Besides them both being black, there's not a shred of resemblance between Frank Marshall Davis and Barack Obama. Who he really resembles is Malcolm X.
Posted on 06/01/2012 9:40:34 PM PDT by Fractal Trader
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.
[[[[NICE GRAPHIC ON WEBSITE]]]]]
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.”
WND reports,
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.
So far Obama’s attorneys have been unable to cite a credible authority.
According to the Steady Drip the “bare essence of the case” is,
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?
Orley has one going in Indiana too. Sueing the SoS and Election Board; Discovery asks for an asortment of documentation from BO, Scheduled to be heard this month.
Historically, peoples and nations would go to war, and kill each other by the gazillions over such usurpations. But we're much too civilized now for that kind of stuff.
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?
Now that's some funny stuff, folks, that right there. [/cableguy]
Sorry obama looks like Malcom x
While I agree fully, the Republicans are ready to step in where the Dems left off. The party has crept so far to the left with every ensuing 'lesser evil' candidate that JFK could have run to the right of most of them.
We need a truly Conservative party without some of the baggage of some of the splinter parties we have on the right.
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?
Swept under the rug as “too big to fail”.
“According to Klayman, “Obama’s Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father”
__________________________________________________
Inserting that he was Muslim is a mistake and only muddies
the water.
While we do not want a Muslim POTUS, it is not a legal factor.
Concentrate on “natural born”, and/or place of birth.
Besides them both being black, there's not a shred of resemblance between Frank Marshall Davis and Barack Obama. Who he really resembles is Malcolm X.
Are you sure that's Hillary and not Florida's Secretary of State? (I'm not sure that the US SoS would have standing to file a motion in a Florida case. The federal DoJ might, though.)
“But we’re much too civilized now for that kind of stuff.”
Don’t count on it.
I mentioned on another thread that this is the first I can recall a judge ever having remarked, during discovery, on the Plaintiff having a Supreme Court ruling to cite in their argument, and the Defendant offering up, well, nothing much.
It just strikes me as an important development, if the judge is honest and is able to stay ethically strong (and physically healthy).
I just hope he doesn't announce the date ahead of time ( the MSM won't bother to show up anyway. Give a 2 hour warning to local press ). Therefore, there won't be an opportunity for a "breaking national story" to overshadow the announcement.
"Are you sure that's Hillary and not Florida's Secretary of State? (I'm not sure that the US SoS would have standing to file a motion in a Florida case. The federal DoJ might, though.)"
I'm pretty sure it refers to Florida SoS Ken Detzner and not Hillary. If the Florida SoS has made a motion to stay discovery in this case, I couldn't find it after a few minutes of searching Dogpile using a variety of phrases/keywords.
Do you have a link for the SoS info RS?
In light of the questions raised I imagine the supremes will punt.They will consider it too dangerous a crisis to waste on defending the law and will opt instead to defend the status quo. In short will not sacrifice one man for the good of the nation. But understand me I DO NOT compare Barak Hussein Obama II anything but anti-Christ.
This is where Obama’s attorney's have a case, as the court will learn, there is actually 57 states.
bookmark
Similar things happen from time to time, not at the level of president of the USA, but other offices. The courts use what is referred to as the "de facto officer doctrine" when an elected official is later found to be ineligible from the get-go.
The only "given" substantial shake-up is removal of the ineligible officer. Congress can, of course, change whatever laws it sees fit to.
This plan can only work if the Clinton's have plausible denyalibility that they did not know Zippo was ineligible.
Billy has let it be known he is fully aware Zippo is ineligible so Hillary has now knowingly violated the law by accepting her appointment.
The only way it works now is not step in and save the party, but to seize absolute power.
Curious - Since Obama released his birth certificate, why would he file a motion to stay discovery? It just makes no sense.
Oh wait a minute, there is a possibility...
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.