Skip to comments.Secretary of State Kemp Issues Final Decision on Challenge to President Barack Obama’s Eligibility
Posted on 02/07/2012 10:58:20 AM PST by Elderberry
Secretary of State Kemp Issues Final Decision on Challenge to President Barack Obamas Eligibility and Qualifications
Atlanta Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp today issued his final decision on challenges contending that President Barack Obama does not meet the State of Georgias eligibility requirements for his name to be listed on the 2012 Presidential Preference Primary ballot.
Secretary Kemp stated, After careful consideration of Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihis initial decision and all record evidence based on the criteria set forth in this process, I find that the Respondent, President Barack Obama, meets the State of Georgias eligibility requirements. President Barack Obamas name shall remain on the Democratic Partys 2012 Presidential Preference Primary ballot.
Brian Kemp has been Secretary of State since January, 2010. Among the offices wide-ranging responsibilities, the Secretary of State is charged with conducting efficient and secure elections, the registration of corporations, and the regulation of securities and professional license holders. The office also oversees the Georgia Archives.
You know the name of the toon!
Just see the Reader Responses...the only thing remaining that makes any sense at all!
The Full Alisnsky in beautiful black and white!
State of Georgia has its own eligibility requirements for presidential candidates?
When will Kemp be up for re-election?
Every State has requirements to be eligible to be on the ballot.
Newt, for example, failed to meet those requirements to be eligible to be on the ballot in Virginia - IIRC.
Which is not to say he is not eligible to be President - but he was not eligible to be on the ballot in Virginia.
those issues not in question in the challenge at the hearing.
The site says he has been SOS since Jan2010. Is it a 2 or a 4 year position?
“....I find that the Respondent, President Barack Obama, meets the State of Georgias eligibility requirements.”
These politicians are all in it together. No difference between PUBs and DEMs. Politics have become their only livelihood for many of them.
American politics has become an industry.
It didn’t take long for this to be moved from Breaking News to general chat.
"Below is the ending portion of Attorney Hatfield's 6-page Tuesday, February 7, 2012
rebuttal letter to the Georgia Secretary of State. Read the whole letter!
Please note that the foregoing cited errors, omissions, and flaws in Judge Malihi's "Decision" are not intended to be exhaustive, and Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to raise other claims of error hereafter.
Mr. Secretary, as you deliberate on your final determination of Defendant Obama's qualifications to seek and hold office, I am requesting, on behalf of my clients, that you consider the posture of these matters. Defendant Obama has initiated the submission of his name as a candidate to be listed on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Ballot. Likewise, in accordance with their rights under Georgia law, my clients have raised a challenge to the Defendant's qualifications as a "natural born Citizen" pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution. The Defendant and his lawyer tried, unsuccessfully, to have my clients' challenges dismissed. The Defendant was then legally served with a Notice to Produce, requiring him to appear at trial and to bring certain documents and items of evidence with him. The Defendant did not object. When the time for trial was imminent, the Defendant's lawyer wrote a letter to you in which he boldly criticized and attacked the judge and in which he stated that he and his client were refusing to come to court. The day of trial, after you warned him that his failure to appear would be at his own peril, the Defendant and his lawyer nevertheless failed to appear for court and failed to comply with the Plaintiffs' valid Notice to Produce. The Defendant thus not only presented no evidence of his own, but he failed to produce significant pieces of evidence to which Plaintiffs were legally entitled. Inexplicably, Judge Malihi, after verbally acknowledging Plaintiffs' entitlement to a "default judgment," then entered an order fully favorable to the recalcitrant Defendant, and to top it off, the judge refused to even acknowledge Plaintiffs' attempts to have Defendant held accountable for his purposefully contemptuous behavior in ignoring Plaintiffs' Notice to Produce.
Doesn't this result sound unreasonable? Doesn't this result appear on its face unfair? Doesn't this result in fact suggest that the Defendant is above the law?
Mr. Secretary, I am respectfully requesting on behalf of my clients that you render a decision in this matter that treats Defendant Obama no different than any other candidate seeking access to the Georgia ballot who fails and refuses to present evidence of his or her qualifications for holding office and who disregards the authority of our judiciary. I request that my clients' challenges to Defendant Obama's qualifications be sustained and upheld.
Finally, in view of the rapidly approaching Presidential Preference Primary in Georgia on March 6, 2012, I respectfully request that you enter a decision in these matters on an expedited basis."
READ THE FULL LETTER DEBUNKING THE DECISION BY JUDGE MALIHI HERE. IT ALSO DEBUNKS CLAIMS MADE BY OTHERS."
I noticed that.
But I also noticed there were 3-4 threads with this same info posted before yours.
I bad. I didn’t do a title search. I assumed one would show up in the sidebar.
There, fixed it (It is, however, still broken).
A State cannot make a decision pursuant to something far beyond their purview - a determination of Constitutional eligibility for a Federal office.
They can only determine if he met the eligibility requirements for the State of Georgia.
That could (and should) include proof of citizenship at birth in the form of a certified copy of a birth certificate sent from one SOS to the ballot issuing State's SOS. But absent such a legislative requirement - the judge and SOS have to determine the law as it is written - not ‘how it should be’.
Thus the language of the SOS was that 0bama met the eligibility requirements, not to be President, but to be on the Georgia ballot.
Tea Party of Georgia: You need to remove this guy from office in his next election. Sine Die
What a pantload!
So when Cal kept Eldridge Cleaver off the ballot because he was too young (age beeing a constitutional requirement) Cal was overstepping it’s authority. I call BS.
I just checked and Sec of State is a four-year term. Kemp was elected in 2010, so we have a while to put up with him. I for one will not have a short memory in 2014. Anyone with as little regard for the constitution and no courage to stand up and defend it has no business being paid a salary by the people of the our state.
Call it all you want.
California didn’t make a determination that Eldridge Cleaver was not Constitutionally eligible for a Federal office - just that he was not eligible under California law to be on the California ballot.
As I attempted to point out to you, Georgia CAN and SHOULD pass laws that would help to determine eligibility - TO BE ON THE GEORGIA BALLOT - that could (but currently does not) demand the issuing of a birth certificate indicating that the person was a U.S. citizen at birth and that they were the proper age.
Absent such legislation the Court and SOS can ONLY rule on what Georgia law says their own requirements are to be eligible to be on the ballot.
Instead of wasting time to no good purpose in trying to reverse the people's will of 2008, a better effort would be to tighten up procedures for ballot eligibility for the future.
Your first statement was wrong so I didn’t go any further. The constitution set the age for the presidential candidates and Cal enforced that constitutional requirement. Cal does not have an age requirement for president independent of the US constitution. Cal follows the US constitution as do the other states.
According to your illogic, Cal could declare one definition for natural born citizen and each of the other states set their own definition. Not only is that nor true, it is a recipe for chaos.
If Georgia (or California) gets to DEFINE the federal requirements -then each other State can set their own definition.
Not only is that not true, it is a recipe for chaos.
A State cannot define a Federal requirement - only set State requirements that are congruent with Federal requirements.
The Judge and SOS made a determination of 0bama’s eligibility to be on the Georgia ballot - it was NOT their call to make on if he were eligible for the Presidency via a definition particular to Georgia.
The SOS of each state MUST define the federal requirements or they do not know who to put on the ballot. That’s why Cal asked a couple of filers for their birth certificate and kept them off the ballot.
Whose permission did they need to define the minimum age and enforce it?
If they don’t know the definition of natural born citizen they should get a federal judge to rule instead of ignoring it or making up their own.