• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

The Supreme Court in Georgia has dismissed a case questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility without comment, dodging a sticky question that continues to be raised four years after the issue first was brought to the attention of American courts – and before Obama was elected to his term as president.

Officials with the Article 2 SuperPAC said today they were told that the state court denied an appeal from a decision by Michael Malihi, an administrative judge who decided without evidence from Obama or his lawyer that he was eligible for the office and his name could appear on the Georgia ballot in 2012.

One of the Georgia residents who had raised the issue under a state law allowing voters to challenge candidates’ eligibility, Kevin Richard Powell, said the state court result, which could be advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court, was a “total travesty.”

“The state of Georgia has a law on the books giving electors the right to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate,” he said in a statement posted on the Article 2 organization website. “However, that would be in theory only because in reality the judicial process is prohibitive and the sanctity of the ballot cannot be assured. Therefore, my ballot challenge in which Barack Obama entered nothing into the record and ignored a court order to appear despite Georgia Secretary of State’s warning to do so would be at ‘his own peril,’ heads to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking not only redress for a judicial process that has failed its responsibilities, but ultimately seeking constitutional compliance.”

Another plaintiff in the case, Carl Swensson, said: “Georgia Supreme Court makes it a perfect trifecta! They join with the administrative law judge and the Georgia Superior Court in refusing to give an honest hearing to an honest challenge.”

He continued, “This really does drive the point home that our courts no longer exist. It is now THEIR courts, not meant for lowly citizens to find or expect actual redress of grievances or justice. Yes, it makes me sad to know there isn’t one judge in this state with … any observable civic conscience, and absolutely no guiding moral fiber. What it does show me is that we are now one step away from completing the journey. The journey through local, state and now federal, in the form of the Supreme Court of the U.S., where I personally expect them to ignore our plea for justice. ”

“God help us all.”

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

An attorney who has worked on the case earlier called the Georgia laws and courts “a sham.”

Those comments come from Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation, one of several attorneys who started out earlier this year with a challenge to Obama’s candidacy based on a state law that allows residents to require candidates to prove their eligibility for the office they seek.

At the hearing level, Malihi simply threw out all of the evidence and ruled in favor of Obama, who, along with his lawyer, snubbed the hearing and refused to appear at all.

An intermediate court followed suit. Then when the state Supreme Court earlier rejected his request for an injunction, Irion  said, “I believe that this latest ruling proves that Georgia law does not apply to the powerful. Put another way, Georgia laws are enforced against the powerless by the powerful, but when the powerless try to have the laws applied to the powerful the courts protect the powerful.

“This is worse than anarchy. With total anarchy everyone knows that the powerful rule. With anarchy everyone understands that the only rules are the rules that the powerful want to enforce, when the powerful want to enforce them. What we have in Georgia is a system of laws and courts that appear to be fair and claim to be impartial, but in reality the purpose of the laws and courts is to deceive the people into thinking that justice is possible. The laws and courts are a sham. The courts serve to disguise the one-sided enforcement of the law.”

The plaintiffs had argued before Malihi regarding Obama’s alleged failure to qualify as a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for presidents. Obama has admitted in his writings his father never was a U.S. citizen, and attorneys argued that the understanding of the Founders, and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, defines natural-born citizen as the offspring of two citizens of the country at the time of the birth.

Citizens raising concerns include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Malihi had been charged with responding to the complaints brought over Obama’s candidacy under a state law that requires “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.”

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.