OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CHALLENGES SPREAD TO 6 STATES

Decision in Georgia case expected soon, but ballot concerns going viral

An administrative law judge in Georgia could decide as early as this week whether voters in the state convinced him Barack Obama’s name should be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot because he is not qualified to hold the office.

But win, lose or draw, the fight isn’t going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation, with challenges being raised anew even in Obama’s own adopted political network in Illinois.

he Georgia hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi, and while none of the lawyers who appeared in the proceedings was willing to predict what the decision will be, several did confirm that Malihi had considered simply granting them a default victory, because Obama and his lawyers expressly stated they would not participate in a hearing to provide evidence that he is qualified to be on the ballot.



A default presumably would have meant a recommendation from the judge that Obama’s name be stricken from the ballot, a decision which would head for review immediately by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

He, however, was the one who warned Obama of the “peril” of not participating in the hearing when Obama and his attorney had asked that the event be canceled.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.

Obama isn’t even mentioned by name, but don’t think for a minute that the requested change wouldn’t include his candidacy.

The plaintiff is Sharon Meroni, who long has fought inside the system for a way to challenge the candidacies there. In her new case, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, she is petitioning for a judicial review of the state’s election procedures as they exist now.

Targeted are the state Board of Elections, members of the board, several county clerks and others, including candidates Dan Duffy and Amanda Howland.

Meroni, a registered voter in the 27th Legislative District in the state, said her concern is that “only candidates qualified for office under the Illinois and United States Constitutions appear on the ballot.”

The state’s primary is in March.

The case alleges the candidates did not provide sufficient proof that they are U.S. citizens as required to hold the office being sought “as is required by the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”

State officials refused to remove the names from the ballots, so Meroni has gone to court. Granting ballot access, she said in the complaint, “is contrary to law, against the manifest weight of the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and a denial of the rights of the petitioner.”

Kreep told WND the way the system is established in Illinois it essentially allows political parties to determine who runs for office, and unless voters find out about a filing and can assemble a formal objection within five days, their concerns are dismissed.

And the system has no procedure for verifying the eligibility of candidates, he said.

That particular issue has been in the headlines for the past four years, since before Obama’s 2008 election victory, because of the questions that remain over his eligibility. The U.S. Constitution demands a “natural born citizen” be president and the Founders probably thought that to be the offspring of two citizen parents when they wrote the term.

But Obama’s father never was a citizen. There also are those who contend he was not even born in the United States.

Kreep said the Illinois procedures make it virtually impossible for candidates to be challenged for their eligibility.

He said there likely will be raised in other states concerns similar to those in Illinois, where “barriers now in existence … bar voters from reasonable investigation of the citizenship of a candidate.”

That’s simply a deprivation of the constitutional right to due process, he said. The case seeks a declaration that the political maneuvers are unconstitutional.

There also have been assembled campaigns specifically to encourage voters to file eligibility complaints about candidates with states. One such effort is the Obama Ballot Challenge, which lists contacts for state elections offices across the country.

It is, of course, the states that actually run elections; a national election is just the compilation of the results from the 50 states.

“A candidate that is not legally qualified to be on the ballot, such as Barack Obama, steals votes from other candidates who are legally on the ballot,” the site advises.

hmmm,, citizens voting their choice for a candidate STEALS from others

but internet subscribers posting what others have paid to distribute and manufacture are not 'really' stealing?


interesting and expected american hypocrisy at work


,,,and where in the constitution does it state

'The U.S. Constitution demands a “natural born citizen” be president and the Founders probably thought that to be the offspring of two citizen parents when they wrote the term'



a person is BORN through a mother,,,what would make one assume the founders were intending to INSIST both parents be american?

hmmm,, citizens voting their choice for a candidate STEALS from others

but internet subscribers posting what others have paid to distribute and manufacture are not 'really' stealing?


interesting and expected american hypocrisy at work


,,,and where in the constitution does it state

'The U.S. Constitution demands a “natural born citizen” be president and the Founders probably thought that to be the offspring of two citizen parents when they wrote the term'



a person is BORN through a mother,,,what would make one assume the founders were intending to INSIST both parents be american?

The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch

Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States,

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presrequire.htm

There is a video online of Michelle Obama saying that her husband was born in Kenya.

Id love to see it,,,,,

What an incredible waste of money, time, and legal resources.

I have a very small question.

Were any of the Founding Fathers born US Citizens?

Was George Washington?

If the only way to remove him from office is such balderdash...

Do we even deserve to be a nation?

something we can agree on

if people are so uptight about his 'citizenship', than they should just not vote him in again and press their congress to further CLARIFY the parts of the constitution which pertain to presidential eligibility for future elections

From my understanding...

The Constitution states, as already stated, 'Natural-born citizen'.

However, what it fails to define is what classifies an actual natural-born citizen.

I mean if you take the words, individual and literally:

'Natural' - We'll just say created by nature; or not-man made.

'Born' - To exist as a result of birth

'Citizen' - Legally recognized subject or national of a state, commonwealth, etc etc etc.

This does not, anywhere, state you HAVE to be born in the actual United States. This only states that the moment you are born you are instantly considered an American Citizen.

Therefore.

You could technically be born on the North Pole, but if both your parents are American citizens, you are an American citizen.

Same situation; however, this time only one of your parents is an American citizen. And they are married, it would be based off of where you actually live. If you live at the North Pole, then I guess you belong to the United States of Santa Claus.

Your mom takes custody of you from birth.
She lives in the United States.
You would be a natural born citizen.

If you mother was born on Pluto; but prior to your birth she moved to, and become a citizen of, the United States... you would be an American citizen.

Last I checked the American government, in particular Domestic Relations, Hospitals, etc, instantly give parental rites to the mother. During a divorce, split etc, the mother 'assumes' custody.

What's my point?

Ann Dunham.

That's Barack Obama's mother' name.

She was born in good ol' Wichita, Kansas. and, from what I hear, spent most of her youth in California.

She was a natural born citizen.

...see where I'm going with this?

The whole 'natural born citizen' clause was created merely to keep foreign diplomats from sneaking their way into America's government and corrupt it into a Monarchy or what have you.

Now, this is where my major problem arises.

If this clause is such a big deal; would it not have been ideally smart to scout ALL potential politicians who seek to claim the Presidency well prior to them even becoming eligible to run for office?

I mean, it makes common sense--

Oh, right.. We're talking about the U.S. Government...

..they only care about actual politics when it contradicts their goals of greed and corruption.

So, Barack must be the black version of Bill Clinton, eh?

-.-

Like I said previously, it will all depend on the definition of natural born definition or native born definition determined by the courts. So far everything legally written has stated parents an indication a child born of two united states citizens. If too many states continue to file, Obama, will have to address it. Either that or he won't be eligible to be voted for.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Anyone know why Obama's Connecticut SS# (why did he get one there?) was flagged by E-Verify as being fraudulent?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhDx9PJjp20&feature=related

She says Barrack's home country.....now what that means I don't know.

this is what IM saying

if there is an issue about his circumstance of birth, the 'fight' should be going towards CHANGING or DEFINING The current laws for the future,, not trying to attack his eligibility at large because that denotes that his last four years would not be valid either

but, in order to stop the so called lack of progress they hold him responsible,,,they would rather disrupt the progress altogether and send us back four years worth of litigating what is valid and invalid in EVERY law signed by an alledted illegitimate president

its just disdain and nonsense and desperation

yes, I know about that. THats different than saying he is born there. Amongst black folks I know, its another way of saying motherland, or land of our ancestors.

well, e verify gives 5 possible reasons

1. SSN Number doesnt match (THe SSN entered is valid but the name and/or date of birth dont match)

THIS BOX IS NOT CHECKED,,,

2. SSN is Invalid (The SSN entered in self check is not a valid number)

THIS BOX IS NOT CHECKED

3. SSA is unable to confirm US Citizenship (Cant confirm the employee is eligible because the SSA records dont show the SSN holder is a US Citizen)

THIS BOX IS NOT CHECKED

4. SSA record does not verify (SSA found a discrepancy in the record)

THIS BOX IS CHECKED

5. SSA unable to process data

THIS BOX IS CHECKED


I dont have time to research it this morning, but the box stating that the name and number dont match is NOT checked

I would gather, then, that some OTHER type of discrepancy has been found,,,,

What progress?? I don't see progress. But that's not the issue.

well, healthcare being passed
osama being taken out
depression averted
dodt being passed

,,amongst other things, but you are right, that is not the point

the point was, because some have so much disdain and hatred and outright refusal to acknowledge any of the progress made under this president, they are taking measures that will be more destructive than his presidency ever could be

in other words, being hypocrites, taking on the wrong legal battle, and cutting off their nose to spite their face

I know what you're saying.

I'm just saying that it shouldn't even be an issue.

U.S. Government in almost 99.8% of cases, automatically gives custody of a child to the mother; especially in cases where the parents are split.

Therefore, she was a US Citizen, that would make him, by default, a US Citizen. I'm assuming there's probably some exception, somehow, for this almost 'signed in blood' rule.

At the same time; I agree with why didn't they investigate it further before he became a candidate and then, to boot, the president.

Kicking him out of the running now is only going to cause dissension amongst the people, because then this upcoming election is going to be entirely different.

I literally know dozens of people who aren't even stressing the current primaries, ie not voting, because they are already set-locked on trying to get Obama in for his second term.

Removing him now...

...then what?

I doubt they'd do the primaries all over again..