On January 26, 2012, in an Atlanta, Georgia courtroom, Judge Michael Malihi presided over challenges to Obama’s placement on Georgia’s ballot to run as President. Obama, though subpoenaed, naturally did not attend the hearing, and neither did his lawyer. For a “blow by blow” account of the hearing, check it out here. . You could see James David Manning’s interview of Carl Swenssen, a principle in the legal challenge, at Give Us Liberty.
The case will be decided on February 1, with Georgia’s Secretary of State announcing on February 2 whether Obama will be on Georgia’s ballot. (Strangely, a trial of such importance was not covered by the mainstream media. I wonder why.)
Georgia is among several states whose citizens question whether Obama is eligible to run as POTUS according to that “quaint” piece of parchment, the U.S. Constitution. (To see more states go to Obama Challenge. Specifically, the issue raised in Georgia, among several, is whether Obama is a “natural born citizen.”
“Natural born citizen” comes from Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the President to be, among other things, a “natural born Citizen.” Article 1, on the other hand, requires a Representative and a Senator to be, among other things, a “Citizen.” What is the difference between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”? Is there a difference without a distinction? Do you suppose a creative writing coach told the writers of those Articles to embellish the President’s requirement to be a “natural born Citizen” so as to “jazz up” the writing?
While I wait for your answer, I will say that it’s been correctly claimed that the Constitution does not define a “natural born Citizen.” But, it’s also been correctly claimed that the Constitution does not define a “Citizen” either. Despite these facts, suffice it to say that it was understood in 18th Century America that a “natural born Citizen” is someone who is a citizen, born on native soil and whose two parents were both citizens, born on native soil. And while the framers of the Constitution required Representatives and Senators to be mere Citizens, they required the President to be a “natural born Citizen” because they feared that the loyalty of the President as Commander-in-Chief might become divided if he were of a dual citizenship. Recall that a war was recently fought with England and you can understand their fear. (For an expatiated account of “natural born citizen,” see Leo Donofrio’s Amicus Brief for the Georgia case.)
As further proof of the Framers’ understanding of a “natural born citizen,” they knew you can’t be a “natural born [United States] citizen” until July 4, 1776. Since many Framers had presidential aspirations, to make them eligible to be President, they “grandfathered” themselves in by adding the clause that requires each of them to be a mere “Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” (Was Obama “grandfathered” in by this clause?)
To remind you, the framers’ understanding of a “natural born citizen” is a person who is a citizen born on native soil, and whose two parents were both citizens born on native soil. So:
Is Obama a U.S. citizen born on U.S. soil? Yes, as far as his recently presented, though long demanded (and red herring) “long form” birth certificate attests. Is Obama’s mother a U.S. citizen born in the U.S.? Yes. Is Obama’s father a U.S. citizen born in the U.S.?
Hello, Houston we have a problem! Obama’s admission that his father was a Kenyan (and a British) citizen would make Obama, at best, a “native-born” citizen and certainly not a constitutionally required “natural born” citizen, and therefore, he is definitely, positively, absolutely ineligible to be President. This fact is so obvious and so simple to understand, yet Obama was elected POTUS. How can this be? How has he gotten away with it and continues to get away with it?
But the main question is: Are we going to let him get away with it again when he tries to get re-elected POTUS? Even more poignant, is Obama above the Constitution, the “Supreme Law of the Land,” as he probably thinks so?
This may be the beginning of Obama’s end. Let’s hope Judge Michael Malihi will order Obama kicked off the ballot, as he probably will. Should the good judge do so, Obama will lose Georgia’s twelve (12) electoral votes. Should other States kick Obama off their ballots, he will lose their electoral votes. It is conceivable that since Obama needs 270 electoral votes to be elected POTUS, with several States kicking him off their ballots because their Courts determined Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to run for POTUS, he may lack the 270 electoral votes to be POTUS. Let’s hope this will be the case. But, whichever, you won’t hear it through the mainstream media. So keep posted to your Internet Provider.
Thanks for reading.