GA Court Dismisses Obama’s Motion to Dismiss Ballot Challenge

Many who have opposed questioning Obama’s eligibility for President have often referred those who have questioned to legally begin questioning such eligibility issues at the beginning of a campaign season, and I think, in this instance, the opposition was and is correct.

Van Irion (please click on that link for a brief and impressive bio on this attorney), founder of LibertyLegalFoundation.org, was one of a number of parties who had filed suit in Georgia in the Court of Administrative Hearings challenging Obama’s eligibility:

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.

There will be a subsequent hearing on January 26 at 9am.

The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is a bit long, but well worth reading, especially for the interesting legal nuances that have been struck down. Not only was I amused by the lengths to which Obama (through his representation) went to circumvent what is truly a State’s rights issue (see the next document, mentioned in the next paragraph), but also — beginning on page 6 — all of the cases that have heretofore been brought before State and federal courts, to date, regarding Obama’s eligibility, as what I would call circumstantial evidence and post hoc ergo propter hoc evidence that, somehow, if more than 69 million Americans (assuming all were alive at the time of voting ) affirmatively voted for Obama, that therefore must mean that Obama is qualified for the presidency.

Next, the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Fantastically and plainly-written defense against Obama. Note especially:

• On page 2, a brief defense of a State’s right to regulate its own elections, whereby private political parties have no right to require the Secretary of State to confirm/deny (per statutory requirements) candidates submitted for ballot inclusion;
• Beginning on page 8, the real issue at hand:

The Defendant asserts that the issue raised by the Plaintiff has been defeated by “every judicial body ever to have considered it,” citing dozens of cases. See Def.’s Mtn. at 5-6. However, unlike the instant case, every one of the cases cited was based upon an assertion that the Defendant was not born in the United States, or is not a citizen for some other reason.

The matter before this Court has nothing to do with the birth place of the Defendant, nor does it assert that he is not a citizen of the United States. In fact, limited to this challenged primary election, the Plaintiff will stipulate that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding the Defendant’s passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, other than the one fact asserted at the beginning of this opposition: that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. Contrary to the Defendant’s assertions, the issue presented by the Plaintiff is grounded on one uncontestable fact, and one clear definition from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). [emphases mine]

…

It is undisputed that President Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. To Plaintiffs’ knowledge Mr. Obama has never denied the fact that his father was not a U.S. Citizen, nor has he ever made any statements contrary to this fact.

…

Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the Defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the Defendant cannot meet the Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.5 [Footnote: Mr. Obama’s place of birth is completely irrelevant to this conclusion. The Plaintiff makes no assertion regarding Mr. Obama’s place of birth.] Georgia election code requires such a candidate to be stricken from any Georgia ballot. §21-2-5. [emphasis mine]

And last — certainly not least — is the Order on Motion to Dismiss.

Two key take-away quotes:

Page 2:

The Georgia law governing presidential preference primaries mandates that “[o]n a date set by the Secretary of State . . . the state executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot.” O.C.G.A. § 21- 2-193. On October 6, 2011, Secretary Kemp issued a notice to the chairman of each political party to notify them that the deadline for submitting the list of candidate names for the 2012 presidential preference primary was November 15, 2011. On November 1, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Democratic Party submitted President Barack Obama’s name as the sole candidate for the Democratic Party. To be timely, complaints challenging a presidential candidate’s qualifications in the presidential preference primary had to be filed no later than November 29, 2011. Plaintiffs, as electors eligible to vote for Defendant, timely filed challenges with the Secretary of State before the deadline of November 29, 2011. [emphasis mine]

Page 4:

Accordingly, this 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.

If you haven’t read the linked PDFs, you’re probably wondering why the question apparently arose over whether or not Obama is or is not a candidate for elective office. This is because Obama’s representation made the claim that since the GA DNC offers a presidential preference primary, and that this particular process does not specifically nominate someone to the ballot, and that the Executive Committee of the GA DNC received Obama’s name and it was not challenged at that time, and since it’s only the national DNC — when it convenes later this year — that actually nominates its candidate, therefore there are no actual candidates being submitted to the GA SoS, and so therefore qualifications mean nothing.

No, I did not make it up. It’s all in the Defendant’s motion.

Now for the big question. What does this all mean?

Fundamentally, at this point, it only means that Obama’s name as a candidate on the GA ballot is liable to be questioned as to it’s eligibility for the office of the presidency.

Next, we’ll be finding out exactly who can question the candidate’s qualifications for office and by what time such questioning remains ripe, which could potentially occur on the January 26th hearing.

-Phil

[email protected]Similar Posts:

• SOS Lawsuits: Texas Brockhausen v. Andrade Case
• Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Responds to Berg’s Amended Complaint
• Democratic Party Qualification Research Continues
• Kerchner v. Obama: Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Filed
• Kerchner v. Obama: Plaintiffs Request Additional Time to Respond to Dismissal Motion

Read more at The Right Side of Life