Florida, the battleground for many elections, has an opportunity right now to resolve the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility, according to a court filing in a case brought by a Democrat under state law that allows such challenges.
“On Nov. 6, 2012, the state of Florida held its 2012 general election. On Nov. 10, 2012, defendant Barack Hussein Obama was declared the official winner of the Florida general election. Yet defendant Obama has never established his eligibility for the presidency of the United States,” says a filing today from attorney Larry Klayman.
“Indeed, neither defendant Obama, nor the Democratic Party of Florida, has even stated that defendant Obama is a ‘natural born citizen,'” the filing said. “The only evidence of defendant Obama’s alleged birth within the United States has come in the form of an electronic version posted on the Internet. However, there has been evidence to show that this ‘birth certificate’ has either been altered or is entirely fraudulent.”
The filing was a response to state officials’ motion to dismiss the case brought on behalf of Michael C. Voeltz. The case was filed before the election, and was thrown out by a judge who said it wasn’t timely. It was refiled after the election, and the current document seeks an immediate hearing, as provided by state law.
“Section 102.168(7), Florida statutes, provides that ‘any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest to a circuit judge in entitled to an immediate hearing,” Klayman wrote. “Plaintiff Michael Voeltz specifically requested an expedited hearing in his prayer for relief. … Yet even if he had not specifically requested such relief, which he did, the Florida statutes still mandate that plaintiff is entitled to an immediate hearing by law simply through the act of filing the lawsuit in front of a circuit judge.”
The case challenges Obama’s presence on the 2012 presidential election ballot because of questions over his constitutional eligibility.
“Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States, and its Constitution, which plaintiff must protect and defend by oath,” according to the complaint.
As WND reported, Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward County,” has challenged Obama’s eligibility, arguing that the “natural born citizen” clause was rightly understood in historical context to mean a child not only born in the U.S., but born to two American-citizen parents, so as not to have divided loyalties. Obama, however, readily admits to being born a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship.
The original case sought to exclude Obama from the 2012 ballot. Klayman and Voeltz claimed that Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, because he was born a British subject.
The case cited the evidence produced by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s special investigative unit, which has asserted that the birth documentation from Hawaii that Obama claimed was “proof positive” of his Hawaiian birth is not real.
And Florida law provides that anyone qualified to vote in an election may challenge a candidate based on ‘ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”
The complaint explains, “Barack Obama Sr., a citizen of the British colony of Kenya, and his children, were subject to the operation of the British Nationality Act of 1948. By the operation of Part 1 Section 1 of that Act, Barack Hussein Obama became a British subject, upon birth to a British subject father. It is not known whether he has lost that birth allegiance to the British crown.”
And, according to the complaint, the natural born citizen clause specifically was inserted in the Constitution to address the possibility of foreign influence at the highest levels of the U.S. government, in the White House.
“Law of Nations defines the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ as one born in the country [to] parents who are that country’s citizens.
“Plaintiff Michael C. Voeltz has standing, as a Florida voter, and taxpayer, to challenge the ‘nomination or election of any person to office’ based on the winning candidates’ eligibility for the office sought. … The state of Florida has chosen, by popular election, the electors for Defendant Barack Hussein Obama to be president … Plaintiff has fulfilled all aspects of the Florida election statutes for this challenge of eligibility, as to timing, venue, and indispensable parties.”
The case asks the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission to decertify the Florida General Election upon a “judicial determination of the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as president … and to certify the electors for Mitt Romney as the winner.”
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 state’s election ballot.
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.
The newest filing said even if Obama’s purported “birth certificate” would be believed, “Obama was born to a mother who was a citizen of the United States, and a father who was a Kenyan citizen. The U.S. Constitution requires that all who serve as president of the United States must be ‘natural born citizens.'”
The filing said the U.S. Supreme Court “has defined this term to mean a child born to two citizen parents. Since defendant Obama was not born to both parents who were citizens of the United States, he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the U.S. Constitution.”
The filing also explained the judiciary “has the power to determine eligibility. The contest of election statute specifically created a cause of action to enable plaintiff, a registered elector and taxpayer, to bring this lawsuit in order for this court to determine the eligibility of defendant Obama.”
Important to the argument is the fact that Arpaio’s investigation found probable cause to believe there was both forgery and fraud in the creation and presentation of Obama’s “birth certificate” as a genuine document.
Voeltz’ concern is that he “has an actual adverse interest in the subject matter. If defendant Obama is declared ineligible for the office of president of the United States, plaintiff will be deprived of the candidate for his political party. If defendant Obama is declared ineligible, plaintiff will have his vote for president of the United States nullified.”