Thread: Georgia Court Ruled Against Obama

"David Welden, a citizen of Georgia, filed a complaint under Georgia law challenging the qualifications of Obama to appear on the GA ballot for the office of President. He then contacted Liberty Legal Foundation and requested our assistance. We have been representing him in this action since December. Liberty Legal Foundation filed an opposition to Obama’s motion to dismiss. The Georgia court agreed with our reasoning. On January 3, 2012 Judge Malihi denied Obama’s motion. The court’s short opinion also clearly stated that Georgia law allows Mr. Weldon to challenge candidate Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to hold the office of President. This ruling ensures that the Georgia court will be the first court to address the substantive Constitutional issue of eligibility. All other courts that have heard challenges to Obama’s Constitutional qualifications to hold office have refused to address the substantive issue and have dismissed on procedural grounds." http://libertylegalfoundation.org/ce...lot-challenge/



January 3, 2012


Breaking CCA News! This morning the Georgia Court of Administrative Hearings denied Obama’s motion to dismiss our ballot challenge. More importantly, the court’s opinion ruled in our favor on all procedural and state law issues, leaving only one thing left to decide: Whether Obama is a natural-born-citizen under the Constitution. Remember that no court has ever addressed this issue! As you know our argument is very simple. We argue that the Supreme Court has defined “natural-born-citizen” as a person with two U.S. citizen parents, and Obama admits that his father was never a U.S. citizen.

Others have raised many legal theories and asserted numerous facts regarding Obama’s past, his identity, his parentage, and his qualifications to hold office. None of those others have EVER succeeded in having a single court address the substantive issues they raised. Every one of those cases have been dismissed on procedural grounds without considering the substantive arguments at issue. Liberty Legal Foundation will now be the first to appear before a court that has affirmatively stated that it will decide the Constitutional question.

The hearing is set for 9AM on January 26th in Atlanta, Georgia.

As you know, we have similar cases filed in Tennessee state court and Federal court in Arizona. Hopefully the Georgia court will set the groundwork for victories across the country. If any court rules that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President, it will be a major victory and should make international news. All the motions are located on our website on the Georgia Ballot Challenge page.

Let us all pray that 2012 will finally be the year the courts uphold the Constitution on this critical issue. It is certainly wonderful to start the year with a win!

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/14...against-obama/

© 2012, Liberty Legal Foundation

Nice find!

RELATED

Federal court rejects 'birther' challenge to Obama presidency
http://www.alipac.us/threads/246386-...t=obama+ballot

Ala. lawsuit challenges Obama's birth certificate
http://www.alipac.us/threads/247615-...ia+court+obama

AL. Democrats file more arguments to dismiss suit to keep president off state ballot
http://www.alipac.us/threads/247615-...ia+court+obama

But I think the beauty of this one is a "Natural born Citizen" requires Both Parents to be US Citizens by Supreme Court definition...By focusing on this one issue and this one issue only, it may fly..

RELATED

Mitt Romney Not a Natural Born US Citizen, his father born in Mexico

http://www.alipac.us/threads/247484-...58#post1249058

Originally Posted by AZres

But I think the beauty of this one is a "Natural born Citizen" requires Both Parents to be US Citizens by Supreme Court definition...By focusing on this one issue and this one issue only, it may fly..

Yeah, I'd love to see these idiots that are using semantics finally shut up.

He was born in Hawaii and it was a natural birth doesn't make him a Natural Born Citizen.

Subject to the Jurisdiction there of doesn't simply mean subject to the law. etc.

Qualifications for President and the "Natural Born" Citizenship Eligibility Requirement - CRS Report

Release Date: Nov. 14, 2011 Source agency: Congressional Research Service

Summary: The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident within the United States for 14 years, and a natural born Citizen. There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements (although several cases have addressed the term natural born citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation. The term natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen, as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. 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. In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens at birth or by birth, and are natural born, as opposed to naturalized, U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President. Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term natural born in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent). The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term natural born citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth or at birth, either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship at birth. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an alien required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen. http://www.legistorm.com/score_crs/show/id/82388.html

Awesome, persistence paying off!

Mitt Romney was born to American parents on American soil. His father George though born in Mexico was also an American citizen. How else would he have been able to become the Governor of Michigan?