Flank Attacks

I am not alone in raising a legal challenge to the eligibility of Obama to be President of the United States due to his lack of the requisite "natural born Citizen" status given his Father's British nationality.

In Georgia, a state administrative law judge is entertaining a challenge based upon that same ground.  That case is set for a hearing on January 26, 2012.  One of the plaintiffs in that case has subpoenaed Obama to testify at the hearing and the administrative law judge has denied Obama's motion to quash that subpoena.  That suit has many appellate levels to transit through before any sort of decision would become final.

What I find curious is the procedural and substantive defenses that Obama's attorneys are raising -- and failing to raise. Procedurally, as the order denying the motion to quash the subpoena relates, Obama's counsel failed to cite any legal authority for the position that Obama was too "busy" to attend a hearing. Even first year law students know that attorneys have to give judges some legal basis to support the relief they request.  Moreover, Obama's attorneys have failed to raise the significant issue of "federal preemption" which would eliminate Georgia's jurisdiction over the question of Obama's eligibility.  The legal doctrine of federal preemption flows from the supremacy clause of the Constitution which makes federal law the supreme law of the land.  In federal officer eligibility matters, Congress, by enacting the D.C. Code section under which my law suit travels, has arguably "preempted" state law on that question.

Substantively, Obama's attorneys have raised the remarkably inane argument that by the majority of citizen's electing Obama in 2008, there has been a de facto amendment to the Constitution's "natural born Citizen" clause by the people stating: "further the citizenship issue plaintiff seeks to raise was soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections.” .  Unfortunately for Obama, that was not one of the methods the Framers of our federal system chose to amend our Constitution, so no judge would credit such a bizarre argument.