Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush v. Gore judge: Your evidence, Mr. Obama? -- WND, Bob Unruh

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush v. Gore judge: Your evidence, Mr. Obama? -- WND, Bob Unruh

    Bush v. Gore judge: Your evidence, Mr. Obama?

    Schedules hearing on what precedent White House has on 'natural born citizen'

    WND

    Bob Unruh
    6/1/2012

    Excerpt:

    "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’s work is being supported by ConstitutionActionFund.org, a non-profit raising money for the legal challenge.

    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."

    ...................................

    View the complete article at:

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/bush-v-go...a/?cat_orig=us
    B. Steadman
Working...
X