Skip to comments.Bush v. Gore judge: Your evidence, Mr. Obama
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 Obamas 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 Klaymans law firm filed the challenge to Obamas 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 Klaymans brief cited a U.S. Supreme Courts decision defining natural born citizen as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, the White Houses 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 ...
I think Joe would consider that a BFD!
While Marco Rubio was born in the US, but his parents were not naturalized citizens until after his birth, he shares the same disability as Obama. Neither is “natural born”.
I think that if there was actually a decision on the matter, and I sincerely doubt there will be in my lifetime, that the SCOTUS would rule that the overriding power in the electoral process is the electoral college, and that if they decided after the election to turn around and make a six year old boy the president, it would be valid.
The reasoning would likely center on the checks and balances in place - Congress has the power to remove a sitting president, especially one which does not meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office. This controversy has been around for quite some time, and Congress absolutely had the power to demand any evidence they wanted in verifying Obama's qualifications for office.
So I think, no matter how you cut it, as far as the constitution is concerned, we've had a valid president the entire time. Besides, let's say that a miracle happened, and that the SCOTUS threw out the vote of the electoral college, stating that Obama wasn't qualified to be president, and included throwing out the electors for the vice president... Do you really want to have President Nancy Pelosi for any moment of time?
I'm pretty sure that the SCOTUS, even their most extreme members, don't want to even contemplate that. Visiting a qualification for a ballot, however, and actually ruling on NBC - that I could see them do. Most likely, however, would be that we'd least like to see a ruling from SCOTUS on the issue. If they did bring it into session, it would mean they'd welcome the chance to revisit the old NBC definition, which would most likely be to overturn it.
Lol. I bet they love me to death over there. I had a nice chat w one of them over here the other day. A real moonbat’s moonbat. Upon reflection, I don’t think it was the Ten Miles of Bad Road guy. He was a lot of fun just the same. ;)
If by "the old NBC definition" (born of on the soil of the country of parents who are citizens of the country, see Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874)), what makes you think they would overturn it?
Stipulating for the moment that Barry's alleged narrative is true (I doubt it) Barry would have ONE US citizen parent compared to Rubio’s ZERO US citizen parents.
This is a distinction which may or may not amount to a difference, depending on what SCOTUS should rule if a case came to them.
there is also this tidbit...
stating citizenship cannot be conveyed by a parent unless that parent was in the US for FIVE(5) years after the age of 14
0bama’s mother was 18 when she gave birth
therefore, the ONLY way 0bama could be a citizen, forget being a natural born citizen, would be if he was born on US soil...
which we have no proof of
(the certificate of live birth has been shown by law enforcement to be a forgery)
‘real news outlets’??
careful, your progressive infiltrator roots are showing
want real news? read free republic. nuf said
Just kidding. I am a retired FL CPA (1985) and have lived off and on in South Florida for a total of ten years (east and west coast) but I admit I have never made it to Tallahassee.
BTW, here is a link to Judge Sauls’ Wakulla County:
It is also in the boonies immediately south of Leon County, Population 28,000.
So Barry would be a citizen, but not NBC, if he was born in Kenya and if Stanley Ann was legally single.
A bigamous marriage is a nullity, IIRC, i.e. did not exist.
Note, also, that the BNA of 1948 explicitly excludes Barry from being a UK subject at birth anywhere if he was illegitimate, which he would have been if his parents marriage was bigamous. So no dual US-UK citizenship NBC problem if born in HI, just unitary US citizenship from his legally single mom, IIRC.
Smoke and mirrors as far as the eye can see beginning with no genuine BC submitted to any court under rules of evidence...so no verified parents or birth location!
"Indiana Court Subpoenas Obama To Appear And Show His Papers At Ballot Challenge Hearing? " Source ORYR.
Obama's face twitch may be now going into overdrive like a bobblehead doll. '-)
See post #54 for new info. Taitz may have finally scored on Obama and the Foggers. LoL.
Thanks for sharing this.
Would be so proud if one of our Bible bearing, gun toting Hoosier took him down.
He cheated here to get on the ballot. THen he manipulated the law to win the elector vote in the Hoosier state.
Add this to the Notre Dame lawsuit.....Hoosier payback is a 6itch.
Klayman needs to cite MORE than just Minor v. Happersett. The Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed Minor’s definition of NBC and didn’t use the NBC term to characterize its appellant. Wong Kim Ark affirmed the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship.
Further than this, Luria v. United States cites the Minor decision as a legal precedent on defining the eligibility clause as pertaining to “native citizens.” Luria does NOT cite Wong Kim Ark at all on this clause. It means that Minor is THE Supreme Court precedent. The one point, however, that needs to be explained is that Minor defined native citizens the exact same as natural-born citizens: as children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It also needs to be explained that Minor reviewed ALL other ways to become a citizen, but it only characterized one class of citizens as natural-born.
Some Foggers point to the second class of birth citizenship in Minor, claiming the “doubt” leaves open the question of natural-born citizenship, but this is false. If there was a doubt about such persons being citizens, then resolving that doubt would require making a statutory interpretation that goes beyond the “NATURAL” part of the characterization of natural-born citizenship.
Further yet, Wong Kim Ark resolved the doubt expressed in Minor by affiriming the second class of birth citizens was a completely DIFFERENT class of citizenship than NBC, and that it only applies to the children of resident aliens who must have permanent residence and domicil. Obama’s father was not a resident alien (which is proved by his immigration files) and Obama’s mama’s citizenship is irrelevant under the WKA decision and under the legal precedent in Shanks v. Dupont that says the natural citizenship status of married women is governed by the Law of Nations.
This makes FOUR separate Supreme Court cases that preclude Obama from being Constituonally eligible. There is no higher judicial authority. Obama’s occupation of the White House is a de facto occupation, but is Constitutionally illegitimate. The smartest thing for the court to do is err on the side of the only known Supreme Court precedent, which means vacating Obama from the Florida ballot.
I remember reading his initial court brief not too long ago. I had the same thought that he could have beefed it up a lot more.
In all the cases so far, no court of original jurisdiction has issued a ruling defining the term “Natural Born Citizen”. If this court rules on that specific issue, regardless of whether or not he finds that two citizen parents are required, the basic issue is subject to appeal. It would be better if the original ruling held that two citizen parents were required because Oboma would then have the burden of challenging a legitimate judicial decision. But in either event, if the case can ever be gotten on the appeal track, it will have to be argued on the basis of law, not politics or emotion.
The most important thing is to finally get a decision, one way or the other, on the core issue of what is required to be a “Natural Born Citizen”. While the U.S. Supreme Court is the only entity that can give a final answer to that question, they must have a case on appeal before they can take jurisdiction. Hopefully, this case may finally prove to be that vital first step.
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.