Obama’s Lawyer:Proving My Eligibility is “Unreasonable”

Bob Unruh,WND.com

Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

“Presidential electors and Congress,not the state of Georgia,hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.

Hearings have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons,which they are allowed to do under state law.

It is states,usually through the office of secretary of state,that run elections,not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.

The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia,a state law 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.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications,the judge determined.

Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings,including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony,and Michael Jablonski,Obama’s attorney for these cases,argued that he should be exempted.

Jablonski earlier had argued that state eligibility requirements didn’t apply to Obama,but 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.”

In Obama’s attempt to be excused from providing testimony and evidence such as his original birth certificate, he argues that such testimony would “interrupt duties” as president.

He also argues that the documents and testimony “is,on its face,unreasonable.” And further,the documents and testimony already have been made public,he argued…..

Read more.