Monte Kuligowski
Obama's got Georgia on his mind
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Monte Kuligowski
February 2, 2012

Those who get their news from the establishment media may not know that Barack Obama stands in jeopardy of being denied placement on Georgia's ballot for the 2012 presidential race.

The mere thought of such a thing is preposterous to the elitist press and is certainly not worthy of ink or camera — unless for a good laugh at those crazy birthers. Mr. Obama has been elevated above the law for so long that it seems ridiculous to his sycophants to hold Obama accountable now.

The state of Georgia, however, takes its election laws seriously and honors the rights of its residents to ensure that all candidates are constitutionally qualified to hold the respective office, and hence eligible to appear on its election ballots.

To the shock of the establishment, an administrative law judge in Atlanta received damning evidence on January 26, 2012, from a number of plaintiffs challenging Obama's eligibility and will soon report his findings to Georgia's secretary of state, Brian Kemp.

Conspicuously missing from the hearing was Barack Obama, even though the judge denied a motion to excuse his presence. Obama even refused to send an attorney and failed to comply with judge-approved subpoenas for Obama's certified birth records (as opposed to internet postings). Prior to the hearing, Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, advised Mr. Kemp by letter in no uncertain terms that neither he nor Obama would appear at the judicial hearing — in contempt of the state's judicial system.

Mr. Kemp cautioned Jablonski that failing to appear or at least provide documents for the record in support of his eligibility could place Obama in a perilous position. Of course, it's not Obama's style to simply end controversy by providing the requested documents.

As confirmed by the letter from Jablonski to Kemp, Obama's style is to act as though he is above the law — the threat of loss of credibility for all who dare to question Obama's secrecy and defiant audacity. Jablonski wrote:

"It [the hearing on the merits] threatens to degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing to the detriment of the reputation of the state and your office. Rather than bring this matter to a rapid conclusion, the ALJ [administrative law judge] has insisted on agreeing to a day of hearings, and on the full participation of the president in his capacity as a candidate."

Get it? The reputation of the state of Georgia and Kemp's office will be harmed unless the silly matter is dropped right away. Interestingly, Obama wanted the matter brought to "a rapid conclusion," without any legal hearings. Normally, judicial hearings bring controversies to rapid conclusion. But in Obama's world, Georgia can escape public ridicule (by the Obama-curtsying media) by bringing the matter to a rapid, non-judicial conclusion — by submitting to Obama.

Bob Unruh of WND reports that, "Jablonski told Kemp he should simply 'withdraw' the original hearing request as 'improvidently issued.'"

"It is well established," continues Jablonski in his letter, "that there is no legitimate issue here — a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country. The state of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the president made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website."

Well, not quite. No court has received evidence on the merits until now. Dozens of eligibility cases were tossed on technicalities. Among other reasons, standing, the fact that the first election was over, and the fact that such hearings might prove an embarrassment to the president, were cited.

No official documents were ever produced for the states to inspect and authenticate. Even the "Pawn Stars" standard for authentication of documents is production of the originals, not internet postings of purported originals. In a legal context (which this is) when documents are produced, certified copies will suffice for the record, but the originals must be made available for inspection. In a legal context, internet postings are a bad joke.

The entire point of those challenging Obama's eligibility is that doubt does exist. And, there is no legitimate reason why any doubt concerning the presidency should continue to exist.

Obama's lawyer claimed that hearings on the merits would "degenerate into a pure forum for political posturing." That's hard to understand. If Obama can simply produce certified copies and make his original birth certificate available in Hawaii for inspection and authentication, where does the political posturing come in? How are those asking for physical evidence posturing? If Obama can produce, there is nothing to gain except the laying of doubt to rest. The only discernible posturing is on the part of Obama in belittling those who ask for legal proof.

Lastly, Jablonski argues that the states have no business meddling into Obama's eligibility, because: "Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates." (Yet, the public is supposed to accept the words of Hawaii's Democrat officials as gospel truth — inconsistencies and all.)

Save discriminating against candidates in violation of the Civil War Amendments, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the feds power to interfere with the sovereignty of the states with regard to their election laws. The states may adjudicate the constitutionality of candidates independently of "presidential electors and Congress."

Of course, the federal courts may review the rulings of the states in this regard. In fact, it's encouraging to know that the federal courts can be forced to review cases on the merits when appeals are filed. That is the distinction between the legion of cases brought by individual citizens challenging Obama's constitutional eligibility. Those cases have been summarily dismissed. But federal courts cannot easily ignore the issue when a state's law or ruling is the basis for a candidate's appeal.

The federal courts cannot summarily dismiss cases when the states have election laws which force candidates to act, force the courts to interpret the Constitution, or — as in Georgia's case — allow secretaries of state to deny candidates' admission to the ballots after legal hearing based on citizen challenges.

Should the states' election laws require candidates to file certified copies of their respective documents for eligibility with the originals to be made available for inspection, the candidates must comply.

Should the states statutorily define the Constitution's natural born citizen clause, based on history and precedent, as requiring candidates to have been born to two U.S. citizen parents — i.e., born into the status of having a natural, undivided allegiance to the United States — the federal courts will hear the appeals of candidates and define the clause.

Should the states enforce its election laws, allowing challenges to candidates' constitutional eligibility, and should the secretaries of state deny admission to the ballots, the federal courts will hear the appeals and decide the cases on the facts and law.

The states were sleeping in 2008 and have largely been dragging their feet with respect to drafting better election eligibility laws. Nevertheless, we are facing a new presidential election, and there is no precedent that makes Barack Obama an automatic candidate without complying with existing state election law.

This article first appeared at WND.com

© Monte Kuligowski

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)


Monte Kuligowski

Monte Kuligowski is an attorney and writer whose legal scholarship, including "Does the Declaration of Independence Pass the Lemon Test?" (Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy), has been published in several law journals... (more)

More by this author