Republican Rhetoric

On January 23, 2012 it was reported in the Atlanta Business Chronicle that a Georgia judge ordered President Obama to appear in court on January 26 in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint filed with the Secretary of State’s office by a Georgia resident that he isn’t a natural-born citizen and should not be on the state’s ballot in November. The complaint is one of many made across the country; so far, none of the complaints have been successful. According to the Ledger-Enquirer an Obama campaign aide said any attempts to involve the President personally will fail and that such complaints have no merit. However, Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on January 20 denied a motion by the President’s lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires him to show up.

On February 2 WLTZ, 38 News, reported the President did not attend but that didn't stop the hearing. Attorney Orly Taitz said, "Mr. Obama had an opportunity to appeal here and show valid certified documents with an embossed seal of his birth certificate." President Obama has long made his birth certificate and other documents proving his citizenship available to the public. 

Thinkprogress.org on February 6, 2012 said - On February 3 the Georgia judge finally decided to end this charade holding that President Obama is indeed eligible to hold his current office. In 2009 the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed facts and issues similar to those before this Court. In Ankeny v Governor of Indiana the plaintiffs sought to prevent certification of Mr. Obama as an eligible candidate for President because his is not a natural born citizen. The plaintiffs argued that “there is a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born Citizen’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of US citizenship, owning no foreign allegiance.” The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. The Court did find the decision and analysis of Ankeny persuasive. But even if this Georgia administrative law judge had traveled even further down the rabbit hole and held that President Obama cannot be President, it is exceedingly unlikely that his decision would not have been rejected by a higher authority. Nevertheless, it is important that this judge decided to back away from his earlier decision. There is no good reason that one outlier judge should breathe new life into an attack on Obama’s presidency that is widely viewed as frivolous.

Thinkprogress.org on February 6, 2012 also said - 2 years ago conservative activists uncovered 2 judges who were willing to ignore nearly 200 years of precedent and the text of the Constitution itself in order to hold the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. One of these judges was a longtime Republican activist who was best known for producing “a miasma (mist) of misplaced morality and prudishness masquerading as social science” when he lead the Reagan administration’s anti-pornography commission. The other produced an opinion containing nearly 4 dozen errors of fact or law and which also included an explicit shout out to the Tea Party. Nevertheless these 2 deeply erroneous opinions were enough to confuse reporters who lack a background in constitutional law into believing that the utterly frivolous case against health reform might have merit. Worse, it emboldened conservative lawyers who knew better into pretending that the 2 judges were right. It remains very unlikely that the Supreme Court will strike the law down but it is at least as likely that the case would have died more than a year ago if these two judges hadn’t so emboldened the law’s opponents. Nevertheless, the fact that the case against the Affordable Care Act is viewed today as anything other than a joke is proof of the power outlier judges have to transform the ridiculous into the possible. (On March 26 we heard the Supreme Court’s decision to determine whether or not the government has the power to require every American purchase health insurance would come in June. Some argue it’s about freedom of choice while others say health care is a right. Because of the law 2.5 million under the age of 26 have already been added to their parents insurance and children under 19 cannot be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. It’s being said that without the law 16 million Americans would not have health insurance.)

Romney has recently said that he deserves the credit for the auto industry being revived; the President said he thinks this is one of Romney’s etch-a-sketch moments (Romney didn’t want them to be bailed out). How much deceit the American people will ignore is yet to be seen.