by Jack Minor –
While multiple court cases over Obama’s eligibility to be President have been dismissed without ever hearing the merits of the case, a judge in Georgia has said the President must meet the constitutional demands of the office in order to appear on the ballot.
The ruling came from Deputy Chief Judge, Michael Malih,i in the Office of State Administrative Hearings.
The presidency is unique among all of the constitutionally held offices in that it requires the person holding the position to be a “natural born citizen.” Some have alleged that Obama was not born in the United States and is thus not eligible.
While the Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen” there are some constitutional experts who have said the term is a reference to a child born of two citizen parents. This argument is supported by a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1875, Minor v. Happersett.
In the ruling, which is one of the few cases addressing the issue of “natural born citizen” as opposed to a naturalized citizen, it states.
“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.”
Based on this standard Obama’s birth certificate proves he is not eligible as his father was a non-citizen who came from Kenya.
Georgia state law requires that “every candidate for federal office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
While some have claimed it is up to the party to certify a candidate is eligible, the judge ruled that the law allows the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in Georgia to raise a challenge to the candidate’s qualifications.
The decision came about from several complaints against Obama’s inclusion on the ballot in the state’s 2012 primary election.
Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney argued that the law did not apply to candidates running in a presidential primary, but the judge rejected that line of reasoning.
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,”Malihi wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”
The judge went on to say in his ruling, “The 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.”
Following the denial of the president’s motion, a hearing was scheduled for Jan. 26 on the issue.