Georgia Could Block President Obama From Presidential Ballot For "Not Being A Citizen"

01/28/2012

2012 Election

If you believe that the whole Birther debate had been put to rest with the full release of President Obama's birth certificate, you clearly are not a resident of the Great State of Georgia. There is currently a case in the Office of State and Administrative Hearings of Georgia that is chellenging whether or not Obama is eligible to run in the 2012 presidential election because of his citizenship. Even though similar cases have been tried in other states, multiple documents have been produced proving the President's status as a natural born citizen, and every single one of those cases has confirmed Obama's status, Georgia isn't convinced. The judge even went so far as to allow a subpoena for Obama to appear in court. Of course, the president did not make a trip down to Atlanta to participate in the legal circus, so it went on without him. Obama's lawyer actually sent a letter the day before the proceedings that explained that neither he nor his client would be appearing in court, on the grounds that the whole case was f***ing stupid. Instead, the "case" consisted of Orly Taitz (the California lawyer who's been pushing the Birther movement since its start) talking to a judge and a room of about 100 people, none of whom were the president. Taitz case went pretty well until she had to be shut down by the judge for trying to serve as both a lawyer and witness in her closing statement. The ruling won't matter all that much, though, because the final decision about whether or not Obama can be on Georgia's ballot will fall to Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp. While Kemp could make some crazy friends by actually blocking Obama's name from the ballot, he would also look like a backwards, partisan idiot, which is probably not his goal. The decision would also immediately be challenged in a higher court, where it would be overturned by the pretty mountainous evidence that Obama was born in the U.S. --via Ology.com writer Jonathan Moormann

Comments (19)

Trey Daniel: Harold -- Information on the Internet claims that the SSN in use by Obama was originally assigned to Jean Ludwig born in 1890 who is now deceased. All over the Internet there are articles and posts that Obama stole Mr. Ludwig’s Social Security number and Obama is using Mr. Ludwig’s Social Security number fraudulently. There are also posts all over the Internet that Obama is using a deceased person’s Social Security number. This is NOT true.

A simple search of the Social Security death index has the death records along with the Social Security number of every person in the United States ever assigned a Social Security number who has died.

A search of the name Jean Ludwig born in 1890 clearly shows that the Social Security number of Jean Ludwig does not match, nor is it similar to Obama’s Social Security number. Mr. Ludwig died in 1981 at the age of 91 according to the Social Security death index. Obama's SSN was assigned to him BEFORE 1981. Your claim of the SSN being issued in 1977 would mean that Mr. Ludwing waited until he was 87 years old before he acquired a SSN. Why on earth would he wait until he was 87 years old? Even if it wasn't Mr. Ludwing, anyone else born in the late 1800's would have been in their 80's as well. It just doesn't make any sense.

If you search Obama's SSN, there are no results for a death of any individual using that number. Due to privacy concerns, I have purposefully omitted the actual SSN's of Mr. Ludwing and President Obama. If you care to know what they are, do the research yourself. The Social Security death index can be found online and Obama's SSN was used in court documents which can also be found online.

As far as I can ascertain, no one has accused the witnesses in the Georgia case of lying under oath. Georgia State Law on ballot challenges in Administrative Law Court isn't like a jury trial. The judge can and does look to the law and prior cases, and other pleadings in the case. He isn't limited to the evidence submitted, the testimony or the record. The testimony of the witnesses pertaining to the authenticity of the birth certificate and the fraudulent use of a Social Security number does not even have to be considered if the judge so chooses. It is well within his discretion to determine that the witnesses testimony is not credible. Indeed, if 5 witnesses testify under oath that the Sun rises in the West, the judge doesn't have to accept that as fact.

Furthermore, the Administrative Law Judge only makes a non-binding recommendation to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can reject the recommendation.

I predict Obama will be on the Georgia Ballot. He's already on it as the absentee voting has begun.

You claim you used to go to court all day every day for a living -- as what -- a janitor in the courthouse.

February 1, 2012

harold burbank: correction: the 1800s issue i raised concerned when the CT man who was issued that ss# was born, not died. apologies for faulty memory (not yet idiocy). indeed the ssn# was confirmed issued by a CT ss office in 1977, to CT citizen who moved to HI and died there. speculation is obama's grandma, who worked with these records, swiped the ss# for obama's use. no proof, but an interesting
set of coincidences.

there is no way obama proves he was born in the usa if the original HI birth cert alleged to be real only by HI officials is forensically analyzed. there is tons of data on the net on this, buy people who have ID'd themselves, their basis for their expertise, and their reasons for doubt, concluding the doc obama released is a fake. i buy it.

there is also no reason i see to doubt the people testifying under oath that the ss#s at issue were not lawfully issued to obama. i used to go to court all day every day for a living. it is extraordinarily rare to see kinds of people described in the GA case articles as witnesses lie under oath. i cannot believe they did.

i gave obama the benefit of the doubt until i studied the briefs written in this case, and the facts surrounding the fact that SCOTUS justice scalia brought this case to a 2008 docket conference advocating hearing. that is compelling as to the merits of the case and undecided issues by itself. anyone who says otherwise has no business commenting on substantive usa law, process and courts issues.

January 31, 2012

ldelde E: Don't worry Trey, if GA wins in their effort to keep President Obama off the ballot, then I suppose they cannot put Mitt Romney on the ballot either because his father was born in Mexico. They are too stupid to realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot. Hey GOP, here is a question; why don't you just invest your time and effort to win the votes to unseat the President? If the GOP can offer SOLUTIONS that the American people want and support - then beat President Obama in the ballot box and stop deflecting the issue with these non-issues.

Jonathan, there is no effort to fact-check. There is a population of this Country that would still believe the world was flat if Fox News didn't tell them differently. Perhaps the GA Leadership and others forgot that President Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor - which means he knows the Constitution inside-and-out, up one side and down the other. They are so far out of their league.

January 30, 2012

Trey Daniel: debra, obviously you know little or nothing about the 1875 Supreme Court case that they are relying on in Georgia. The 1875 Supreme Court also says that there
are other definitions including simply being born in the United States, therefore leaving open the possibility that it is enough to be born in the U.S. to be a natural born citizen.

Jonathan is correct about the birth certificate as well. The long form has been released and has been seen by several people (and even photographed), just because you don't like those people doesn't mean that it is a fake.

As to Harold's point about the Social Security number, the word idiot comes to mind.

According to the Social Security death index, during the same time period as Obama’s SSN was issued to him, the majority of the SSN’s issued for Hawaiian
residents were in fact issued out of CT. He also claims that Obama's SSN was issued to someone who died in the late 1800's. Considering the fact that the Social Security Administration was not even formed until August 14, 1935, this is obviously a lie as well.

January 29, 2012

debra harscher: If Moormann bothered to check the facts of the court case in Georgia it has NOTHING to do with where Obama was born. The question is whether he meets the criteria of being a Natural-Born Citizen which they have evidence presented requires BOTH parents to be US citizens. I'm sure that won't matter either as no matter how much evidence is shown that this person should NEVER have been President in the first place, it is swept under the rug! We will just have to beat him at the polls in November! And WE WILL!

January 29, 2012

Jonathan Moormann: On FactCheck: they quote several news sources in the story, including the AP and the Honolulu Advisor. But even so, you can't say "no one in the U.S. has seen the birth certificate!" then get snippy because you don't like the people who've seen it.

Trey kind of beat me to it on Happerstett v. Minor, but here's the quote in question that Donofrio believes defines "natural-born citizen":

"all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

As you'll note, this doesn't actually distinguish between citizens and natural-born citizens, just citizens and foreigners. It's also followed by the very next sentence:

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

Here, the court specifically does not address the issue of whether or not being born to non-citizen parents affects your citizenship. The decision in Minor v. Happerstett intentionally does not address the kinds of situations we're looking at with Obama. As Trey said, we have to look elsewhere for precedent.

As for the evidence presented in GA:

1. The Supreme Court intentionally hasn't addressed the case because they didn't think Donofrio had a case. They don't just flip a coin to choose which cases not to hear.

2. The rumor about Obama using a stolen CT social security number has been debunked: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp. A simple check of the Social Security Death Index would prove the same, if you don't want to trust this source.

January 29, 2012

harold burbank: the law is not settled. leo donofrio esq., NJ, submitted an exhaustive amicus brief to the GA admin court on the law covering about all angles and surely all key usa cases of 'natural born citizen'. he even covered it under british and international law (said he stayed up 40 straight hours to do it). usa supreme court has not directly addressed the issue for prez election purposes. many gaps in current law and even the policy judgment of whether the term is relevant today. usa sup court easily could distinguish, overrule or ignore he current case law.

what the supreme court cannot overrule are the GA court facts, which for the first time are on a court record and are not subject to review, barring a showing of extreme injustice. obama's right to challenge them virtually ended the moment he chose not to attend his hearing.

and it's these damning alleged facts, more than any law, that should alarm any thinking american. the GA court took testimony from three expert witnesses that obama's HI birth certificate is fake. a homeland security expert investigator and a soc sec expert testified (under oath of course) that obama's soc sec # on his current taxes was issued in CT, where he has never been proved to live, and was issued to someone who died in CT in the late 1800s. not sure if the alleged kenyan birth certificate, retrieved by at least 3 separate investigators if reports are accurate, was admitted into evidence, but statements from obama's own book that his dad was kenyan at obama's birth were entered.

why would any sensible american not be suspicious of anyone who would not release a simple legal birth certificate as part of a prez run? what is the big deal unless the doc is fake? why does anyone need a bogus ss# unless they are hiding something? why would anyone want their dog cared for by such a man, let alone their children's future and that of the free world? to be a lawyer, which obama was (i think his license is suspended now), the ethics code demands that
one conduct themselves to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. i think most honest americans want their presidents to do that.

so bash the birthers all you want. i really do not care what the 'natural born citizen' law is. i want to know why a prez of the most powerful nuke nation in history needs a fake ss#, and a fake birth certificate. lying alone DQ's anyone from being prez in my book. the birther cases advance that interest at least.

it does not take a genius to wonder why experts who appeared without any known pay or other self-interested reason would risk perjury, counter suit and ridicule to make these statements if they did not believe them. i spent over 12 years in a paternity courtroom every work day and did not see people of this caliber lying under oath.
t

January 29, 2012

Trey Daniel: ashley, Minor vs. Happersett is NOT binding precedent. The 1875 Supreme Court
opnion also says that there are other definitions including simply being born
in the United States, therefore leaving open the possibility that it is enough
to be born in the U.S. to be a natural citizen. However, the case in Georgia is
relying upon the more narrow defintion in the 1875 Supreme Court opinion of what
a natural born citizen is. It is also important to remember that this 1875 case
is about a woman in Missouri and her right to vote in the general election.

With the court leaving open this possibility, it has led to a consensus opinion
that anyone born on U.S. soil (except the child of a foreign diplomat) is a
"natural born citizen", regardless of parental citizenship and regardless of
any other citizenship acquired at birth.

Having said that, today's Supreme Court
has never accepted this consensus opinion and there is no court ruling or
Federal statute which establishes the
consensus opinion as settled law.

I beleive precedent was established in 2008 when all 50 states certified
Barack Obama met the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution
and therefore was on all 50 states general election ballots. I also point out
that to this day NO ONE has proven that Barack Obama did not meet the
requirements set forth by the United States Constitution to serve as President.

January 29, 2012

ashley watson: just to clarify-
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

& John, what kind of self respecting journalist uses factcheck.org as a source?

January 29, 2012

ashley watson: 1875 US Supreme Court Minor vs. Happersett

January 29, 2012

Danielle James: Wow, I can't believe there are so many birthers still around. "Lord"'s comments made me laugh out loud, at his/her understanding of how natural born citizen works and then the "for what!? FOR WHAT!?" Hilarious.

January 29, 2012

Chelsea Davison: BAM. Owned. Hell yeah Jon!

January 29, 2012

Jonathan Moormann: Let's clear some stuff up here:

1. Whether or not you like or dislike the guy has nothing to do with his citizenship. If you want to vote him out, then that's fair, but this citizenship crap is circumventing the process, not embracing it.

2. A "natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution. It has been defined in court cases, Black's Law Dictionary, and by the Congressional Research Service as anyone born as a citizen of the U.S. (as opposed to someone who is born elsewhere and becomes a "naturalized" citizen). There is no distinction between citizenship jus soli (by birth) and jus sanguinis (by blood). I have yet to find a court case that contradicts these legal authorities, but if you can cite one, I'll take a look.

3. As you can see in the image above, nowhere does it list anyone's race as "African-American." It does list his father as "African," which certainly was a term in use.

4. Fair enough, the previous cases were dismissed. That doesn't just mean the court didn't want to hear them, though - it means either they didn't have sufficient standing or the judge didn't see any merit in the case. Taitz isn't presenting anything new here; she's just throwing the same case at the wall until it sticks.

5. People have seen the physical birth certificate, most notable several prominent Hawaiian officials http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/. How many people need to see the physical copy to satisfy your request (which, might I had, would be illegal in Hawaii, as proven by Martin v. Lingle)?

January 29, 2012

lisa laa: He has NOT released his birth certificate for inspection to anyone or any court!
That's the problem.
All he released is a computer image. Since when is a computer image accepted by anyone, anywhere as Certified or valid?
Try it for yourself. Load up your favorite document creator program. Cut and paste an image of your state seal onto it. Now take it down to DMV, show them the image of yoursefl with the seal on your laptop screen. See if they will accept that as valid ID and issue a drivers license.
Or scan the image of your actual drivers license. Bring your laptop and try to cash a check using the image on your computer screen as your ID. Think anyone will accept it as a valid ID?
Yet that is ALL obama has shown the public. Georgia merely wants to see the original document a you would have to present yours to DMV to get a valid ID.
So, why does he spend millions for a lawyer to keep anyone from seeing the simple pieece of paper? No court, no document examiner, No One in the USA has ever seen it. Hawaii wont show it, either. All obama has is a computer image, and no state in the land certifies a computer screen image,

January 29, 2012

Cara Perkins: He has released his birth certificate already! How is this still an issue? Wasn't this resolved months ago? Geez.

January 29, 2012

Chelsea Davison: This is so stupid. I cannot believe they are wasting our President's time with this nonsense!

January 29, 2012

Micheal Baxter: You are wrong. NO cases have been tried ANYWHERE.

No one can cite a single case that has been tried. All have been dismissed before any evidence was put on the record. The courts did not permit the cases to start.

It is a plain fact that this was the FIRST time evidence for Obama's eligibility was received and put on the trial record in any Court. And amazingly, Obama surrendered the opportunity to put ANYTHING, even his so-called "birth certificate", in evidence. He surrendered the entire case by not attending.

Thus this was Obama's big chance to shut up every one of his critics once and for all in Court, by presenting his "mountainous evidence" you think exists. Sorry, it doesn't.

That is why instead of showing evidence in the court, he went outlaw.

You personally must know what would happen if you were subpoenaed to court and just write a letter - without even sending a copy to the Judge - that says "I ain't coming". That is what Obama did.

He has totally blown it. He knew he didn't have a case and delusionally thinks he can get away by ignoring the Court. It won't work. He's not a king.

January 28, 2012

Robert Callahan: The writer of the above article either intentionally or out of ignorance stated Obama released HIS birth certificate. This is a lie! What we were presented with was a poor forgery that does not hold up. Here is a clue Race "African American" sorry folks in the 1950's and 1960's the term African American had not been invented. The correct term was Negro.
The matter of Obama's eligibility has never been heard until possibly now in Georgia. Up to this point all attempts to have the matter heard have been dodged and avoided. New Hampshire asked for proof then after proof was presented the court refused to take any action citing lack of jurisdiction.
Orly Taitz And Jerome Corsi, have done an excellent job of proving Obama is seated illegally.

January 28, 2012

Lord Stirling: Seriously. How is verifying that the freaking president of the country (who happens to have increased our national debt by trillions of dollars and under whose watch thousands of US citizens have been killed in combat) is actually eligible to hold the office he currently abuses blown off as a non-issue that only nut-jobs and bigots should care about?

This scumbag president has driven us down a disgusting, war and debt filled path that has cost each citizen of this country considerable money, and many severe anguish.

You don't have to be racist to want this freaking monster out of office! Also, it doesn't take an idiot to understand his obvious ineligibility.

Having admitted his father was born in Kenya, under British rule, Obama has admitted that he does not meet the requirements laid out by the US Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land) that any President must be a "natural born citizen", which has been defined in multiple court cases as meaning born to two US citizens.

This law exists to prevent a person with split allegiances, or who is a subject of a foreign nation from holding the highest office in the land.

Just because you like the guy doesn't mean he should bs able to get away with breaking Constitutional law and throwing our nation into a Constitutional crisis.

The implications of this whole situation are vast and terrifying.

You biased media hacks are a disgrace. You are willing to sell put your entire country and it's principles for what? For what?!?

If you break the law you are a criminal and are subject to arrest. Race has nothing to do with this, and those who seek to portray people who care about this country and want this slimy usurper removed from office as racists are dispicable and vile. Shame on you and your bosses.

REMOVE THE PHONY USURPER FROM THE BALLOTS AND KICK HIM OUT OF OFFICE. IMPEACHMENT IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE AND THEREFORE NEVER LEGALLY HELD IT. DRAG THE SCUMBAG OUT OF THE WHOTEHOUSE IN HANDCUFFS AND END THIS WHOLE LEGACY OF LIES AND DECEIT.

January 28, 2012

ALSO IN...

2012 Election

The Ology Team...

2012 Election

politics

election

2012

president

white house

election 2012

decision 2012

Georgia Could Block President Obama From Presidential Ballot For "Not Being A Citizen"

Comments (19)

ALSO IN...

Sign In

2012 Election

politics

election

2012

president

white house

election 2012

decision 2012

Georgia Could Block President Obama From Presidential Ballot For "Not Being A Citizen"

Comments (19)

ALSO IN...