Previous post:

Next post:

Judge Rules Obama a “Natural Born Citizen”

by Keith Koffler on February 4, 2012, 7:40 am

An Atlanta judge Friday ruled that President Obama meets the Constitutional requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” and that he is therefore qualified to appear on the Georgia Democratic primary ballot.

Judge Michael Malihi issued his ruling even though Obama and his lawyers ignored a subpoena to appear before him in a hearing on the matter last week.

Malihi suggests that he would have issued a default ruling against Obama, but that he decided, at the request of the plaintiffs, to rule on the merits of the case instead. He adds, though, that he “in no way condones the conduct” of Obama’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski.

The matter now goes to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who will make the final determination on whether Obama can appear on the ballot.

Malahi curtly dismissed arguments that Obama’s Social Security number and birth certificate were fraudulent, as well as several similar claims, saying the testimony of witnesses on these issues possessed “little, if any value.”

But he took more seriously the argument that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

Because the Framers used the term instead of simply “citizen,” there has been some doubt as to its meaning. Some argue that the understanding at the time the Constitution was written was that “natural born citizen” meant both parents had to be citizens. Obama’s father was from Kenya and was not a U.S. citizen.

Malihi said he concurred with a 2009 decision by an Indiana court, which he says found that the “natural born citizen” applies to those born in the United States, whether their parents were citizens or not. He does not appear to have done his own research into the term, instead finding the investigation done by the Indiana court persuasive.

Leave a Comment

{ 5 trackbacks }

{ 70 comments… read them below or add one }

qestout February 4, 2012 at 7:48 am

Of course! We didn’t really expect that this would turn out any other way, did we?

Reply

brstevens February 4, 2012 at 8:45 am

Only the foolish expected this to turn out any way other than it did, I’m afraid.

Reply

DREAMS FROM MY NEIGHBOR February 4, 2012 at 3:52 pm

I guess I was foolish then.
And now we await the conclusion of Sheriff Joe’s investigation. But he will be dismissed as Racist and that will go away.
http://www.BirtherReport.com

Reply

Star February 4, 2012 at 4:15 pm

I am from Arizona–and believe me, you won’t be able to get anything from our dear Sheriff.

Reply

sportinlife10 February 4, 2012 at 7:54 am

It IS interesting that this controversy will not die, regardless of who rules what.

Reply

elm February 4, 2012 at 2:05 pm

kinda like the abortion issue in that respect.

Reply

Shofar February 4, 2012 at 8:43 am

I wonder what and if any outside influences came to bear on him with regard to the ruling.

The norm, I always thought, was if one party to a suit fails to show, then the decision automatically goes to the other party. This case seems to have violated the norm of court proceedings.

As far as relying on the Indiana decision, I would argue that Judge Malihi did not do his due diligence with regard to what the standard is for Georgia. Regardless of what another state court has found, it is the purview of the court involved to make a ruling based on that states laws and regulations, not to simply parrot some other jurisdictions decisions and ideas.

Keith, do you know if the plaintiffs in this matter can appeal to the Superior Court of the county, since this judge was an ALJ?

Reply

mac February 6, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Not the outcome you were expecting? The truth will never be accepted so why should the judge waste any more manpower and the court’s time with this unnecessary case. Case law all that was needed.

Reply

joeybitensr February 4, 2012 at 9:18 am

What happens when an “ordinary” citizen fails to obey a subpoena to appear in court?

Reply

gobnait February 4, 2012 at 9:51 am

Why does the Obama machine ALWAYS win?

Reply

elm February 4, 2012 at 2:06 pm

It’s good to be King.

Reply

Steve February 4, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Probably because the honorable Judge Malahi wanted to see his family again.

Reply

DeniseVB February 4, 2012 at 9:35 am

I would think if there’s anything in Obama’s past that would disqualify him, the Clinton Machine would have dug it up in 2008 ?

Reply

Susan February 4, 2012 at 10:09 am

I agree with you DeniseVB. In fact it was Hillary’s camp that started the “birther” story during the 2008 campaign.

We just have to try our best to remove zero at the ballot box this year.

Reply

sportinlife10 February 4, 2012 at 10:59 am

Dug it up, yes. Releasing it is a different much more nuanced story.

Reply

Robin February 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm

She didn’t want to actually use it, it was blackmail to get either a VP spot or her current spot.

Reply

CFlyJuice February 6, 2012 at 5:13 pm

If Hillary asked for an ACTUAL HARD COPY of the BC and as of today NOT ONE HAS BEEN PRODUCED, he would have been disqualified BUT BillHill knew that they would GET ZERO% of the black vote in 2008 general and would lose by 10,000,000 votes.
THAT is why they didn’t lay a glove on “the one”.

Reply

Moe February 4, 2012 at 9:43 am
srdem65 February 4, 2012 at 10:35 am

I side with the Catholic church on the issue and support the pro-life movement. OK?
However, the military is not governed by constitutional law, it is a law unto itself. For instance, there’s no guarantee of free speech in the military. The issue is not religious, but political, and the courts will ultimately decide on the merits or the WhiteHouse will cave under the pressure.

Reply

Bugwood February 4, 2012 at 10:30 am

“…Malihi said he concurred with a 2009 decision by an Indiana court, which he says found that the “natural born citizen” applies to those born in the United States, whether their parents were citizens or not.”

So this opens the door for Marco Rubio then.

Reply

Anonna February 4, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Yes, any anchor baby can become President.

So now we need to address the issue of birthright citizenship.

Or has this judge settled that, too?

Reply

srdem65 February 4, 2012 at 10:48 am

Whatever the outcome of the Presidental election, America will never again allow a newcomer to national politics to hide their past as MrO has done.

Reply

sallyhill February 4, 2012 at 11:17 am

I don’t really think it matters. I have this sneaky suspition that obama plns on never leaving the big house. I think we will have another 4 years of pres obama. Then an indefinite period of dictator obama.

Reply

MarjoJimbo February 5, 2012 at 7:48 am

My husband says almost the same thing: Mr. O will never leave the WH. He will manufacture or there will be such a crisis that he will call off the election in November and stay in office to manage the crisis. Similar to what another dictator did in the last century.

Reply

mac February 6, 2012 at 3:19 pm

When President Bush was in power, the left wing of the Democratic party were claiming that he would do the same thing to stay in power beyond 2008. It would seem that you are now claiming the samething. This could place you in with the right wing branch of the Republican party. Are these two extremes any different other than the years? Surely there are other areas to critique President Obama other than write out this allegation.

Reply

RedStateLady February 6, 2012 at 10:02 am

Unfortunately, I have long suspected those are his plans as well.

Reply

Star February 4, 2012 at 11:01 am

As of this AM, the Fix is in–our paper was beaming with WashPost stories on how all is well now, the dopey old economy is roaring back, the hopes of the Republicans are dashed, Jan Brewer still sucks, on and on… I think the JournoList is alive and bustling… It sort of made me tired… We can expect no meaningful analysis of the economy from now on–the party line is that the experts are so wowed by the numbers yesterday they revised all “gloomy” estimates. Yay. Confetti for all! And that silly old challenge by “birthers”–pish-tosh…

Reply

Mr. T. February 4, 2012 at 1:38 pm

It’s happening everywhere…all the AP reports yesterday about how there’s been a “surge” in hiring and that our unemployment woes are behind us, etc. etc. Good news if it were actually true…no one mentions how many people have given up entirely and aren’t even part of the “official” unemployment rate equation anymore.

Makes me tired, too. And depressed.

Reply

Star February 4, 2012 at 2:02 pm

AP–I now call them AssPress.

Reply

Sadie February 4, 2012 at 4:23 pm

AP- Always Progressive

Reply

Marilyn Miller February 5, 2012 at 11:25 am

AP has no comments section-that I’ve ever ben able to find.

The WH rag doesn’t WANT to know what the ‘unwashed’ is thinking. Ever notice how many personal WH and Moochelle stories they run?

Reply

Star February 5, 2012 at 12:06 pm

Yeah, well, pretty soon the unwashed won’t even be able to afford soap! This will stink in more ways than one.

Reply

gobnait February 5, 2012 at 9:11 am

Obama and his media minions cling to the CBO’s rosy reports like grim death and yet they completely ignored the recent spate of dire forecasts out of hand.

Reply

Star February 5, 2012 at 11:19 am

Sunday–ANOTHER letter to the editor about how this wonderful president has tried sooo hard to fix things but the mean Republicans just won’t let him. I thought at first Michelle wrote it, then realized it was too well written. Expect more and more of these.

Reply

elm February 4, 2012 at 2:13 pm

Perhaps if the unemployed/unemployable (because of the passage of time) would all send their resumes to the WH the dear leader could see first hand that the country is not so rosy. He can mix the numbers all he wants but the average Joe isn’t buying it. Just go to the pump, if you have the cash/credit or try to buy a week’s worth of groceries. Ask one question: Are you better off than three years ago?

Reply

Star February 4, 2012 at 2:40 pm

I sure am not…and I cry so much, my kid is alarmed. I think my resiliency is wearing thin.

Reply

Swedish lady February 5, 2012 at 3:41 am

So sorry to hear that, Star. Please hold out, the economy will turn, I am sure. And soon it´s springtime.

Reply

Star February 5, 2012 at 11:20 am

Thanks, Swedish Lady, our dear friend. I try to keep my chin up.

Reply

judybeth February 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, BHO went to Hawaii to visit his ill grandmother, so we were told. However, it was at that time, according to insiders, that BHO had his Birth Records “sealed”. He is the only one who could do that AND, by law, it must be done “in person”! Nobody will ever know the TRUTH, but sealing birth records is questionable as to WHY?

WHY aren’t any other records open to the public? His “official biographer” will have the massive task “creating” his life story. It should be a masterfully written work of FICTION.

Reply

pianogirl88 February 4, 2012 at 11:26 am

This does away with some of the noise I’ve heard about Gov. Bobby Jindal or Sen. Marco Rubio ~ both were born in this country, but some of the libs have been saying that their parents had not become citizens at the time of their births, so they don’t meet the requirements of the Constitution to be eligible to run for POTUS. That said, I’m not at all surprised at this outcome in Georgia, unfortunately.

Reply

ER February 4, 2012 at 2:05 pm

utter disregard for the Constitution! perhaps the saddest day in my life as a US citizen, because even though Congress, which failed on this, pledges to defend & protect the Constitution, a judge actually is supposed to be an expert on the Constitution…this was clearly willful, as the arguments he used are shockingly unsupporting…USA is finished, we are toast, unless someone has the balls to stand up for the law…prayers for the Sec of State!

Reply

elm February 4, 2012 at 2:15 pm

For a moment there I thought you were talking about Hillary.

Reply

Laurie February 4, 2012 at 2:13 pm

Malihi sounds Hawaiian to me.

Reply

mac February 6, 2012 at 3:22 pm

Does not matter, still American. Not a foreign country. Check a map and the number of states.

Reply

Eddie February 7, 2012 at 3:09 am

I’m sure Laurie knows that Hawaii is a state. More than likely she was pointing out the connection to judybeth’s post a few posts up and the judge’s name. The number of states varies depending on who you ask. If you ask a grade school kid they will tell you there are 50. If you ask BHO he might give you a slightly higher number as he stated in the 2008 campaign.

Reply

Robin February 4, 2012 at 2:20 pm

So now according to this, any anchor baby could become president. I can see the proliferation of pregnant Arab women being flown into the states to have their babies, taken home to be raised and then brought back to run for the presidency. Or maybe Mexico can run maternity bus tours. Brings a whole new meaning to Babies-R-Us.

I hope this can be appealed.

Reply

Susan February 4, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Anonna February 4, 2012 at 4:06 pm

The Chinese already do this —

Get your little hook into the future of the U.S.A.

Stand back for the resulting chain migration.

Reply

barkley pontree February 4, 2012 at 8:31 pm

I think I read the other day that because the Obama lawyers provided a copy of the BC, the opposition in the case has a right to compare it to the original. The judge in this case kicked that up to the next higher court to allow them to force Hawaii to produce the original to do the comparison. But, like all the other cases, I suspect this will get killed in the courts too, which should be a nice precedent that now originals do not have to be provided to prove the copies are accurate. Won’t that be fun in future court cases. So I guess the copy of the contract will no longer need to be compared to the original. Great case law there.

As for the economic comments, it’s already been shown they’ve dropped 1.8 million unemployed people from the unemployed population which is one reason the numbers dropped again. More interesting, it’s been going on for awhile and they don’t go back and recalculate. I suspect by election time they will drop the number by another 3 million or so so unemployment will be around 5 or 6%. Of course, there will be about 5 million unemployed people not getting any unemployment or working who will be voting and I doubt they will be stupid enough to vote for Obama again.

barkleypontree.blogspot.com

Reply

Anonna February 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm

Obama and his handlers didn’t want the issue discussed, so they didn’t show up, and they didn’t fear a default decision against them because –

the fix was in.

Reply

mortimerzilch February 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm

…but there is no good valid evidence Obama WAS born in the United States, and better evidence that he was born in Kenya…

Reply

Martha February 4, 2012 at 6:19 pm

I vote NO-bama 2013.
I personally do not believe he is a U.S. citizen, and even if he would be:
what kind of “president” orders the butchering of his own citizens in and out of the womb? And to force Catholics and everyone to perform and accept abortions? or else what? and legalize pervert lifestyles? and promote sexual and deviate instruction in our children’s schools?
He also wears a great deal of Muslim clothes in many photo ops as well- when will America wake up? Bad man and a bad government who put him there! He is corrupting and dumbing-down our children as well as weakening our nation.
Unholy and bad government crossing lines against God and man.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Reply

Illinois Jim February 5, 2012 at 12:15 am

There are no politicians with the balls to stand up to this fraud of a snake Barack Owe-Bama. However, there are plenty of politicial pricks who join Owe-Bama and screw us the taxpayer every day of the week!

Reply

DaFarmer February 5, 2012 at 12:19 am

So the ruling states if biorn in the US by anyone legal, illegal, citizen or non citizen parent(s) make you a born citizen! So what is the proof that he WAS born in Hawaii? More evidence was around (non destroyed) that he was born in Kenya! Soros has the USA by the balls?

Reply

Kyle February 5, 2012 at 12:26 am

That’s terrific. The Campaigner-in-Chief thumbs his nose at the Constitution, tells the judge to essentially screw off, and doesn’t show up… And he gets off the hook. This judicial system and country is so corrupt, I’m quite surprised it hasn’t collapsed upon itself yet. Hopefully, a second American Revolution will occur. To give rise to the now defunct Constitution and Bill of Rights destroyed by our country’s leadership.

Reply

Mikey February 5, 2012 at 1:26 am

The judge is an ignorant boob.

Reply

Martina Poole February 5, 2012 at 2:33 am

REALLY?!! I mean come on the man did not even show up to court!!! He presented NO EVIDENCE and the dumb judge ruled in his favor???? This is insane. This man is a fraud!!

Reply

Swedish lady February 5, 2012 at 4:29 am

Well, well, the judge didn´t hold out. Maybe it was too much to ask from a lonely civil servant. The Obama show continues.
Thanks for the article, Keith, great that you keep following these events.
I believe that Obamas Achilles heel really is in his background and hidden records ( well, the other very vulnerable heel is of course the economy and deficit ) and as long as at least some brave men and women in the media keep on asking questions about his coverup something important can be gained. But the Democrat machine will simply crush any real attempts to unveil the truth. However afterwards, when he is just private Mr Obama, oh, the divine justice. I am sooo interested in those school records. I don´t care so much about his birthrecords ( though I believe they are false ) because I realize it will never be permitted to see his presidency as built on a lie. The little trial in Georgia is evidence of that. And just imagine the consequences for the country . But please journalists, let Obama sweat, make him feel uneasy this year. Say ” Why hide something as innocent as school records ? ” clear and loud in a live interview . Why isn´t that possible ?

Reply

Just2old February 5, 2012 at 8:38 am

Our judicial system is FUBAR!

Reply

Susan February 5, 2012 at 9:53 am

That would be a good description for the entire federal government!

Reply

Bitter Clinger February 5, 2012 at 10:51 am

@Bugwood: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Reply

Jim from Easton February 5, 2012 at 12:24 pm

There is strong, but not 100% certain, evidence that at the time of the writing of the Constitution (1787), “natural born citizen” meant a person whose both parents were citizens. The 14th amendment, however, has been interpreted to mean that virtually anyone born within the bounds of the United States is a citizen. There is the proviso in the 14th amendment “and under the jurisdiction thereof” that would seem to eliminate automatic citizenship for a child born within the U.S of foreign nationals, but it has been interpreted to mean only children born of foreign diplomats, i.e. ambassadors, etc. as opposed to foreign tourists or immigrants, legal or illegal whose children all get automatic U.S. citizenship if they are born within the U.S. borders. Since the 14th amendment was actually meant to grant citizenship to slaves and their children, these interpretations are suspect but are what has happened, nonetheless. The 14th amendment was ratified by the states that comprised the Union in 1868, (the former Confederate states were not allowed back into the union unless they ratified the amendment, which makes the whole ratification process suspect, also) and it nowhere mentions “natural born,” so it tells us nothing about what was meant by “natural born” in 1787.

It sounds to me like this judge is using the 14th amendment interpretation, and is accepting research done in another case that came to the conclusion that “natural born” did not positively and irrefutably mean having both parents as citizens at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Again, this is very suspect, but it was so ruled. It may have to be determined by the Supreme Court, but I have a feeling they will refuse to hear it in any case. I think it’s pretty obvious that no judge is going to rule at this point in time that Obama is not qualified.

Reply

Susan February 5, 2012 at 4:49 pm

Sheesh… Can’t we have one day of enjoyment without having to listen to this man’s droning voice? Matt Lauer and his obligatory Super Bowl Sunday interview with the liar in chief. Blech….

Reply

Star February 5, 2012 at 5:13 pm

Pass.

Reply

Star February 5, 2012 at 5:14 pm

I usually say Matt Liar.

Reply

Susan February 5, 2012 at 5:42 pm

I like it Star.

Reply

Kathy February 5, 2012 at 5:57 pm

This was already decided back in the 1800′s, the definition of natural born citizen. Obama in no way qualifies as a natural born citizen period.
The fact that he is using a fradulent ss # should also be a qualifier for his dismissal.

Reply

CFlyJuice February 6, 2012 at 5:15 pm

Taitz had a subpoena for an actual HARD COPY of the BC in Honolulu and WAS DENIED.

Does anyone REALLY believe that a hard copy exists of that 19 layer digitally created phony????

Reply

ehancock February 7, 2012 at 11:08 am

There was NO subpoena. Only one of the birther lawyers said that there was a subpoena. Administrative Law Courts in Georgia cannot issue subpoenas, and in fact the judge never mentioned a subpoena—-which he surely would have if indeed he had issued one.

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.]

Reply

ehancock February 7, 2012 at 1:10 pm

Re: “Does anyone REALLY believe that a hard copy exists of that 19 layer digitally created phony????”

Answer: Sure. It was passed around in the White House Press Room, and everyone there got a chance to hold it, examine it, and feel the raised seal on the back. One even photographed it. There is a hard copy for Obama’s short form birth certificate too, and Obama’s campaign showed it to BOTH FactCheck and Poltifact. And THREE Republican (and several Democrat) officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate, that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. And this is further confirmed by the notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. No, they would not have been placed by the relatives. Why not? Because the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 only ran the notices sent to them by the government. Could the government have been fooled in 1961. No. Why not? Because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, it insisted on sworn witness statements.

Reply