.

      He also said:

      “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

    8. ehancock on February 6th, 2012 12:58 pm
    9. nancy on February 6th, 2012 9:34 pm

      Can you say President Marco Rubio?

      not without laughing silly birther
      _______________________
      SM: Who is a birther? I certainly am not a birther. I have said pretty much from the outset that there is too much material from Obama’s first term in office to go after, ie his record, than to have to do this stuff on his birth certificate.

      Do I think that a President needs to provide all documentation proving they were born in the US, of course. I would like to believe that we have a process in place that does not allow a photo-shopped fake id to pass as valid identification.

      Obama has done far too much against the will of the American people to waste any time with continuing the birth certificate thing. Its a diversion.

      As for Marco Rubio being President … that has a better chance of happening than an Obama second term.
      R

    10. SUPER DAVE on February 7th, 2012 8:23 am

      once a somalian pirate, always a somalian pirate.

    11. Mac on February 7th, 2012 9:03 am

      I guess this ends this chapter in the quest to get the big eared guy off the ticket in Georgia.

    12. Edward Piccoli on February 7th, 2012 9:33 am

      WOW!!!! All the world now knows that a pregnant woman can take a quick flight or book a cruise to America and have her child. This child immediately becomes an American citizen. Have you ever heard anything more insane. This is the Georgia State Department and Georgia Court rulings, “Any child born in America is a citizen”. WOW!! Come on world, what are you waiting for. You don’t even need to stay, just come, have your child and leave. They are instantly American citizens. Incredible!

    13. ehancock on February 7th, 2012 10:31 am

      Re: “Do I think that a President needs to provide all documentation proving they were born in the US, of course. I would like to believe that we have a process in place that does not allow a photo-shopped fake id to pass as valid identification. ”

      Only birther “experts” have claimed that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate. Obama showed both the image (which is the way to show things on the Web) and the physical copies of both his short-form and long-form birth certificates. The latter was passed around in the White House press room and everyone there got a chance to hold it, examine it and feel the official seal (which is on the back, where it is supposed to be).

      One reporter in the White House even photographed it. FactCheck did detailed photos of the front and back and the seal of the short-form birth certificate. No official in Hawaii has ever said that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate. But THREE Republican (and several Democrat) officials in Hawaii have said that the facts on Obama’s birth certificate are accurate–that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. The current DOH of Hawaii stated in writing that she saw the original birth certificate in Obama’s file being copied onto security paper to create the official physical copy of his long-form birth certificate.

      In addition to this there are the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. No, these could NOT have been placed by relatives. Why not? Because Hawaii newspapers did not accept birth notice ads in 1961; they only took the notices that were sent to them by the Hawaii government. Did Hawaii send out notices for births outside of Hawaii? NO. Could it have been fooled by relatives claiming a birth outside of a hospital? NO. Why not? Because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital Hawaii insisted on a witness statement.

      So, what are the chances of Obama having been born in a foreign country? In contrast, what are the chances of one of the Republican candidates for president having been born in a foreign country? NONE of them has shown his birth certificate. None of the former Republican candidates for president has shown her or his birth certificate.

      Hawaii is 12,000 miles from Kenya, and yet birthers claim that Obama could have been born in Kenya–despite the enormous expense and risk of such a long trip. Detroit (where Romney is said to have been born) is less than 50 miles from Canada. Yet birthers have not asked to see his birth certificate.

    14. ehancock on February 7th, 2012 10:36 am

      Re:

      “According to the original clause for natural born citizen in the Constitution and the use of the work of Vatel in determining a “natural born” citizen as was done by our founders, neither Obama or Rubio are qualified.”

      Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. Vattel recommended that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it or make them leave the country. We did not adopt that recommendation.

      No writer of the US Constitution or other American leader at the time can be found to be using the term Natural Born in the two-citizen-parent way, and lots can be found using it in the common law way. The reason that the US Supreme Court has ruled (six to two, one not voting )that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law is that it is obvious that indeed it does come from the common law.

    15. Josh Wilson on February 12th, 2012 7:34 pm

      Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England.
      Andrew Jackson’s father was born in (Northern) Ireland.
      Chester Arthur’s father was born in Ireland.

      Citizenship of the parents is irrelevant. The US is a Jus Soli nation. Born on our soil, you are a natural born citizen.

      Now Obama’s policies on the other hand are the actual problem.

    16. Jeremy on March 24th, 2012 9:37 pm

      I read these comments and its no wonder why Obama has such support and the birther movement goes nowhere. The stupidity of people is amazing. The burden of proof is on Obama to prove he is eligible not the other way around and he could have been born on the White House steps and he would not be eligible as his father was a British Subject at the time of his birth. He is not a natural born citizen and not eligible and that is before you get into all the crimes he has committed such as social security fraud and selective service fraud. We have been usurped by a foreigner and most americans are clueless about it. Why does anyone spend millions hiding all his birth college and travel records if he is eligible?

    17. ehancock on March 29th, 2012 6:43 am

      Re: “he could have been born on the White House steps and he would not be eligible as his father was a British Subject at the time of his birth. ”

      Who told you that? It is wrong.

      As Josh Wilson pointed out, the US is a jus soli nation. The meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, and it means that every child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born.

      “At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”— Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service, November 2011.

      “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    Leave a Reply




    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

     
     
    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Close
    E-mail It