First Time Ever: Court to Hear Obama Eligibility Challenge on Merits

Contribuotr: CJ in TX @TellTheTruth1

“This will be the first time ever, since this whole thing began, that it will be looked on, on merit.” Those are the words of Carl Swensson, Republican Party Chairman of Clayton County, Georgia. “This” refers to an actual judicial hearing of the case against the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be, according to the United States Constitution, “Commander in Chief” and United States President.

The attorneys of Barack Obama requested a pretrial dismissal, as it had done on so many other occasions, against so many other cases. But yesterday, one judge denied and scheduled an official hearing of the case to commence, January 26.

From 2008 to the present, judicial standing has been refused the plaintiff, often via convoluted rationale, many say sophistry. The question however is elementary to our constitutional republic: can we as Citizens be assured those presented to us for our votes are eligible to hold office?

Unlike many other states, Georgia has a statue requiring just that. For Swensson’s part, he had  “resolved that I would not let anyone on the ballot who is not demonstrably qualified to hold that office.” That would appear to be part of his job as party official and it is the job of Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp (R) to assure election law is justly carried out. Swensson relates, “We have been hounding him at hearings he’s been having across the state.”

And so it came to pass that Kemp after some delay, followed due process and called forth the court designated by Georgia law, to hear such a case. This particular case was brought by Swensson and co-litigant, Kevin Richard Powell, attorney: J. Mark Hatfield, judge: Michael M. Malihi.

As veteran Obama eligibility beat reporter Bob Unruh details at WND.com:

While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.

“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”

Full Article

References: Beforeitsnews, John Rolls