WILL THE COURT DEFINE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Sep. 23, 2012) — As the U.S. Supreme court reconvenes after its three-month summer recess on Monday, it is expected to review an eligibility challenge which began in an administrative court in Georgia last January brought by Atty. Van Irion of Knoxville, TN.
Judge Michael Malihi had ruled that because Obama claimed he was born in Hawaii, he qualified under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as a “natural born Citizen.” Irion had argued that because Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen, Obama could not meet that standard, citing the case of Minor v. Happersett.
The Georgia Supreme Court had failed to address the question of Obama’s constitutional eligibility, hence Irion’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Post & Email had interviewed Irion in July about the case reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. Irion is founder of the Liberty Legal Foundation and has recently launched a constitutionally-oriented radio show which airs on the internet every Thursday morning at 10:00 a.m. ET on America’s Web Radio.
Irion has filed challenges to Obama’s constitutional eligibility in Tennessee, his home state, and Arizona as well as Georgia. A federal judge in Tennessee ordered Irion sanctioned for bringing a “frivolous” case, and the defendant, the Democratic National Committee, has asked for $22,800 in attorneys’ fees. The sanction order has been appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Irion’s Arizona case has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has ruled that a presidential candidate can challenge the qualifications of another prior to the election. Presidential Candidate John Dummett is a plaintiff in the case.
Presidential candidate Cody Robert Judy has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court which is also expected to be reviewed on Monday. Judy believes that the definition of “natural born Citizen” as stated in the U.S. constitution is “born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.”