Posted in: News

Obama Presidency Unconstitutional: Angry Democrat Revives Old Lawsuit Over Obama Eligibility

Argument Over Obama Eligibility Continues

President Obama is about to be inaugurated for a second term, he has presented his birth certificate and several top officials in Hawaii have vouched for his citizenship. There is not one member of Congress who has expressed the slightest willingness to open an investigation into Obama’s eligibility and every single court case against him has been thrown out. Yet, despite all the rejection of the claims against Obama’s eligibility, there are still Americans unwilling to give up the fight, as evidenced by the renewed efforts of registered Broward County, Florida Democrat Michael Voeltz to revive his lawsuit against the President.

Even British Lord Viscount Christopher Monckton is involved in the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States. Monckton is no fan of Obama and in his revealing interview with The Inquisitr, Viscount Monckton voiced a rather frank opinion of the President:

“My impression is that Mr. Obama would not mind in the least if democracy were forever destroyed. If so, he is not just un-American, he is UN-American: in fact, anti-American.”

Monckton is also a respected mathematician and he has stated that the odds of Obama’s Birth Certificate being legitimate are one in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000 (one in 62.5 quintillion) . He bases this figure on the mathematical probability of all the alleged anomalies discovered in the Birth Certificate existing at the same time in one document. The fact Monckton published his findings for WND, the controversial conservative website that many consider to be disreputable, disqualified his evidence for some observers.

All things considered, there are those who think Monckton is out of his mind and their opinion of Michael Voeltz isn’t much better. Most people believe his lawsuit against Obama to be frivolous at best and having about as much credibility as the Metepec Mummy being the authentic remains of a space alien.

Voeltz originally filed his suit against Obama prior to the 2012 election and it was thrown out by Circuit Judge Terry Lewis, who ruled Obama’s eligibility could not be challenged prior to the election since under Florida election law, the President hadn’t been nominated yet.

Now Voeltz is at it again, submitting a complaint yesterday to Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner demanding that the results of the vote in Florida be overturned.

“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.”

The challenge against Obama’s re-election is based on a violation of the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution. Apparently in his original ruling, Judge Lewis may have given the Plaintiff grounds to reopen the case, at least in the minds of Voeltz and his supporters.

When Judge Lewis dismissed the original case, he made the following statement in his ruling, which according to the Judge made the issue of Obama’s eligibility moot:

“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”

Larry Klayman, a noted attorney who sought to have Obama ruled ineligible in several other high profile cases, is handling the case for Michael Voeltz. Klayman believes Judge Lewis misruled in the case and he is determined to have the case reopened. Klayman is convinced that Judge Lewis improperly defined the Natural Born Citizen Clause.

Klayman and Voeltz claim Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. According to Klayman, Obama was born a British citizen because his father was a British citizen at the time of the President’s birth, and therefore, Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.

“The judge equated being a ‘citizen’ with a ‘natural born citizen’ and cited no authority to conclude the two terms are the same. He quotes other state’s cases, where judges reached that conclusion, but that’s not precedent for him. What other courts said in lower cases means nothing to him.”

Klayman and Voeltz are also challenging the ruling because the Judge placed the Burden of Proof on the Plaintiff and then refused to allow Discovery in the original case.

‘“How can you say we have the burden of proof, then not allow discovery? He says we have burden, but doesn’t allow us to meet it.”

The legal shenanigans over the President’s eligibility to hold his office are still with us, while the United States hovers at the edge of the fiscal cliff. Most observers realize that nothing would cause the United States to plunge over the edge of that metaphoric cliff faster than the turmoil of removing a sitting President at this late date. Rational human beings also wonder how the country would fare after Joe “Bite Me” Biden replaced Barack Obama as President of the United States. It is hard to imagine a better insurance policy to keep Obama in the White House.

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

36 Responses to “Obama Presidency Unconstitutional: Angry Democrat Revives Old Lawsuit Over Obama Eligibility”

  1. Donna Marie Bogue

    Maybe Monckton submitted to WMD because NO one else would publish his findings. BTW, I have news for you. DESPITE the left demonizing "birthers" to stop the talk (JUST as they call everyone a racist, to silence them) A very LARGE part of the population do not believe Ovomit is eligible to be POTUS. I could care LESS if he were born in a MANGER. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was defined by the SCOTUS in the late 1800's in Happerset v Minor. "A citizen born in the United States to TWO Citizens of the United states" ANYONE with a brain can READ why our Forefathers decided to make this a requisite. So there would NOT be a possibility of DIVIDED Loyalties between the USA and another country..

  2. Corey Nufer

    First, seeing the comment by Donna Marie Borque accusing every person on "the left" of broadly generalizing "the right" as racist "to silence them" is such a hypocritical, illogical mess, seriously, you're going to accuse people of making a broad generalization by making a broad generalization? Next, nobody has demonized the "birther" movement more than their own members, those belligerent people that scream conspiracy at the top of their lungs, refuse reason in favor of extremism, and all the while, expect to be respected while simultaneously calling anyone that disagrees an idiot or a moron. Finally, Monckton did submit his "findings" to WMD because nobody else would touch it, you know why? Because the "findings" you speak of are purely speculation and conjecture. Taking a court ruling from a time when there was still the distinct possibility of British infiltration and applying it to 21st century politics directly is just plain irrelevant, our threats come in a different form now, religion, all organized religion.

    To be frank Richard Peloquin, I must completely and utterly disagree with your whole statement. The biggest hoax in modern history is the cover of the evangelical church as fighting for "your constitutional rights". Yes, the evangelical church, the same church that believes freedom of religion means just for christians. The same group that has decided to fight a war on liberty through the passage of laws based directly on religious interpretation. Those very same laws that would take away the rights of an entire huge chunk of U.S. citizens while claiming to be fighting to save "the American family". Freedom of religion also stands for freedom FROM religion, the settlers of this country were escaping religious persecution by their government. I find it disgusting that the evangelical church is trying to do exactly what they were running from just 236 years later. The saddest part of the whole thing is that so many people are buying into their calculated destruction of our constitution, because they hear the word "Jesus" and go blind.

  3. Faith M Martin

    Whether or not Obama is or is not and NBC, the issue needs to be ruled on and settled. There is sufficient evidence to hear it. The best of all worlds would be for the SCOTUS to define, once and for all exactly the parameters of NBC.

  4. Bill Hutto

    I found this statement to be ironic in light of the way "0" is "handling" the fiscal cliff scenario…… "Most observers realize that nothing would cause the United States to plunge over the edge of that metaphoric cliff faster than the turmoil of removing a sitting President at this late date."

  5. Tommy Thompson

    this issue is not that complicated…the Constitution requires that only a "natural born citizen" can be president. It's the only office in the country that requires this special citizenship status. And it was written into the constitution for a reason. The Supreme Court defined "natural born" as born on US soil to TWO US Citizens. (Minor v Happersett 1875) Obama's father WAS NOT a US Citizen so therefore he can never be a "natural born citizen". And now we're seeing just how intelligent the founding fathers were….look at how our dual born citizen is destroying America.

  6. Donna Marie Bogue

    REALLY?? can't take the TRUTH??? How about this little FACT….HILLARY CLINTON was the FIRST one that brought up Obama was not eligible……HOW does THAT trip your trigger? By the way…..people like YOU like to call it a conspiracy….IF that is right…WHY did the DEMS try to CHANGE the definition of Natural Born Citizen EIGHT TIMES before Obama ran for OFFICE? AND IT FAILED EVERY TIME. Go LOOK it up….THEN come back and lets see what you have to say….

  7. Donna Marie Bogue

    Ummm….VP has to be Natural Born also….reason being in case something happens to the POTUS….*s*

  8. Neil A. Nieminsky II

    unfortunately so many do not fully understand the term " natural born citizen " and where it came from…

    the term was coined AND defined by Emmerich deVattel in 1758 in his legal treatise " The Law of Nations ".

    thus when the Founders wrote the Constitution they KNEW the definition at the time…

    The Supreme Court has ruled / defined " natural born citizen " no less than 4 times as the following…

    1814…
    12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253.
    ” Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says … “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”.

    Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”.

    Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”.

    note they all mirror 1 central theme…
    which defends Vattel's written version completely…
    “the Law of Nations,” book one chapter 19, ” Of Citizens and Naturals ”.
    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    detractors use Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ) as precedent…

    " Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

    but reviewing the wording of Wong Kim Ark one sees Ankeny deviated from SCOTUS precedent by changing the SCOTUS own definition then standing on thus said definition…
    which flies in the face of legal jurisprudence…

    If you claim guidance from a case…
    you must uphold the very wording of that case…

    case in point…

    4 separate SCOTUS opinions defining " natural born citizen ".
    all followed the same train of thought…
    and even borrowed wording from case to case…

    where as Ankeny sharply removes itself from the Wong Kim Ark case by virtue of changing the stated definition.

    I would not take Ankeny seriously when the court itself could not get the actual clause right…
    It was Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5…
    as written in the Constitution…

  9. Tommy Thompson

    and oh by the way, we're not even sure Obama is a US citizen much less natural born. "there is no legitimate documentation that proves Obama is a citizen of the US". quoting Mike Zullo

  10. Kevin Davidson

    Monckton is not a "respected mathematician." His degree is in the classics. His mathematical analysis exemplifies the old saying "garbage in, garbage out" as he repeats outright lies and long-debunked rumors to come up with non-existent anomalies in the White House PDF copy of Obama's birth certificate, to which he assigns arbitrary probabilities, and then uses unjustified assumptions to apply inapplicable mathematical theories. Monckton's arithmetic is correct, but all his data is wrong, and he use the wrong formula. (I have a Master's Degree in mathematics.)

  11. Kevin Davidson

    So you are saying you don't know the truth, but then assert what is the truth. This exemplifies birther thinking. Birther knowledge is not tied to facts and evidence. They just know it's true because they need it to be true.

  12. Kevin Davidson

    Nonsense. No less than 8 US courts, plus courts of appeal, have completely rejected this crank legal theory over the past 4 years (the cases are Tisdale, Ankeny, Hollander, Purpura, Paige, Allen and Voeltz). Vattel also says that there should be a mandatory state religion, that only the nobility could be able to bear arms, and that if a country doesn't have enough women, they have the right to carry off some from neighboring countries! That's all in the Law of Nations, right alongside Vattel's OPINION of who makes up the natural members of society.

    The citation of Mr. Nieminsky is from the Supreme Court decision in the Venus and in CONTEXT it is talking about the definition of "domicile" not who is a natural born citizen. Vattel's definition of domicile is what is satisfactory. Read it for yourself:

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html

  13. Kevin Davidson

    The case was decided in 1898 in US v Wong. All the courts who have looked at Obama have said this issue is already settled. The Supreme Court generally doesn't take cases where the issue is already settled.

  14. Kevin Davidson

    Bill Hutto This crank legal theory has been around for 4 years and has been the grist of numerous lawsuits, all lost. It's not going anywhere between now and Inauguration Day. There is simply no court or legal authority that believes it. One might as well try to oust Obama because he is a shape-shifting lizard, than on this silly legal notion.

    A natural born citizen is one who has the nature of a citizen from birth, i.e., one who is born a citizen. The US Code and the 14th Amendment make it abundantly clear that Barack Obama was a US Citizen from birth, as are all persons born in the country except the children of accredited diplomats.

  15. Hector Da

    IDIOT KEVIN, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU HAD TOO MANY MARGARITAS MAN, TAKE OFF THAT HAT AND TAKE A NAP, MAYBE YOU'LL BE SMARTER WHEN YOU WAKE UP. HA HA.

  16. Adam Wagner

    The 2012 Declaration of Independence

    When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
    That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to influence their safety and happiness.
    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to diminish them under absolute repression, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
    Legislative bodies have been called together in places unusual, and uncomfortable, from the collection of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into submission with the governments measures.
    They are erecting a multitude of new offices, and groups of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
    They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving assent to their acts of fabricated legislation: For imposing taxes on us without our compliance: For altering fundamentally the systems of our governments:
    In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have not been resolved.
    We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
    We have appealed to their forms of justice and high-mindedness, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of liberty. We must, therefore, comply in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
    We, therefore, the true representatives of the United States of America, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these States, solemnly publish and declare, that these United States are, and of right ought to be free and independent States and that as free and independent States, they have full sovereignty to levy war, conclude Peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

  17. Van King

    Why are you people responding to something written in the inquisitr. Its the national Enquirer of trash news…..

  18. Thomas Kim

    For God sakes, Faith, stop trying find every little obscure hint that has no rationale in your ridiculous right-wing political causes. There is really no merit for it. Obama is LEGALLY the President of the United States. He was born in Hawaii and his parents have nothing to do with his eligibility as stated by the Supreme Court in a number of cases going back to the 19th century. STOP BEATING ON A DEAD HORSE.

  19. Thomas Kim

    In an opening statement, Kerry said the department had "clear warning signs" of a deteriorating security situation before the attack. He also faulted Congress for failing to provide sufficient money to protect facilities worldwide, forcing the department to scramble to cover security costs.
    The State Department is seeking about $1.4 billion in next year's budget for increased security; the money would come primarily from funds that haven't been spent in Iraq. That would include $553 million for 35 more Marine Security Guard units, $130 million for 155 diplomatic security agents and $376 million for security upgrades and construction at new embassies.
    Since the attack, Democrats have complained that Republicans cut $300 million from the Obama administration's budget request of $2.6 billion for diplomatic and embassy security this year. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., pointed out that the House balked at cutting money for U.S. military bands, which was about $388 million.
    "We need to get our priorities straight around here, and we can't walk away and invite another tragedy, and as much as people like to say, 'Well it's not the money,' it's the money," Boxer said. "You can't protect a facility without the funding."

  20. Hervé Timothé

    Okay, so the President's father was a British subject at the time of his birth. What about his mother? Her citizenship, AND his place of birth don't matter in these crazy arguments.