On February 3rd a much anticipated decision was issued by Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi, recommending that Secretary of State Brian Kemp allow Barack Hussein Obama to appear on the state ballot as a candidate for President.
Advertisement-content continues below
Given previous rulings by Judge Malihi in the Obama case, many had assumed things might go badly for the acting president. Yet the judge’s 10 page decision could hardly have done more to accommodate defendant Obama and his attorney, especially in light of their having ignored court orders, subpoenas and the hearing itself.
And many of those who have reviewed Judge Malihi’s decision find it to be supported by neither fact nor law.
Of the statements made by the judge in his decision, the following are among the most objectionable to legal observers:
1.) “This decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.” (page 3)
Advertisement-content continues below
In actuality there was NO evidence “presented at the hearing,” in response to subpoenas or submitted pre-trial upon which Judge Malihi could base his decision, as Barack Obama provided nothing, either in documentary or verbal form. Yet Malihi states “the following FACTS are considered: 1.) Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2.) Mr. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth…” (my caps) (page 6)
From what evidence placed in the court record did Malihi obtain these “facts?” No one seems to know.
2.) “The Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny [sic] persuasive.” (page 7)
Ankeny (misspelled throughout the decision by Malihi) was a 2009, Indiana case brought by two plaintiffs who claimed Obama was not qualified to be president on the same grounds as used by at least one plaintiff in the Georgia case—Obama was NOT a “natural born citizen” as required by Article ll, Section l of the US Constitution.
In deciding the case against the plaintiff Ankeny, the Indiana State Court made glaring errors both in statutory construction and by completely misinterpreting Minor v. Happersett, the 1875 Supreme Court case which defined “natural born citizen.” Yet in his own words, Judge Malihi finds the reasoning and decision of the Indiana state court “persuasive.”
3.) “For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” (page 10)
“This Court CONSIDERED?” When all is said and done, courts don’t “consider” rulings or decisions, they MAKE them! Why did Judge Malihi not state that he FOUND Obama to have been born in the United States? Why does he simply “consider” it? Was this his way of protecting or excusing himself for the complete lack of evidence upon which this “consideration” was based?
And why does Malihi find it necessary to wield the Ankeny case before him like a sword? Could it be that, as he possessed no evidence upon which a decision could honestly be made, he was in desperate need of some “legal” excuse—ANY legal excuse– to provide grounds for his “consideration?”
Had it been honestly delivered, Michael Malihi’s “decision” should have been phrased in the following manner:
This Court considers it OK that Barack Obama be included on the Georgia presidential primary ballot because I’ve heard that a judge in an Indiana state court thinks it’s alright.
Over the next days, “Coach is Right” (and Western Journalism) will present specifics of Judge Malihi’s decision in order to determine its legal authority and susceptibility to successful appeal. And Attorney Mark Hatfield has already declared his intention to appeal.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.