Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
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.
The definition of the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility since before his election in 2008.
The U.S. Constitution imposes a special citizenship status requirement on occupants of the Oval Office. The “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. From the writings of the Founders, its apparent aim was to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties – to the United States and to any other nation – would serve as commander in chief.
The Minor v. Happersett ruling defines “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.
But since the term is not defined in the Constitution, there are many who equate being a “citizen” or a “native-born citizen” with being a “natural born citizen.”
It appears that a court ruling on the definition could been coming, Klayman said.
Klayman has argued that since Obama was not born to two citizen parents, he is is not a “natural born citizen” as required by Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.
Klayman explained in his court filings that Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.
Voeltz, a registered Democrat, challenged Obama’s eligibility because the president’s father was not an American citizen.
“The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation,” said 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 said.
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.
On the Steady Drip blog, where contributors document progress in the Florida case, was the “bare essence” of the argument:
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 U.S. citizen.
The commentary said the obvious conclusion is that Obama is not able to be elected as president.
On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.”
There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.”
The action follows by only weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s antecedents. The six-month-long investigation done by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that there is probable cause to believe there was forgery involved in the production of Obama’s birth certificate, and fraud in presenting that document as a genuine document.
The case explains that even if Barack Hussein Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a ‘natural-born citizen’ as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because, “Barack Obama Sr. was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936. Birth in Kenya made Barack Obama Sr. a British subject, according to and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.”
Obama’s attorneys previously had been unsuccessful in dismissing the case.
“In Florida the voter has more rights to contest elections than in most other states,” Klayman told WND. “And we have a judge who is not afraid to make hard decisions; Judge Terry Lewis. In the Gore v. Bush case he ruled on occasion in favor of Bush even though he generally leans left. I am hopeful he will do the right thing and rule that the Florida Secretary of State must verify Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot for the Florida presidential election.”
A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”
The argument also cites Barack Obama Sr.’s birth in Kenya, making him a “British subject.”
“The British Nationality Act of 1948, Part 2, Section 5, Clause 1, makes Defendant Obama, the son of a British subject, also a British subject at birth. At best, defendant Obama was born a dual citizen of Britain and the United States. These facts make clear that defendant Obama was not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the U.S. Constitution.”
The fact that state officials have sworn an oath to “support, protect, and defend” the Florida and U.S. constitutions means the issue needs an answer, the brief argues, and state officials are “duty bound to uphold the eligibility requirements.”
Named as defendants are Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the state Elections Canvassing Commission.
It was only days earlier when former New York Gov. David Paterson suggested on his radio show that Obama possibly “got away with” being an ineligible president in the Oval Office.