Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's inclusion on Georgia ballot challenged
Atlanta Journal Constitution ^

Posted on 12/16/2011 5:31:52 PM PST by bushpilot1

Five Georgia men have challenged President Barack Obama’s inclusion on next year’s presidential ballot, with at least some citing an oft-discredited theory that Obama is not eligible for office because the Constitution says that a president must be a “natural born citizen.”

All the challenges have been made through the Georgia Office of the Secretary of State, which referred them to the state administrative hearings office. Hearings have not yet been set.

(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; ga; georgia; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 next last
Georgia holds its primary next year on March 6. Obama's name will appear on the Democratic primary ballot, even though he has no challengers.

Two of the men filing the challenges, Kevin Powell of Duluth and Carl Swensson of Morrow, are being represented in their efforts by attorney Mark Hatfield, who is also a Republican state lawmaker from Waycross.

Hatfield failed in an effort earlier this year to pass a law prohibiting any presidential or vice presidential candidate from being included on the ballot without proof of “natural born” citizenship.

Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and Kenyan father.

Hatfield has said he believes the United States’ founders intended not only for presidents to be born in the U.S. but for their parents to also have been U.S. citizens.

1 posted on 12/16/2011 5:31:59 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

no challengers?

Wiki says Randall Terry and some crank is running....


2 posted on 12/16/2011 5:38:41 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

the term ‘natural born citizen’ has nothing to do with the physical act of birth

it has to do with the person’s alliegences at the time of birth. the founders intention was to insure that the person in the office only had allegiances to the United States. as such, if both parents are US citizens at the time of birth, the child ‘naturally’ has allegiances to the US... as there would be no other allegiance possible

anyone that says otherwise it attempting to cloud a simplistic issue to further their own ideological goals


3 posted on 12/16/2011 5:40:57 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

None of the lawsuits has gone anywhere up to now.

These things won’t go anywhere either.


4 posted on 12/16/2011 5:41:33 PM PST by Grunthor (Unrepentant breeder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Georgia and other red states need to disqualify Obama and then the challenges will begin and finally the courts that have been ducking this issue will be forced to resolve it. By all accounts unless both parents were citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth, the candidate is not a natural born citizen. By this understanding, Obama is not.


5 posted on 12/16/2011 5:41:38 PM PST by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Craig v. U.S., 10th Circuit Court of Appeals commentary citing Schneider v. Rusk (quoting Osborne) ...

No person has a right to be classified as a Natural born citizen; regardless of jus soli or jus resida.

The Constitution provides for the Congress to legislate the terms necessary for non-U.S. Citizen to become a Naturalized U.S. Citizen.

Consequently, only a Naturalized citizen can be disqualified for the office of POTUS.


6 posted on 12/16/2011 5:48:52 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (BHO II naturalized as U.S. Citizen after becoming an Indonesian National)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

As I have mentioned elsewhere, in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (2007) ruling, Justice Scalia, in writing the Opinion of the Court, said:

“Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771);”

That certainly is a glowing endorsement from the SCOTUS for Cunningham’s law dictionary and adds legal weight to using the definitions contained therein when attempting to understand the original intent of the Framers when they drafted the Constitution.

John Adams’ archived copy is here:

Vol. 1:

http://www.archive.org/download/newcompletelawdi01cunn/newcompletelawdi01cunn.pdf

Vol. 2:

http://www.archive.org/download/newcompletelawdi01cunn/newcompletelawdi02cunn.pdf

Vol 1 of Cunningham’s law dictionary states the following under the Alien section (page 96 of the pdf, 3rd column, 3rd paragraph from the bottom) :

“All those are natural born subjects whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our King, and whose place of birth was within his dominions.”

(Note: I modernized the Old English spellings for easier reading).

So, my understanding is that if the SCOTUS used Cunningham’s law dictionary in D.C. v. Heller to determine original intent, then, logically, they have set a precedence for using Cunningham’s law dictionary for said purpose of determining original intent!

Furthermore, recent SCOTUS rulings cite Thomas Bacon’s law book “A New Abridgment of the Law.”

PLIVA, INC. v. MENSING (Justice Thomas writing the Opinion for the Court).

And,

DWAYNE GILES, PETITIONER v. CALIFORNIA (Justice Scalia writing the Opinion for the Court)

John Adams’ personal copy is archived here:

http://www.archive.org/download/newabridgementof01baco/newabridgementof01baco.pdf

http://www.archive.org/download/newabridgementof02baco/newabridgementof02baco.pdf

http://www.archive.org/download/newabridgementof03baco/newabridgementof03baco.pdf

http://www.archive.org/download/newabridgementof04baco/newabridgementof04baco.pdf

http://www.archive.org/download/newabridgementof05baco/newabridgementof05baco.pdf

Page 77 of Vol. 1 contains the exact same definition of Natural Born as Cunningham’s Law Dictionary!

Ergo, the current SCOTUS is well aware that the Founders understood Natural Born to be born on American soil to parents who were themselves American Citizens.

Cheers


7 posted on 12/16/2011 5:49:53 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama Sucks!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and Kenyan father.

I am not at all sure that BHO, Sr is in fact BHO, Jr. (aka Barry Serotoro) biological father.

8 posted on 12/16/2011 5:57:37 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten
.....the founders intention was to insure that the person in the office only had allegiances to the United States. as such, if both parents are US citizens at the time of birth, the child ‘naturally’ has allegiances to the US... as there would be no other allegiance possible

You cannot possibly hold a mixed race man eligible for Kenyan, UK, Indonesian, and American citizenship to such narrow nationalistic standards. The fellows who wrote the Constitution were like these old, now-dead white guys, some of whom owned slaves. I saw the document. It is not even typed. It is on this old funky yellow paper.

A white guy President, Chester A. Arthur turns out to have been ineligible by their impossibly archaic standards, so it's only fair that a half-black guy get to skate on this dumb rule, too.

Besides, it's entirely possible that the guy was like born in Hawaii. Lot's of people are born there every day! Hey, what's on cable tonight?

9 posted on 12/16/2011 6:00:57 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (So, you're telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out this eligibility stuff?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Born July 29, 1969 in Waycross, Ware County, Georgia, Representative Mark Hatfield is married to Lee Clark Hatfield. They are the proud parents of two children, John Mark II, age 7, and Annabeth, age 4. The family attends the First United Methodist Church, Waycross.

Representative Hatfield earned the rank of Valedictorian, Class of 1987, Waycross High School, and subsequently graduated from the University of Georgia in 1990 as a First Honor Graduate with an A.B. degree in Political Science, Summa Cum Laude, with Highest Honors. He later received his Juris Doctor, Cum Laude, from the University of Georgia School Of Law in 1993.

During Hatfield’s undergraduate career at UGA, he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa; was a member of the UGA Honors Program; served as President of the UGA Zodiac Honor Society; and was a recipient of the UGA President’s Award in 1990. In law school at Georgia, Hatfield was a member of the Joseph Henry Lumpkin American Inn of Court; won the 1992 Intraschool Mock Trial Competition; won the 1992 Verner F.

Chaffin Award for Excellence in Fiduciary Law; and served as a Graduate Senator to the UGA Student Government Association from 1990¬1992.

A former Georgia All-State alto saxophonist in 1987, Hatfield was also a member of the University of Georgia Redcoat Marching, Concert, and Symphonic Bands during his years at UGA.

Representative Hatfield was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1993, and he is a former Assistant District Attorney for the Western Judicial Circuit based in Athens, Georgia. A former President of the Waycross Bar Association, he is presently an attorney in the private practice of law with Hatfield & Hatfield, P.C. in Waycross.

Representative Hatfield is currently serving his first term in the Georgia General Assembly, having been elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 2004. He serves as Secretary of the Judiciary (Civil) Committee in the House, and also serves on the Higher Education and Transportation Committees. Representative Hatfield was also selected by Majority Whip Barry A. Fleming to serve as a Deputy Majority Whip for the House of Representatives.

A former Chairman of the Ware County Republican Party, Hatfield has also been actively involved in his community, serving his neighbors in several different capacities.

He is a former member of the Waycross Jaycees and the Board of Directors of the Southeast Georgia Chapter of the American Red Cross. He is currently a member and officer of the Waycross Elks Lodge # 369 and serves as a volunteer baseball coach at the Waycross YMCA.

He is also an active member of the Williams Heights Elementary PTA.

http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/house/bios/hatfieldMark/hatfieldMarkBio.htm


10 posted on 12/16/2011 6:01:03 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
None of the lawsuits has gone anywhere up to now.

These things won’t go anywhere either.

There is a high probability you are right. However, it is not for lack of a legal basis, but for the courts' unwillingness to adapt their "standing" doctrine to an apparent abuse of the US electoral system. Legal "culture" is enormously powerful. Raw legal logic cannot win the day without finding some seam in legal culture through which it can pass.

Which is precisely the advantage in bringing these NBC challenges at the ballot access level, because that is where they should have been brought the first time to circumvent the standing issues that have plagued the after-the-fact cases.

Furthermore, the quasi-judicial bodies that determine ballot challenges are not reliably embedded in traditional legal culture. They can be all over the map, from totally predictable political machines to a loose collection of part-timers who may actually think seriously about the issues presented.

So, while I do rate your prediction as very likely to come true, it is not guaranteed. It's the right place in the process to bring the objection, and if the venue is just right, who knows?

11 posted on 12/16/2011 6:03:00 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

He wasn’t born in Hawaii. He was born in Kenya and lived there, along with his mother who was taking correspondence courses from the University of Washington, for the first two years of his life.


12 posted on 12/16/2011 6:05:39 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Contact: J. Mark Hatfield
mhatfield@wayxcable.com


13 posted on 12/16/2011 6:06:32 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Dear Sir, It is necessary that Democrat Candidates for President be of doubtful provenance. It is called the "Clinton Rule." The MSM has set the tone by being scrupulously polite as to leave untouched the factual history of the proclaimed Clinton "Baby Daddy," one William Blythe.

For the record, the fellow had been serving in the Army in Europe until just a couple of months prior to the Blessèd Clintonian Event, was married to a woman in Texas, from whom he was never divorced, and by whom he had several children. Blythe's main claim to clintonian fatherhood was that he happened to die in a car wreck in Uncle Ray Kelly's Hot Springs Jurisdiction. Bill's Uncle Ray was wizard at court House paperwork, which is apparently somewhat less scrupulously done in Arkansas than in other places. It is somewhat doubtful that Blythe even ever met Bill's Mom, the ever-scintillating Miss Virginia Kelly.

Naturally, the MSM feels that Obama (aka Barry Soetoro, Barry Dunham, etc.), who carries the SS# of some dead guy from Connecticut, who has fraudulent draft records, and who cannot produce an actual Birth Certificate or a certified copy thereof, should get the same break. Nice people just don't talk about this sort of thing, unless the guy is a Republican.

So, Mr. Fossil. Just let's drop this line of inquiry, shall we? Our POTUS hath appeared amongst us by miraculous means that we mere mortals are not at the pay grade to discuss.

KB

14 posted on 12/16/2011 6:23:03 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (So, you're telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out this eligibility stuff?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

hee hee hee

You made my day.

I loathed Slick Willie, but nothing like the Obastard.


15 posted on 12/16/2011 6:31:47 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Commentary, from a dismissed 10th circuit court of appeals case is pretty flimsy ground to build legal theories on. Especially NOVEL theories of “elimination,” which have no place whatsoever in the the history of the law.

One is, or is not, a Natural Born Citizen regardless of whether they are CLASSIFIED as one. It is only in the age of rampant judicial activism and the demonization of “ORIGINAL INTENT,” that it is possible for such a simple issue to be so obfuscated and prevented from being heard. That and the abuse of standing to prevent all discussion on the merits.


16 posted on 12/16/2011 6:43:10 PM PST by 1malumprohibitum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I am sure that Arpaio would be delighted to see his named removed from the Arizona ballot .


17 posted on 12/16/2011 6:43:43 PM PST by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Miss Doll,

The issue of exactly where on the planet our fearlessly ineligible leader was born is without a solution. We cannot definitively prove he was born in Kenya. He cannot definitively prove he was born in Hawaii, although he has certainly made some very game and amusing tries.

"And what does it matter anyway?" I have been asking since the beginning when this charlatan first appeared upon the national scene. The man's father was not an American citizen.

To me, that is the beginning and the end of the eligibility story. Upon reaching his majority, Obama could have legitimately claimed, UK, Kenyan, Indonesian, or American Citizenship. A "Natural Born Citizen," could not possibly do that.

Any state's election board could, acting within its constitutional powers, ban this man from its ballots. They and the courts have shirked their duties in leaving this discussion to us.

In regard to the place of birth: What the WH released to the world was NOT a "Certified Copy of a Birth certificate." It was the White House's home-made copy of an "Abstract of Data on File" at the Hawaiian DOH. Sheriff Joe is wise to that trick, so we need say no more about it.

But Sheriff Joe has no power in Hawaii. All he can do is present evidence to the Arizona electoral authorities, who have the power to remove Obama from the ballot in that state on the grounds of constitutional ineligibility. Obama is of course, free to challenge their decision in court. Or not.

To run for President a candidate need not be on the ballot in every state. So if Sheriff Joe and the Arizonans follow through, Obama may decide to do without them!

18 posted on 12/16/2011 6:47:06 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (So, you're telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out this eligibility stuff?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

I started looking into BHO2’s background in March 2008. Information that hadn’t yet been scrubbed still was available on the internet. This was long before most people had even heard of the man or thought he might be the Democratic nominee.

I’m not going to take up room on this thread discussing it. That is why we have mail on FR, so I will explain it all there, if you’re interested in reading it.

Getting it all together might take a while, so it may not appear until later this night.


19 posted on 12/16/2011 6:59:11 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Does the info you found detail his mother as Ann or Anna 0bama? Or another name?


20 posted on 12/16/2011 7:36:48 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson