Obama Not The Nominee
During my course on Constitutional law a
I listened to a lot of legal constitutional issues, but as flimsy reasons for
dismissals go, this case presented for dismissal by Obama’s lawyers in Monday, takes
first prize. Tallahassee
By de Andréa
June 20, 2012
Legal catch 22
Attorneys for the defendant Barack Obama arguing for dismissal of his re-election eligibility suit yesterday, urged Florida judge Terry Lewis to decide that Obama is not the Democratic nominee for president and so to ignore the evidence challenging his eligibility. If I were there I would have asked: If Obama is not the nominee then just exactly who ‘is’, Mr. Herron. This flimsy excuse for dismissing the case challenging Obama’s eligibility is nothing but a stall tactic to kick the legal can down the road. A similar tactic was used before the last election also stalling the challenge of Obama eligibility; the result then was that it finally became too late – now he is already president.
To watch the entire court hearing in
The arguments were raised by attorney Mark Herron on behalf of Obama in a hearing before Judge Terry Lewis in
, who is best
known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute. Let’s hope that Judge Terry Lewis still has
the guts to make the hard decisions as he did in the 2000 election. Florida
Attorney Larry Klayman filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who has standing, identifying himself as the complainant who is “a registered member of the Democratic Party, a voter, a U.S. Citizen and taxpayer in Broward County Florida.”
Attorneys representing Obama at the hearing argued “the
presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat
nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president”. As you might have guessed that is a good
example of legal double talk and a legal technical trick not in keeping with
the spirit of the law. Herron went on to
language clearly indicates the winner of the president preference primary, is
not the nominee of the party.” Oh yeah, clear as mud! Florida
But the judge noted that the party wrote to Florida’s secretary of state a letter indicating Obama’s name was the only one submitted, making him the nominee, saying he thought the state’s electors were bound to vote for him. “Wasn’t there a letter [that said] this is the only candidate whose name will appear?” Judge Lewis asked. Obama’s attorneys said: “such a decision has not been triggered yet.”
Klayman argued that according to state law, when only one name is submitted, that person automatically becomes the nominee, even if the national Democratic Party nominating convention has not been held.
No decision was announced immediately. The judge said he would review the law. His answer is expected this coming Monday.
The core Issue of the Suit
Very little was discussed about the real purpose and charge of the suit contained in Klayman’s brief. Klayman began by noteing that the Founding Fathers established the natural-born citizen requirement because they wanted to avoid foreign influence on a president from non-citizen parents, Judge Lewis countered by posing a hypothetical situation in which a candidate’s two U.S.-citizen parents later emigrate to Israel, what then?
Klayman countered the hypothetical saying: “The Founding Fathers’ attempt to avoid a conflict of interest in the Oval Office did not include every possible scenario”.
The judge asked whether “the Democratic Party, as a private group, had a right to choose a nominee, even if that person was ineligible”.
The arguments by Obama’s attorneys reflected their request that the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen by his party at multiple levels is not yet officially the nominee.
Klayman accused the Obama attorneys of playing a “shell game” and trying to put off the issue, as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was inaugurated.
The judge could remove Obama’s name from the November ballot in Florida, a crucial swing state, should he determine that the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen” can be applied at the primary level and assuming that Obama is officially the party nominee.
In general, one does not have standing and cannot bring suit against another if one first, hasn’t experienced a loss, and/or second, the accused has not yet committed a crime. And since Obama hasn’t yet illegally run for president in this case, he cannot be charged with a crime. The fact that he committed fraud in 2008 is another case that no one wants to touch; this may be true about this case as well.
In case you are wondering…Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve? Here is WorildNetDaily’s complete archive of news reports on the issue
Klayman said that during the hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Judge Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation.
My’ note is… while Obama was the offspring of only one American citizen, his mother who was only 17 and was not even eligible to pass on citizenship to Obama. My point is that this eligibility Issue is fraught with bugs as in Pandora’s Box. There are at least 37 different ways that Obama cannot be eligible to be president and because of all the legal red tape one cannot began to present the real case against Obama. Knowing all the fact of the case as I do, there is no possible way that Obama can even be a citizen much less a Constitutional natural born citizen. If this case could be presented in court, and all the facts were laid out, Obama would be one of his own illegal aliens that he is trying to get amnesty for among a dozen other charges of fraud and falsifying government documents etc.
Defining the term “Natural-Born” is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought against Obama’s eligibility, or lack thereof.
The U.S. Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. The writings of the Founders indicate the requirement was meant to ensure that - no person who had the possibility of divided loyalties would serve as commander in chief.
Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the
ballot. Moreover, that my friend is just
the beginning. Florida
When asked by Judge Lewis, Klayman confirmed “he could add to the list of complaint details of the evidence that Obama was not even born in the
” So he is not eligible in more than 37 counts,
not just one. U.S.
Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided that courts should not make such decisions and the process is better handled by Congress. [ Well Congress certainly isn’t going to do it.] They said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision on the eligibility of Obama. “They are precluded from judging the qualifications of candidates for president of the
,” the Obama
attorneys said. What they are really
saying my friend, is that Obama is above the Law. United States
But Klayman pleaded with the judge to decide the issue, because a determination made after the election could negate
’s vote. Florida
“Florida has a special duty not just on behalf of the citizens of Florida but on behalf of the United States,” he said. Klayman referred to a recent Obama order to underscore the significance of the Founders’ desire that the president not have divided loyalties or “not even a hint of foreign influence. Just a few days ago, he issued an executive order … which in effect allows illegal alien students who came into this country … to remain in this country. … The president’s own father was in fact here on a student visa and ultimately was deported because that visa expired.” Oh Yeah! Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two citizen parents. “The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman. “The president is not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have simply said ‘citizens’ [can be president.]”
He accused Obama’s attorneys of trying to “push the issue down the road” until the legal process would fail due to lack of time. “It’s a shell game,” Klayman said… “Neither the
Constitution nor the federal
Constitution … would ever sanction what they are saying.” Florida
THE BOTTOM LINE: What did I say? A Legal Catch 22.