AP Downplays Obama Ineligiblity to Appear on State Ballots

Several lawsuits have challenged Obama's Eligibility. Some of these challenges are based upon the information we posted on May 14, 2011 entitled How You Can Remove Barack Obama from the 2012 Election. We pointed out that challenges to Obama's eligibility have not been heard "on the merits" and all have been dismissed on technicalities. Such oppression of the constitution relies upon corruption and intimidation of the legal system, which will not occur everywhere.  Barack Obama can be removed from state ballots as we explained:

Sparing you all the legal mumbo-jumbo, Obama could be kept off the STATE ballots due to eligibility requirements. Constitutional eligibility requirements to run for President are easy to find, and due to preemption states must abide by these requirement. Despite what you may read on wikipedia, Four supreme court cases and Senate Resolution 511 confirm that a person must be born of American citizen parents to be considered a "Natural Born Citizen." The founders and the Supreme Court of the United States are clear that the origin of this clause is "The Law of Nations" written by Emmerich de Vattel.

In recent news, The Associated Press is downplaying, but reporting, one of the state challenges against Obama:

A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president.

It's one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

An Obama campaign aide says any attempt to involve the president personally will fail and such complaints around the country have no merit.

The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

This argument is supported by a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1875, Minor v. Happersett. The ruling, which addresses the definition of “natural born citizen” as opposed to a naturalized citizen, 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.”

Deputy Chief Judge, Michael Malihi (link is currently hacked: http://www.osah.ga.gov judges directory), in the Office of State Administrative Hearings, ruled:

“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,”Malihi 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 judge went on to say in his ruling, “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.”

Following the denial of the president’s motion, a hearing was scheduled for Jan. 26 on the issue.