For those who have waited 3 years for a judge to finally rule that Barack Hussein Obama must prove that he is legally and Constitutionally qualified to run for or serve as President of the United States, the day may have come at last.
On Friday, Georgia State Office of Administrative Hearings Judge Michael Malihi ruled that subpoenas demanding the presence of Barack Obama in his Georgia courtroom on Thursday January 26th along with the original form of his Hawaii birth certificate and information on his myriad Social Security numbers will remain in force.
Obama ‘s attorney Michael Jablonski had filed a motion to quash those subpoenas, arguing if Obama were made to answer questions before the court it would “…[require] him to interrupt duties as President of the United States…” (1)
It was also Obama’s claim that “presidential electors and Congress, not the State of Georgia, hold the Constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates.” (1)
Well Judge Malihi did not agree with Obama’s arguments that the laws of the State of Georgia were somehow irrelevant to the process, or that his presence in the court would materially interfere with his ability to discharge the duties of his office.
In his decision to allow the subpoenas to remain in force, Malihi wrote, “…Defendant (Obama) has failed to cite any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that testimony…is irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’ ” (2)
In short, as Judge Malihi so eloquently put it, “”Defendants motion to quash is denied.” (2)
The process before Judge Mahili began when a number of Georgia residents filed 3 separate lawsuits demanding that Barack Obama provide evidence of having met State of Georgia election law requirements before being placed on the ballot. Malihi agreed with the plaintiffs, quoting in his ruling Georgia law which states “…every candidate for federal office shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (3)
In that ruling, Mahili stated “the court finds that the defendant (Barack Obama) is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (3)
Though Obama has managed to ooze his way out of legal responsibilities and requirements in the past, this time it really might be a bit thick for the acting president. Even the radically leftist Southern Poverty Law Center has decided to weigh in, giving vent to a typically childish attack of spleen in its “Hatewatch” column no less, where it snivels “…Malihi’s decision has been heralded far and wide as a defining moment for those who have hounded Obama about his lineage.” (4)
Apparently demands that Barack Hussein Obama actually abide by the laws of the land and the Constitution of the United States make for a clear case of “hounding” to an organization known to file suit at the drop of a conservative hat.
Here’s hoping Judge Malihi’s courtroom turns liberal petulance to leftist rage on January 26th. For Malihi’s ruling that day will determine whether or not Barack Hussein Obama may be certified by the Democrat Party to appear on the Georgia ballot in November. And as the Liberty Legal Foundation explains it, “without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election.” (5)
To read more use these links:
(1) http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Farrar-v-Obama-motion-to-quash-subpoenas.pdf
(2) http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-PowellvObama,OrderonMotiontoQuashSubpoenas,GeorgiaBallotChallenge.pdf
(3) http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/
(4) http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/01/18/georgia-court-to-hear-arguments-on-obamas-eligibility-for-primary-ballot/
(5) http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1209/no-certification-without-verification/