Previous post:

Next post:

Obama Officially on the Ballot in Georgia

by Keith Koffler on February 7, 2012, 3:35 pm

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp formally ruled that President Obama qualifies to be placed on the ballot for the upcoming Democratic primary in the state, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The ruling was expected after an Atlanta judge rejected arguments that Obama does not qualify as a “natural born citizen” as required of presidents under the Constitution.

Obama and his attorneys refused to appear for a hearing the judge conducted into the matter.

{ 15 comments }

Steve February 7, 2012 at 4:27 pm
AFVET February 7, 2012 at 4:39 pm

What about the rest of the states contesting his eligibility?
Are the thugs going to reduce them to mush also?
We shall see.

BigBoa February 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Of course they will.

And next time you’re ordered to appear before a judge, just tell them you’re busy, that it would inconvenience you to come and remind him just to go ahead and rule in your favor.

The courts keep rejecting these suits, claiming the people have “no grouinds”. Yet a federal court in California has time to hear a case as to whether or not whales are enslaved against their will in a zoo?

And you are pinning the hopes of the Republic on a sham election in Nobember???

BigBoa February 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Grounds, that is…

ehancock February 8, 2012 at 1:34 pm

Obama was not ordered to appear. Only a birther lawyer said that there had been a subpoena issued. The judge never said any such thing.

Lanie February 7, 2012 at 5:31 pm

Oh what a surprise. Do judges seem to have more authority than our Constitution and state Constitution’s authorize or I am just imagining they do?

Susan February 7, 2012 at 7:25 pm

We are in a post constitutional society. The rule of law doesn’t apply to our three branches of our government. The laws only apply to we the people.

Jack February 7, 2012 at 9:58 pm

Sad but very true.

BigBoa February 8, 2012 at 12:21 pm

The mighty Boa has been trying to explain this for quite some time. Yet still people complain something appears to be “unConstitutional”…….

What do you have when the people who write the laws are exempt, but the people continue to subject themselves to those same laws? Tyranny. That is what you have. And not some stupid “soft tyranny” as Levin is fond of saying. It is an outright tyranny with O’Bozo residing as dictator. Unfortunately, Levin hangs up on anyone suggesting the need for a revolt. He appears to fail to realize, we have passed the point of no return where that is going to be the only solution. Sham elections are not going to resolve anything. And obviously 4 years time is more than sufficient for a moron like O’Bozo to do more than considerable damage.

qestout February 7, 2012 at 6:17 pm

No surprise here.

Girly1 February 7, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Wigglesworth February 7, 2012 at 9:11 pm

Unfortunately, I think judges don’t want to deal with it so they just say anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen. We have foreign diplomats giving birth here in the US and getting birth certificates.

ehancock February 8, 2012 at 1:31 pm

The children of foreign diplomats are not eligible to become citizens at birth because their parents are not subject to the jurisdiction. Every other child born in the USA becomes a US citizen at birth, and a Natural Born Citizen at that. Why? Because the meaning of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written referred to the PLACE of birth, not the parents, the place.

Here is an example from 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:

“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, that refers only to place. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within a state.” And here is how it was used in 1829:

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

Not every native born person is a Natural Born Citizen, but ALL native born persons who are citizens are Natural Born Citizens. Only naturalized citizens, who were not citizens at birth, are not Natural Born Citizens.

J - Dubs February 8, 2012 at 9:54 am

Proof once again that we live in a Socialist country. Sad to admit, but I’ve resigned to the fact that we are now a Socialist nation. As a 23 year Army veteran and participant in three wars, I’ve come to realize I was fighting the wrong wars on the wrong front. Our country is now divided between the unwitting Socialists and the quiet freedon fighters.

ehancock February 8, 2012 at 1:26 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.]