Democrats to boycott effort to remove Barack Obama from Georgia ballot
Democrats, including the attorney representing President Barack Obama, have made a last-minute decision to boycott the Thursday hearing to consider a “birther” effort to remove Obama from the March 6 presidential primary ballot.
“They can tilt at windmills on their own,” said state Democratic spokesman Eric Gray on Wednesday night.
Last week, in a surprise ruling, a Georgia state administrative judge declined to quash a subpoena directing Obama to attend a hearing Thursday at the Fulton County courthouse on a challenge to strike him from the Georgia ballot this fall on claims he is not a natural born U.S. citizen. Read more background here from my AJC colleague Bill Rankin.
Among tomorrow’s no-shows will be Michael Jablonski, the Atlanta attorney serving as counsel to Obama. He’s written a letter to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican, asking him to intervene and bring the circus to a halt.
Among those pressing the action is state Rep. Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross. But many ranking Republicans are doing their best to keep their distance.
Here’s the statement just released by Mike Berlon, chairman of the state Democratic party:
“Several lawsuits were recently filed against President Obama questioning whether he is an American citizen in an attempt to remove him from the Georgia primary ballot. Despite the fact that these issues have been thoroughly litigated, a hearing has been scheduled in these cases for Thursday, January 26, 2012. The Democratic Party of Georgia is not a party to any of these lawsuits.
“This afternoon we received a letter from counsel for the President directed to the Georgia Secretary of State asking him to intervene in these lawsuits and bring them to a halt, because it is well established that there is no issue here – a fact validated time and again by courts in this country.
“In the letter, counsel also indicated that they had no interest in continuing to appear or participate further in the litigation and have suspended their involvement.
“We respect the President’s position and urge the Secretary of State to bring this matter to a conclusion. We also believe that each political party has the absolute legal right to determine who should appear on their primary and general election ballots according to their own rules without interference from outside parties.
“In light of these developments the Democratic Party of Georgia has no plans to continue to be involved in these baseless cases. Furthermore the Democratic Party of Georgia will cooperate with the President and his campaign in any way requested to make sure that his name appears on the primary and general election ballots for 2012.”
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
552 comments Add your comment
Real American
January 26th, 2012
8:55 am
Mick, what will you do when this doesn’t work either? Gonna go to DC and make a citizens arrest? LOL
Hamilton
January 26th, 2012
8:56 am
ditto Mike
Mick
January 26th, 2012
8:56 am
Hamilton, The REQUIREMENT is natural born Citizen, not “citizen” or “American born citizen”, or “native citizen”, or “citizen at birth”. Natural born Citizens are born subject to the allegiance of no other foreign power– it’s a security measure for the POTUS, and Commander in Chief of the USAF. Obama was born British, of a British subject father.
“Citizen” describes “membership in a nation, nothing more.” (Minor v. Happersett US 88 Wall. (1874))
Real Athens
January 26th, 2012
8:58 am
So many Constitutional Scholars (lol) here, so little time.
The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of ONE citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements. The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen.
The Presidents prior to Martin van Buren, as well as potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution.
Mick
January 26th, 2012
8:59 am
“British law doesn’t supercede US law. Even if he meets the requirements of British citizenship, he also meets the requirements to be POTUS. Not a single shred of authority that prevents it.”
Nonsense, the Jay Treaty, and British Treaty 1951 provide the basis for the acceptance of British Citizenship for the children of British subject present on US soil. It is also reciprocal– the children of Americans born in Britian are also considered US Citizens, as well as British, by birth on British soil.
Pepp
January 26th, 2012
9:02 am
Mick,
I have no idea of how intolerant you are of the British, but it’s a given that you are intolerant of President Obama and that’s fine. But you’re also obssessed. And that’s just not natural. Something is wrong with you.
Hamilton
January 26th, 2012
9:03 am
Funny, Mick. This from the Congressional Research Service
“There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President….The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term natural born citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship by birth or at birth, either by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship at birth.”
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:05 am
“AThe Presidents prior to Martin van Buren, as well as potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution.”
Ah, I can see the Obot bridgetenders are here presenting all the old tired and obviously wrong arguments. The founders knew they were born British, and thus were not natural born, that why they grandfathered themselves in by A2S1C5—”…or a citizen, at the time”. Only those present in the Colonies at the time of ratification were considered eligible as Original Citizens. Obama was 172 years too late for that. As far as the other nonsense you wrote, the Constitution is not a dictionary, lots of words in it were not “defined”. SCOTUS is the only authority to define Constitutional terms, and did so in 1874– Minor v. Happersett.
Hamilton
January 26th, 2012
9:08 am
Not my words, sir. The CRS.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:08 am
“Funny, Mick. This from the Congressional Research Service”
CRA is nonsense. A coverup of treason, full of lies and half truths, much like the usual Obama speech.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/the-objectively-gray-propaganda-of-masked-rascals/
old man
January 26th, 2012
9:08 am
@DILLIGAFF
I’m complaining about Georgia, and I’m embarrassed about Georgia, AND I WAS BORN IN GEORGIA IN 1956. AND, LIKE YOUR PRESIDENT, I HAVE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO PROVE WHERE I WAS BORN.
What a bunch of redneck losers.
Alcum
January 26th, 2012
9:10 am
There is no question that Obama is a natural born citizen and is in fact the first and only president to prove it by releasing his birth certificate — not only once but twice. The birthers can’t read English. The Supreme Court case they cite, Minor, not only does not back them up, but contradicts them. Read the sentence FOLLOWING the one they quote!
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:13 am
“Not my words, sir. The CRS”
CRS is full of BS. See above. This is the definition of natural born handed down by SCOTUS, and NOT EVEN mentioned in that silly CRA.:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”— Minor v. Happersett 1874.
Pretty plain words, that make Obama guilty of the Usurpation of the Presidency.
Incidently Van Buren was the FIRST natural born Citizen, born in NY in 1772 after the Declaration of Independence to US Citizen parents.
bf
January 26th, 2012
9:13 am
How is our state taken seriously when it comes to federal aid when we behave in such a way. One radical idiot takes us all down.
Carlos
January 26th, 2012
9:13 am
Come on now. I usually don’t like to play the race card, but how can you not. If President Obama wasn’t born in the US then he never should of been sworn in as President in the first place. The same way they tried to derail his campaing with Jeremiah Wright (painting him as a racist, when actually he was quoting someone else: chickens come home to roost), this clearly is once again another effort to keep him from getting a second term. I would question George Bush’s citizenship before Obama’s. At least he didn’t send our men and women overseas to “invade” a country that wasn’t even bothering us, plus there wasn’t even a slingshot found, known less any weapons of mass destruction. I’d rather you just come out and say I don’t like the President than trying to use his citizenship as a smoke screen to hide your true feelings.
Independent voter
January 26th, 2012
9:13 am
They need to look at Romney birth cerificate. These racist people in Georgia.
Hamilton
January 26th, 2012
9:13 am
A coverup? You think Speaker Boehner and the peck of rookie congressmen would let one of their legislative agencies cover up the opportunity to oust their nemesis? Come on.
RB
January 26th, 2012
9:14 am
This farce court case just goes to confirm that there are a lot of ignorant folk in GA. I’m glad to see that intelligent people are boycotting this circus of idiots!!!!
Alcum
January 26th, 2012
9:16 am
Seems Mick cannot abide by all the proof against his claim. Minor v Happersett does NOT say that the only people who are natural born citizens are this with two citizen parents. In fact it says there well may be others but the court at that time specifically stated it was NOT deciding that question. Birthers’ own cite proves them wrong! As is well known, the Supremes later did decide, in the Wong case. The matter is settled. Obama is a natural born citizen.
MG
January 26th, 2012
9:17 am
The idiot birthers and their supporters are among the most hateful and ignorant segment of America. They should prove their birth, then it would confirm that each of their parents are actually siblings.
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:17 am
“There is no question that Obama is a natural born citizen and is in fact the first and only president to prove it by releasing his birth certificate — not only once but twice. The birthers can’t read English. The Supreme Court case they cite, Minor, not only does not back them up, but contradicts them. Read the sentence FOLLOWING the one they quote”
You mean this one:
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”
That says that the US citizenship of those born to alien parents is in doubt, not whether they were natural born Citizens. They are the ones in between the 2 extremes, natural born, and aliens or foreigners. “Citizen” is held to mean “membership in the nation” in the same case. Try reading it. The doubts as to whether children of aliens are US Citizens still persists today. They are only presumed to be US Citizens, but certainly not natural born Citizens, eligible for President.
Hamilton
January 26th, 2012
9:18 am
Just think of the apoplexy when Gingrich is nominated and Obama is sworn to his second term. Later.
So WHAT
January 26th, 2012
9:20 am
i don’t really care if he was born on mars. what difference does it really make? over 50% of the so-called citizens who even cared to vote for president chose Obama. Over McCain. Fair, balanced, and somewhat convincing results.
can we put our energies into something more constructive like campaigning against his record? for god’s sake – if we can’t win that argument, then what the heck are we doing?
Pepp
January 26th, 2012
9:20 am
OK Mick, so we’ll wait for your and Mark Hatfield’s well vetted legal argument to make its way all the way from the Georgia courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will NEVER happen. Stop obessessing and get some help. You sound unhinged.
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:21 am
“Seems Mick cannot abide by all the proof against his claim. Minor v Happersett does NOT say that the only people who are natural born citizens are this with two citizen parents. In fact it says there well may be others but the court at that time specifically stated it was NOT deciding that question. Birthers’ own cite proves them wrong! As is well known, the Supremes later did decide, in the Wong case. The matter is settled. Obama is a natural born citizen.”
Wrong– see above. There were doubts that the children of aliens were EVEN US CITIZENS is what it says. Wong Kim Ark cited the exact definition in Minor, and never disagreed. WKA was declared to be a US Citizen, since he was born to resident alien parents, who subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the US by the Burlingame Treaty, but were not allowed to naturalize. NO WHERE does the case say that WKA is a natural born Citizen.
Alcum
January 26th, 2012
9:21 am
Mick cites a racist blog over the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service! Can you spell “desperation?” Mick, do us a favor and look at the sentences FOLLOWING the cherry-picked quote you used from Minor. Hint: You won’t because it contradicts your claim.
York
January 26th, 2012
9:21 am
They’re coming to take me away he-he, ha-ha. They’re coming to take me away.
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:22 am
“OK Mick, so we’ll wait for your and Mark Hatfield’s well vetted legal argument to make its way all the way from the Georgia courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will NEVER happen. Stop obessessing and get some help. You sound unhinged.”
That’s your opinion, but certainly not a legal one. My opinion is based on legal fact.
Alcum
January 26th, 2012
9:23 am
Wong was declared to be a natural born citizen. Even the opponents of Wong at the time knew this, Mick. Try reading the dissent in the case. You have nothing.
So WHAT
January 26th, 2012
9:23 am
I’m pretty sure most of the founding fathers were born in England. I guess all of their accomplishments and laws should be retracted and we start over with some Americans, right?
York
January 26th, 2012
9:24 am
…to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time….
Alcum
January 26th, 2012
9:24 am
Mick, your opinion is not BASED on legal fact, it’s literally CONTRADICTED by legal fact. What your opinion IS based on is the fact that the president is a black man. End of story.
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:24 am
“Mick cites a racist blog over the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service! Can you spell “desperation?” Mick, do us a favor and look at the sentences FOLLOWING the cherry-picked quote you used from Minor. Hint: You won’t because it contradicts your claim.”
Racist blog? you mean prejudiced against the British? Already shot down that silly argument. Those born of alien parents in the US were doubted to be even US Citizens, much less natural born Citizens. Minor v. Happersett is SCOTUS holding and natural law.
So WHAT
January 26th, 2012
9:25 am
i think we should ban lawyers from government
RB
January 26th, 2012
9:25 am
Good point about the birthers. I would bet the majority of them don’t have a birth certificate issued on planet earth. They would have to go to a place far, far away to look for thiers. Can we say, ET!!
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:26 am
“Wong was declared to be a natural born citizen. Even the opponents of Wong at the time knew this, Mick. Try reading the dissent in the case. You have nothing.”
The dissent? HAHAAHA. NOTHING in the holding of the case says that WKA is a natural born Citizen, maybe you should read it.
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:28 am
“Mick, your opinion is not BASED on legal fact, it’s literally CONTRADICTED by legal fact. What your opinion IS based on is the fact that the president is a black man. End of story”
Contradicted by legal fact? which one? This one:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” — Minor v. Happersett
Alpha23
January 26th, 2012
9:29 am
Whatever made you people think obumer had the intelligence to lead this country? What are his qualifications? What experience has he had? His so-called experience in the illinois state house was a definite joke!! Was he really born in the US? How do you know? Because someone in the govt. said he was? His whole term as president has been one big joke after the other!! But you kool-aid drinkers think the sun rises and sets with him!!! You all are as big a joke as he is!!! He will not be re-elected as president!!!!
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:31 am
“I’m pretty sure most of the founding fathers were born in England. I guess all of their accomplishments and laws should be retracted and we start over with some Americans, right?”
No, most of the founders were born in the Colonies as British subjects, and knew they were not natural born. That’s why they grandfathered themselves in by A2S1C5—… “or a citizen, at the time of the ratification…” There were 11 of them grandfathered in that were present in the colonies at ratification
td
January 26th, 2012
9:31 am
Why are the Republicans and the state of Georgia being bashed on this blog? The state or the Republican party did not bring this action. It was 5 individual citizens (2 of which are dems). What do you want the Secretary of state to do, ignore the laws of the state?
td
January 26th, 2012
9:38 am
old man
January 26th, 2012
9:08 am
Why are you “embarrassed” about Georgia? Is Georgia the one bringing the lawsuit? Should the state ignore the laws of the state and not allow the lawsuit to be brought?
Sounds like to me that you want the state to break the law because it does not fit your political agenda.
Alcum
January 26th, 2012
9:38 am
Mick appears to be proof that Georgia schools no longer teach English. He cannot read Minor and he cannot read Wong without his racist glasses. Fortunately, smart people can read and know that Mick is wrong.
td
January 26th, 2012
9:41 am
bf
January 26th, 2012
9:13 am
How is our state taken seriously when it comes to federal aid when we behave in such a way. One radical idiot takes us all down
Is the state bringing this lawsuit? Do you think the state should break the law and not allow this lawsuit to go forward? Sounds like you are advocating that the state should break the law because it does not fit your political agenda.
Brandi
January 26th, 2012
9:43 am
If he wasn’t a citizen then he wouldn’t be our President. Now go get a life people!
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:43 am
“Mick appears to be proof that Georgia schools no longer teach English. He cannot read Minor and he cannot read Wong without his racist glasses. Fortunately, smart people can read and know that Mick is wrong.”
More nonsense. No legal argument. SHOW me where WKA was deemed a natural born Citizen. Minor states the definition pretty plainly:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Will
January 26th, 2012
9:44 am
Was Newt Gingrich born in outer space? He sure acts like it.
Mick
January 26th, 2012
9:45 am
“if he wasn’t a citizen then he wouldn’t be our President. Now go get a life people!”
Oh yeah, that’s logic. The requirement is “natural born Citizen”, i.e one born in the US of US Citizen parents.
Kimi
January 26th, 2012
9:45 am
The GOP (particularly in the south) and Tea Party/Birthers is a vehicle for racists. Nothing more, nothing less.
President Obama will not win Georgia, but he WILL be re-elected. Those who hate him may as well start getting themselves mentally prepared to deal with it.
Pepp
January 26th, 2012
9:45 am
Mick,
sounds more to me like “legal intepretation” or “legal reasoning” rather than “legal fact” as you call it. Your legal interpretation/reasoning is up for interpretation. Which is why you, Mark Hatfield, et al will never “win” this. Coupled with it is not a fact that President Obama was born in the British Isle.
td
January 26th, 2012
9:46 am
MG
January 26th, 2012
9:17 am
The idiot birthers and their supporters are among the most hateful and ignorant segment of America.
The only haters I see are the detractors of this lawsuit going forward. I appears to me that they are attacking so hard that it was like their religion was being attacked. Oh yea, this lawsuit is questioning if their messiah in chief is a legitimate President or not.