What’s Barack Obama’s latest legal excuse against probing his eligibility to serve as president?
He’s not the nominee of the Democratic Party.
In yet another court hearing on this subject – one of dozens that have been brought since he took office – Obama attorney Mark Herron sought to get a Florida lawsuit summarily dismissed that aims at blocking his client from the state ballot without producing proof of constitutional eligibility. The hearing took place before Judge Terry Lewis in Florida, best-known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute.
Attorney Larry Klayman filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself in the complaint as “a registered member of the Democratic Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County.”
Herron argued the Florida process affirms only that Obama is the choice in the state’s presidential preference primary but is not necessarily the party’s nominee for president.
“This language clearly indicates the winner of the president preference primary, not the nominee of the party,” he said.
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, and 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?” 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 and asked for suggested orders from both sides to be delivered to him by Monday.
At least the hearing provided an opportunity for Klayman to argue the eligibility case in a public setting – something Obama’s attorneys, the media and the political establishment seem determined to prevent at all costs.
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.
Klayman told WND that, during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, 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, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.
And that’s been the problem from the beginning. No one seems willing to look at the facts of whether someone currently occupying the White House is constitutionally fit. The Obama team prefers to argue on technical grounds.
If Obama can simply provide his eligibility beyond any reasonable doubt, why not just do so after all this time?
The reason, I venture to say, is he can’t.
And the media and political establishment have aided this stonewalling every step of the way – by ridiculing as “birthers” all those who seek that proof.
When public pressure reached a crescendo last April, as Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” book rose to No. 1 on the charts, Obama quickly released what he claimed was his long-form birth certificate – a document even the governor of Hawaii, and a close friend and political ally of Obama, claimed he couldn’t find anywhere in the state.
The media immediately accepted the document at face value. Later, dozens of graphic experts testified and swore under oath the document was fraudulent. Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona conducted an investigation that came to the same conclusion. Still, the media remained curiously incurious.
I don’t know how the Florida case will turn out, but be assured WND will be there to cover it again – even if no other media are interested.
Here is a video based on this column, by Jerry McGlothlin: