Posted on 05/31/2012 6:26:26 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
A hearing has been scheduled in a Florida court to allow attorneys representing the White House to support their claim that the term “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution means something other than the offspring of two American citizens.
Judge Terry Lewis in Leon County has set a hearing for June 18 to consider arguments from both sides of a challenge to Obama’s name on the 2012 state election ballot.
Lewis is credited with making crucial rulings in the contested 2000 presidential election, when ultimately a Florida vote recount was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court and George W. Bush was declared the winner.
Attorney Larry Klayman’s law firm filed the challenge to Obama’s name on the ballot on behalf of Democrat Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”
Klayman told WND that during a hearing today on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that while Klayman’s brief cited a U.S. Supreme Court’s decision defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, the White House’s arguments provided no citations.
Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875.
Lewis ordered further briefing on the issue before the hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Sorry, I was confusing Judge Saul with Judge Lewis. Here is an NY Times story about one of numerous Lewis rulings:
begin quote:
COUNTING THE VOTE: THE COURT TACTICS; A Dark Day Turns Less So for the Democrats, Allowing Them to Forgo Escalation
By DAVID FIRESTONE
Vice Pres Al Gore’s campaign suffers a blow when Judge Terry P Lewis allows Katherine Harris, Florida’s secretary of state, to certify results of presidential election without the hand recounts, but it is buoyed six hours later when State Supreme Court bars Harris from certifying the election until court says she may; photo
November 18, 2000
end quote
They never once in all the ( OBot count) 134 cases has Obama brought up citations that he is a Natural Born US Citizen. Not once has Obama - never and nope. They've argued mostly on justiciability standing grounds.
Lets see if this judge has some balls.
And, then, after the election, (no matter who wins) America will have to face the incomprehensible mess of dealing with the aftermath of four years without a valid President at the helm... :-( “”’
I think that we can deal with unraveling his outrageous Executive Orders and other demands and his list of hidden Czars much easier than we can deal with 4 more years of him running amuck.....
With the next 4 years leading to his being termed out, he will be even more unhinged with what he demands, IMO.
Everything he has done is a long laundry list of acts which are definately outrageous and I still feel some
are totally illegal- such as seizing GM & giving the stock to the Unions.
From demanding that each and every street sign in the USA be changed over to a ‘one size/type fits all’, he has done some pretty crazy things.
I think the red herring all along has been the phony Birth Certificate. It is obviously a phony. The name of the hospital is wrong for the date of Barry’s ‘birth’. The name on the certificate is the name of the hospital given when it was merged with another hospital in 1978!!!
No matter if Barry was born in the Lincoln bedroom in the White House, he is still NOT a Natural Born Citizen. His ‘daddy’ was NOt a citizen. Period.
Pedaling as fast as I can...a bit too fast sometimes...
Only about an hour ago, I responded to a typical FoGBlower's post on another site that if this judge honestly adjudicates this case in accordance with and upholding the intentions of the Constitutional authors, they lose.
Well based on your attitude it must be because they are nuts, right? Some day soon the WND critics here at FR will be crawling over broken glass to shake hands with Joe Farah and Jerry Corsi for their work and dedication to uncovering Obama's buried past.
Here, let me make the Foggers’ case for them.
The Framers thought that restricting POTUS to the offspring of two citizens was a bad idea because they really, really liked the idea of presidents w divided loyalties. They thought a president who could pretend to be loyal to the US while really being loyal to the country of his foreign parent or parents was a fine and dandy thing. They would have loved the way Obama runs around the world trashing the USA and fawning over our worst enemies.
What? That argument won’t fly?
Lol. Well then maybe just maybe the Framers DIDN’T want to risk POTUSs w divided loyalties. What a novel idea. /s
It isn't known who his real father is or where he was born. We have yet to see a valid document stating such. It is precisely "that we don't know whether or not he is eligible to serve" that is the reason we do know he is not a legal President.
The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3:
"3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
A few notes.
1. There is no such position as a "President elect", legally, until such a time as Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college votes and a person is actually named as the "President elect". This means that the term "shall have qualified" refers to something other than the results of winning an election. There is only one place left in the Constitution having to do with "qualifications" for the office of President, that being the eligibility requirements from Article two.
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
2. Since it is the duty of Congress to name an interim President in the event of a President elect's "failure to qualify", they, Congress, must know whether or not to do so. This means that they, Congress, must be aware of whether or not a President elect meets the eligibility requirements from Article two. It is the burden of the President elect to "qualify" or "fail to qualify", thus NOT proving one is eligible under Article Two to Congress is the same thing as "failing to qualify."
3. How was Obama's eligibility proven to Congress without a valid long form birth certificate? He apparently does not possess such a thing or we would have seen it a million times by now.
4. The eligibility requirements start out with two simple words which forever preclude anyone who "fails to qualify" from serving as a legal president, "No person". Someone who sneaks in because Congress failed to uphold it's responsibility to enforce the Twentieth Amendment, section 3 doesn't legally exist. The Constitution cannot be fooled just because Congress didn't act when it was supposed to. A President elect either qualifies or he cannot ever be President, period.
Thus it is that we have protection from someone who is ineligible to serve as President already written into the Constitution. Unfortunately, we also have a Congress that did not uphold it's oath to support the Constitution and a usurpation of the office of President is the result. We know he is illegal strictly on the basis that we don't know if he is eligible. If he "qualified", there would be no debating the subject. The fact that nobody in Congress is able to say whether or not he is eligible means that he never proved to them that he was and thus has "failed to qualify".
Translation: Hillary doesn’t want to wait until 2016.
gonna stop driving the car....will start aiming it.
They haven't yet figured out who they are going to interview from the legal team and shout down MSNBC-style.
WND is the reason it’s gone this far. I agree.
LoL. BTW, those delusional Foggers just “love” your posts. You’ve been cited more than a few times in their “Birther Potpourri” thread. ;-)
If Obie Won gets kicked off the ballot in Florida, that could be (as Trump says) Yuuuuuge!
Well said.
Do you think Joe Biden realizes that he is in fact the president of the United States?
The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.
I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.
Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:
Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”
Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”
(While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)
The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.
Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.
Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.
According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.
It’s truly that simple. ...
see also:
AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/
In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, the Supreme Court, made an incidental reference to the issue: “[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
It was never doubted, until Obama was selected.
“Leon County is in the boonies.”
Perhaps it looks that way, but the county seat of Leon County is Tallahassee, the capitol of Florida. This, IMHO, moves the county out of the boonies.
But, you are right, it isn’t on either coast and is definitely somewhere in “fly over country”. I do suggest that like 2000/2001 court activity in Leon County in 2012 could be very interesting.
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.