Malihi’s ruling was in line with the decisions of every other judge at the state and federal level who has looked at the issue and concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, which makes him a citizen just like every other human being who is born on American soil.

The birthers and their lead attorney, Orly Taitz, had the courtroom all to themselves for the Jan. 26 showdown before Malihi. Obama and his Georgia attorney, Michael Jablonski, did not show up for the hearing into the ballot complaints that originally had been filed with Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Georgia’s chief elections officer.

“It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here — a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country,” Jablonski wrote. “The state of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the president made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website.”

Jablonski urged Kemp to terminate the hearing and avoid further embarrassment for the state, but Kemp declined to do that. He also wrote a letter to Jablonski that contained this rather menacing phrase: “If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

Jablonski and Obama did not appear at the hearing.

Prior to the hearing, birthers boasted all over the internet that Malihi would rule in their favor and throw Obama off the ballot because the president did not appear at the hearing as the judge had ordered. Bill Simon of Cobb County, who cranks out the “Political Vine” newsletter, gleefully predicted that Jablonski would be stripped of his license to practice law because he had defied the judge’s order.

Neither event happened. As of this writing, Jablonski is still listed as an “Active Member in Good Standing” with the State Bar of Georgia, fully eligible to practice law within the boundaries of the state.

Even with no evidence put forth by the president or his lawyer, Malihi still ruled that Obama is an American citizen whose name should remain on the Georgia ballot for the presidential preference primary.

The judge was clearly perturbed that neither Obama nor Jablonski showed up for the hearing, writing: “Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Nonetheless, despite the Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request.”

Here’s what the judge said about the merits of the case presented by Taitz and the plaintiffs:

The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations. Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. . . . For example, two of Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or fraud investigations in general. Accordingly, the Court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses’ testimony without adequate knowledge of their qualifications. . . .

None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive . . .

For the purpose of this section’s analysis, 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; and 3) Mr. Obama’s father was never a United States citizen. Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree.

In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this Court. Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In Arkeny, the plaintiffs sought to prevent certification of Mr. Obama as an eligible candidate for president because he is not a natural born citizen. The plaintiffs argued, as the Plaintiffs argue before this Court, that “there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born Citizen,’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Id. at 685. 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. This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive. . . .

For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly,

CONCLUSION

President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

Malihi’s finding is only a recommendation. Kemp, as the secretary of state, has the choice of accepting or rejecting that recommendation.

There was a similar situation back in 2000 when Randy Sauder, a Republican member of the Georgia House, decided on the last day of qualifying to switch parties and run for another term as a Democrat.

Republican Party officials said Sauder should not be allowed to run as a Democrat and a complaint was filed to have his name removed from the ballot. Some high-powered legal counsel was brought in to argue the case against Sauder: former attorney general Mike Bowers.

An administrative law judge held a hearing and subsequently recommended to the secretary of state, Cathy Cox, that Sauder’s name be taken off the ballot. Cox rejected the judge’s recommendation, however, and ruled that Sauder could run for reelection.

The name of that administrative law judge was Michael Malihi.

The current secretary of state has the same leeway to ignore Malihi’s latest finding, if he so chooses, and declare that Obama’s name cannot appear on the ballot in Georgia. If he does that, of course, a federal judge most likely will step in and overrule him, but Kemp nevertheless has that option.

It will be extremely interesting to see the course of action he ultimately takes.

This is not a new idea. Joe Tanner recalled that when he was Zell Miller’s natural resources commissioner in the 1990s, Miller attempted a similar licensing consolidation as part of his privatization initiative for state government. Miller’s proposal did not go through, and similar efforts to eliminate or merge licensing boards have also been rebuffed by the affected groups.

One of the best assessments of Kemp’s latest attempt to consolidate the licensing process comes from the editoral page staff of the Rome News-Tribune, which commented, in part:

As Kemp observed there are more than 200 professions that it requires a state license to perform — and then must be renewed regularly as well. Those applying, he noted, sometimes “have to wait for 30 days for a piece of paper from the government before they can go to work.” Not only that but he believes that all the (paid) time now spent by those 43 licensing boards could be cut in half.

While most members of the public may associate such licensing with nurses, dentists, veterinarians and similar, fewer know it applies to plumbers, barbers, undertakers, librarians, sewage plant operators and so forth. The licensing — making sure they know what they are doing and are qualified — is certainly warranted. Being caught up in the slowly, slowly grinding wheels of bureaucracy is not.

TO THIS POINT, Kemp’s proposal is overdue though in some cases perhaps could be made even faster. For example, why can’t a graduate of an accredited nursing program (or similar) simply be handed a state license at the same time as their diploma? While some specialties require additional state exams, most don’t. The majority could and should walk off the stage ready to go to work that very day.

The amount of government regulatory paperwork has often gotten ridiculous. Pretty much all the licenses (and renewals) have fees attached although, frankly, if this is being done for the protection of the general public probably should be an expense borne by the taxpayers, not the applicants. Do our general taxes actually pay for anything at all by way of basic services nowadays? Isn’t assuring public safety supposed to be fundamental?

This sort of paper maze is not only found just on the state (and federal) levels but at the city/county ones as well. As previously noted, local “business” would be greatly encouraged by the simple creation of a one-stop office to apply for permits, or schedule needed inspections — the latter in a manner so that all the various safety checkers (fire, electrical, whatever) show up on a single day instead of being spread out over a week … or month.

KEMP’S PROPOSAL does seem like progress. So, what’s not to like?

Unfortunately, his speed-up, streamline plan — it would require implementing legislation — contains a “Trojan Horse.” That nasty trick is the root of the expression “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” from the Latin poet Virgil’s “Aeneid” (“timeo Danaos et dona ferentis” in the 29-19 B.C. original). It would be more relevant today as “timeo politici et dona ferentis”: Beware of politicians bearing gifts.

Kemp also wants his staff to handle disciplinary decisions rather than leave those to the 43 current advisory boards manned by actual practitioners in the covered fields. As Harry Bohn, chairman of the Board of Veterinary Medicine, properly pointed out: “If it is a malpractice case or drug abuse or someone’s facilities not being up to standard, it ought to be heard by vets on the board.” The same would apply for every occupation.

Indeed, the way Kemp envisions the changes his staff would handle investigations and make disciplinary decisions, with the professional boards having only an advise, but not a consent, role. Appeals would be handled by the new seven-member board of political appointees with the next level of objection being taking the matter to a state court. There’s no way that seven board members can be found who know what’s OK and what is not in more than 200 professions.

SIMPLY PUT, not only would the actual pros be removed from licensing but it would basically be left in the hands of Kemp, who would have some 460,000 license holders suddenly encouraged to make campaign contributions to his next run for office. The current professional boards would be left to set standards and policies that they could then not themselves enforce.

And if those who don’t “play nice” with the existing powers object to their fate being decided by Kemp’s unlicensed laymen, they can then go protest to … another set of political appointees.

Just as with the wooden horse the Greeks rolled up to the city of Troy, whose walls they could not breach, as their fleet appeared to sail off into the sunset in futility and defeat, what the citizens of Georgia would see that looks so pretty might not be what they get. There could be heavily armed political warriors inside waiting to spring forth after the gift horse is rolled past the city gates.

Cutting through paperwork and speeding up the process of getting apparently qualified professionals into the jobs that are awaiting them (or so it is to be hoped) is a worthwhile goal. Putting this much new and additional authority into the hands of elected officials and staffs often selected for political reasons is an absolutely awful idea.

PERHAPS POLITICAL motives would never intrude upon the licensing processes, but in any case disciplinary decisions should never be made by anyone other than those who actually have done and know how to do the job involved. One doesn’t, after all, ask an elected city commissioner to do the fire marshal’s job or an elected county commissioner to guarantee a new home’s wiring.

Kemp’s “let’s speed it up” intentions may be well meant. As for the rest of it — well, public safety trumps re-election safety every time. If his department can’t do one without the other then he shouldn’t be doing any of it.

His license is to oversee, not rule.