A state commission in Indiana that was asked to review whether Barack Obama is eligible to be on the state’s 2012 ballot has scheduled a hearing for Friday, and warned the parties to the argument that those who fail to attend may be subject to a default decision.
The notice was signed by Trent Deckard and J. Bradley King, co-directors of the Indiana Election Commission, and regards case No. 2012-176, which is a challenge to Obama brought by Karl Swihart.
“The hearing is called to determine the merits of the candidate challenge pursuant to Indiana Code 3-8-1-2,” the notice, addressed to Barack Obama at a Chicago address for his campaign, explains. “A party who fails to attend or participate in the hearing may be held in default or have the proceeding dismissed.”
A similar hearing was held last month in Georgia, and Obama and his attorney refused to participate. Instead of accepting the judge’s offer of a default judgment then, which probably would have recommended to the secretary of state that Obama’s name not be on the 2012 election ballot in the state, attorneys for several citizens raising various issues asked to present evidence regarding Obama’s ineligibility.
The judge, Michael Malihi, allowed that in several cases, but then in one sweeping opinion that didn’t even respond to some of the legal motions pending, he dismissed the testimony and ruled without evidence from Obama that he should be on the 2012 state election ballot.
The move is part of an effort on the part of citizens across the country to use each state’s election procedures to challenge Obama’s name on state ballots. It is the states that run elections, not the federal government, and the presidential race results are just a compilation of the elections run by all the states.
There are two mainstream arguments in the dispute: that he either was not born in the state of Hawaii as he has claimed, which could make him ineligible under the Constitution’s requirements that a president be a “natural born citizen,” or that he doesn’t qualify for that status since he’s written that his father never was a U.S. citizen.
Many analysts believe the Founders considered a “natural born citizen” to be the offspring of two citizen parents. A Supreme Court opinion from 1875 seems to support that argument.
California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled a number of cases challenging Obama’s tenure in the Oval Office on the grounds he’s not eligible, has told WND, “Indiana is a very important state, as recently they threw out of office … their Secretary of State Charlie White for not updating his voter registration card.”
“It is important to shove in front of the elections board … all the evidence of Obama using a stolen Social Security number and a forgery instead of a birth certificate. I want to see how they will justify keeping … Barack Obama on the ballot after they removed the secretary of state for something minor,” she said.
On her website, she reported today, “Obama ordered to appear before the election commission in Indiana or be in default.”
A supporter immediately offered to help her with air fare, saying, “The severity of this issue cannot be overstated. … God speed.”
In fact, it was reported recently that now-former Secretary of State Charlie White was removed from office and the Indiana Supreme Court now is deciding the procedures to replace him.
A hearing is scheduled there Feb. 29 to determine whether White, who won the office on the GOP ticket in November 2010, was eligible to be a candidate at all – because of discrepancies in voter registration.
A state elections commission had ruled in his favor last year, but a judge later overturned that decision.
The eligibility issue is separate from vote fraud convictions that also involve White. A jury found he illegally registered to vote at his former wife’s home. The conviction is being appealed.
The fact that there are two cases complicates the issue of his replacement, because if there’s a determination he never was eligible, the argument is that his Democrat opponent in the election should take the office. If the prevailing case stems from the vote fraud, then the governor would appoint a replacement.
Evidence of the removal from of an ineligible officeholder has not, in the past, swayed courts even to consider the case against Obama.
Previously, in a California case on which Taitz worked, the issue was raised.
The case cited what happened in North Dakota in the 1930s when Thomas H. Moodie was removed from the office of governor. Moodie had failed to meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But he was elected anyway, installed and ultimately removed from office by the state Supreme Court over that failure.
The court in the Moodie case held, “The lack of residential qualifications on the part of the governor is a legal disability. The [North Dakota] constitution does not differentiate between a disability existing before election and one occurring after election in regard to the right of the lieutenant governor to assume the powers and duties of the office of governor. The provision in the constitution devolving these powers and duties upon him must be construed in the light of reason. … When the framers of the constitution used the language which we are here considering, they intended to include legal as well as physical or mental disabilities, and did not exclude disabilities existing prior to election.”
The case argued that Obama was legally disabled by his birth status. “The condition of being ineligible for particular elected office does not change on account of winning the requisite number of votes to otherwise win the office. If one is ineligible when a candidate, the same person continues to be ineligible after being elected,” the brief said.
“If Mr. Obama is, in fact, ineligible for the office of president of the United States, it is insufficient that he received a majority of the Electoral College votes and has served for some time in the office, because ineligibility is not vacated by votes, else the Constitution could be amended contrary to the Constitution’s own dictates,” it said.
While Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” was released by the White House, other documentation for him remains sealed, including kindergarten records, high school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
The Supreme Court justices repeatedly have refused to address the constitutional questions involved. The justices apparently are “avoiding” the Obama issue, according to one member of the court. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.
“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”
Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”
“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”
“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”
“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”
The image that Obama released as his birth documentation, which has been challenged repeatedly by computer, imaging and document experts as a fraud:
While the Georgia complaint is being elevated to the appellate court level, another complaint has been filed in Pennsylvania, asking officials to set aside Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential candidacy, because he cannot meet the state’s eligibility requirements.
Other cases are developing in Mississippi and Alabama.
The Pennsylvania case was raised by Dale Laudenslager and Charles Kerchner, whose previous legal challenge to Obama’s term in the White House also was based on eligibility concerns and reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices refused to look at any evidence.
According to a report from the team whose members filed the complaint, Kerchner asserted that after years of research, it “has been determined” that Obama is not eligible to hold the office president because he is “not a natural born citizen” under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Candidates for the U.S .Senate and U.S. House only must meet the requirement of being a “citizen, while a president must be a “natural born citizen.”
Kerchner, who works through the Protect Our Liberty website, said Obama is ineligible because of his father.
He noted Obama’s father never was a U.S. citizen or tried to be one. He returned to his native Kenya after a few years of school in the U.S.
“Candidate Obama was born a British subject/citizen via his foreign-national, non-U.S. citizen father and basic U.S. citizen via his mother and thus was born with dual citizenship and not sole allegiance at birth to the U.S.A.,” he said.
“A dual citizen at birth is not a ‘natural born citizen of the United States’ to constitutional standards,” Kerchner’s report said.