Obama Attorneys Without Defense In FL Eligibility Case

Judge Terry Lewis in Leon County has set a hearing for June 18 to consider arguments from the attorneys for Barack Obama and Attorney’s representing Michael Voeltz, who filed the challenge to Obama’s name being on the state ballot.

Judge Lewis is famous for being the judge that was crucial in the 2000 election between Geroge W. Bush and then vice-president Al Gore.

Voeltz is represented by Attorney Larry Klayman’s law firm. Support for Klayman is coming from ConstitutionActionFund.org. What is most interesting in all of this is that this case is not being brought forth by Republicans, but a Democrat.

Klayman cited a U.S. Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett as the grounds for determining a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution puts a restriction on the office of president of the United States that it puts on no other office and that is to make sure there are no divided loyalties to any other nation.

Klayman’s argument is one that has not been used in each of the previous cases in the states where Barack Obama’s eligibility has been questioned before a court.

In Minor v. Happersett, Virginia Minor was petitioning the court for the voting rights of women and eventually that was ruled unconstitutional at the time.

However, one thing was clear in the outcome. The Minor v. Happersett ruling defines “natrual born citizen” as the offspring of two U. S. citizens. Klayman is thus making his argument from the birth certificate that Barack Obama has put out which clearly shows that his father was not a U. S. citizen but was a citizen of Kenya.

To understand the citizenship argument from a legal precedent, the below chart from TheObamaFile.com makes understanding the legal terms used for “natural born citizen”, “citizen by statute”, and “native born citizen” easy to understand. It cites the relevant precedence for the use of these terms in the history of American jurisprudence.

Mr. Klayman said, “The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation.”

According to Klayman, “Obama’s Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father (who had to be deported from the U.S.), frankly explains why he frequently sides with and takes actions to further the interests of Muslim nations against the United States; specifically his refusal to take forceful action against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leaders over nuclear armament and human rights violations and atrocities.”

Klayman told WND that the case is in the discovery stage in which attorneys are supposed to be able to request documents, evidence and testimony that would further refine and define the issues in dispute for the court.

“Obama’s briefs [said] it would be an undue burden and expense to have discovery,” Klayman said.

Then the judge said he wanted Obama’s representatives to cite the “authority” on which they based their argument that it isn’t necessary to have two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen.

1 The sitting president’s birth certificate is fraudulent. 2 The sitting president is not a natural born citizen, and is therefore ineligible for the presidency, because his father was not a US citizen. 3 If the sitting president is formally ruled ineligible to be on the ballot in Florida, he will not be able to be elected as President of the United (50) States. The article goes on to say, “Our high profile attorney, Larry Klayman, is the only one who has ever sued a sitting president and won.”

So far Barack Obama’s attorneys have been unable to produce anything credible to demonstrate legally that he is eligible to be president.

Barack Obama is not the only defendant in the case. The Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the state Elections Canvassing Commission have also been named as defendants.

One thing that many people, including myself, are wondering is what will happen as far as laws signed and supreme court judges appointed along with a host of other things during Barack Obama’s occupying of the White House would be overturned. In a constitutional crisis of this magnitude, how will it all be handled? Second, we also have to wonder how exactly this would effect Barack Obama. Since it would most definitely fall under “high crimes and misdemeanors,” would that entail impeachment proceedings and then since the Senate is controlled by Democrats, would they vote to impeach him?

Just attended the hearing. Judge Lewis told each side to submit an order in digital form that he could use when he reached a decision. In other words, he reserved judgment on the Motion to Dismiss of BO and the Fla. Secretary of State. The parties have until June 25 to submit their proposed orders.

The main argument of the BO attorneys was that 1. BO is not the nominee until after the convention so he is not a candidate for president, and 2. voters elect electors, not presidents.

The main argument of the plaintiff was that the buck has to stop somewhere, that BO is the defacto nominee, since he would have to elect in writing (under Florida law)if he were NOT going to seek nomination, and the Founding Fathers were concerned about divided loyalties, citing Vattel, etc.

Klayman did give an excellent example of parental influence in citing to the recent executive order on immigration, relating it to the fact that O senior was deported as the result of an expired student visa.

Lewis asked a lot more pointed questions of Klayman than he did of the defense attorneys. He posed some odd scenarios to Klayman with respect to what ‘natural born’ means, including the effects on the definition of ‘natural born’ of artificial insemination, parents who expatriate after a child is born here, etc. Klayman was pretty steadfast in saying that the Founders did their best with what they understood, in light of the potential divided loyalties they feared.

All in all, I would say that the continued technical arguments which include the amorphous means by which presidents are elected, and the legal maneuvering, claiming the priorities of federal law over state law, etc. will again carry the day. I believe Lewis will grant the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

The main argument of the BO attorneys was that 1. BO is not the nominee until after the convention so he is not a candidate for president, and 2. voters elect electors, not presidents.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.