It takes some pretty big balls to say this, when the original ruling in their case basically said "Ankeny decided this, we find their reasoning persuasive, so we agree." Correct me if I'm wrong, but there wasn't any actual new reasoning in Malihi's decision as far as eligibility - and yet Irion spins this as the first ever ruling on this, when the ruling was a clear agreement with a previous ruling.

1 Hereinafter this Petition will refer to the respondent, President Obama, also known as Barack Hussein Obama Jr., Barack Obama II, and Barry Soetoro, as “candidate Obama.” This reference is not intended to be disrespectful to the office of the President or to the individual Barack Obama. It is used only to identify the individual, separate from the office, to note that candidate Obama has not yet been elected to the term of office at issue in the instant litigation, and to simplify communication for purposes of this Petition.

Van Irion says he has submitted his Georgia case to SCOTUS, although it is not on the docket yet. The petitioners are David Welden, Carl Swensson, and Kevin Powell and Obama is the only respondent. Irion and Mark Hatfield are both listed as attorneys for the petitioners. The pleading is available from the Liberty Legal Foundation website.

The Georgia Superior Court dismissed an appeal by erroneously deciding that the Georgia statute under which the petitioners challenged candidate Obama’s eligibility, violated the Democratic Party’s right to freedom of association. The Superior Court ruled that the Georgia statute was, therefore, inapplicable to Presidential primary elections. This argument had been raised and rejected by the Georgia Office of Administrative Hearings and the Georgia Secretary of State.

What Irion is saying is that Ankeny had no authority to rule on this constitutional matter. The Indiana appeals court dismissed Ankeny's claim based on lack of standing, therefore it had no authority to issue an opinion on the constitutional issue. It did anyway even though it was overreaching. The Georgia administrative court granted standing to Weldon and then issued a authoritative ruling based on the merits of his constitutionally based argument. That is the difference.

Van Irion has now filed his petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. You can find it here: [link]http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Welden-Petition-for-Writ-of-Cert.pdf[/link] It will no doubt be denied, which means that Malihi's ruling will stand as the only ruling issued in a case where the plaintiff was granted standing by the court which addresses President Obama's eligibility.

No. 12-5
Title:

David P. Weldon, et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States

Docketed: July 2, 2012
Lower Ct: Superior Court of Georgia, Fulton County
Case Nos.: (2012CV211527, 2012CV211528, 2012CV211537)
Decision Date: March 2, 2012
Discretionary Court
Decision Date: April 4, 2012

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 28 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2012)


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Van R. Irion
Liberty Legal Foundation (865) 809-1505
Counsel of Record
9040 Executive Park Drive
Suite 200
Knoxville, TN 37923
irionlaw@earthlink.net
Party name: David P. Weldon, et al.

Attorneys for Respondent:
Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
Solicitor General
(202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: Barack H. Obama, President of the United States

Is this just boilerplate, or does it mean that a response is specifically requested?

Is this just boilerplate, or does it mean that a response is specifically requested?

Ankeny was a challenge brought by pro-se litigants in Indiana against that state’s Governor. Id. at 679. While litigation by pro-se parties certainly does not, by itself, negate the value of an opinion, it certainly should raise some concerns. Most pro-se litigants cannot be expected to present courts with fully researched and briefed arguments in support of their constitutional assertions. Addtionally, the Defendant in Ankeny was a sitting Governor with all the resources of the state at his disposal. Id. This picture explains the very one-sided presentation of the issues and the ultimate result in Ankeny.

Much more striking, however, is the fact that the Ankeny Court admitted that the plaintiff lacked standing. Id. at 684. Since the plaintiff lacked standing, the Ankeny Court lacked jurisdiction to reach any substantive issue presented. Yet after
reaching this conclusive finding, the Ankeny court took it upon itself to construe Article II of the U.S. Constitution. While a court may use alternative means to reach a holding, it should not construe the U.S. Constitution to do so. Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439, 445-46 (1988) (“A fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity
of deciding them.”). Judicial restraint requires all courts to avoid construing any clause of the Constitution if avoiding such construction is at all possible. Id. By pushing forward to give its opinion on the meaning of Article II, after ruling that it lacked jurisdiction in the case, the Ankeny Court ignored judicial restraint, ignored rules of constitutional construction, ignored direct precedent from this Court, and ignored the Article III constitutional limits on its own authority.

In other words, the Ankeny Court’s decision to reach the constitutional question demonstrates that Court’s failure to understand the most basic doctrines applied by this Court when construing the Constitution. With this fact in mind, the Ankeny Court’s opinion regarding the meaning of Article II and the 14th Amendment should be avoided at all costs by any other court.

Yet the Georgia Administrative Court, Georgia Secretary of State, and other courts across the country are citing Ankeny as decisive on the natural born citizen issue.

Much more striking, however, is the fact that the Ankeny Court admitted that the plaintiff lacked standing. Id. at 684.

I just reread Ankeny, especially page 684.

No such ruling by the court.

What? Are you suggesting that a birfer is just making $h1t up? Whodda thunk it!

[Seriously though, thanks for rereading, bob. I was teetering on rereading Ankeny for the same reason. I trusts ya.]

I hadn't recalled it running to that many pages. Gotta link for rikker?

Nb.: the opinion starts on page 678, so 684 is only six pages in.

Dawg... What is it you don't understand about the page numbering?

The 19-pager becomes 9 in the reporter, due to the font and double columns and begins on page 678.

Sorry if that doesn't help and I'm misunderstand you, but just sayin'.

In the 9-page version (that I linked to), page 684 "starts" in the second column on page 4, and "ends" in the first column on page 5. (Look for "*684].)