June 23, 2012 By Alan P. Halbert - Western Journalism
During the hearing Monday in front of Judge Terry Lewis, the defense argued their motion to dismiss. Mark Herron for Obama stated that since he ran unopposed that he was not in “fact” nominated and would not be Florida’s nominee until the Democratic national convention in September.
It was ironic however, that he cited Florida statute 101.252. This statute was discussed in part one; since Obama ran unopposed, this statue automatically “declares” him nominated for the Democratic executive committee for the state of Florida. The delegates are now pledged to support Obama by this action per statute 103.101 at their national convention. This left me to wonder how he could be “nominated” though not nominated until September; the legal conundrum left me reeling that such a contradiction in logic could happen. With all the other fortuitous circumstances that have happened to and for Obama, we can only wait and see how this one will play out. What he attempted to do was focus and steer the court to a narrow issue and decide the case based upon the right of a political party and not the people of the state of Florida to elect candidates.
We are used to these types of paradigms with Obama, with his propensity to disenfranchise any group and people that stand between him and his political goals, so this was just more of the same.
He then went on to discuss that if in fact any dispute in Obama’s eligibility were to arise, it is the responsibility of Congress when the Electors are called to Washington D.C. to cast their votes for President in the Electoral College. However, the question at issue in front of Judge Lewis is a matter of Florida law, and Obama’s attorney is only stalling until after the election; to quote Larry Klayman, they are “trying to kick the can the down the road,” which would make this matter moot after the general election in November.
These same tactics were used successfully in 2008 before and after the election on all the actions that have questioned the eligibility of Obama to hold office since then.
Mr. Herron then went on to cite Florida statute 102.168 with Ambler v. Norman, a case that was heard in Leon County and was reversed on appeal. This is an important case to the question at issue in this matter since it involved a question of a candidate’s eligibility. The appellate decision came down to what the legislature’s intent was in the language of this statute (more on this case later when the plaintiff is heard from.)
Mr. Daniel Nordy came next as attorney for Florida’s Secretary of State; he re-iterated much of what Mr. Herron presented. However, his position is that the political parties “nominate” the candidates. His position was quite strange since he intimated that these parties controlled the nomination and placement of a candidate's name upon any ballots in Florida. Judge Lewis was not buying it. Mr. Nordy produced the letter and read it to the court, and indeed, they stated he was their one and only candidate.
His position seems to disenfranchise the people of Florida since the “law” was drafted to make sure of complete disclosure of any candidate's party affiliation or political benefactors when it comes to financial support for costly political campaigns. He certainly cannot mean that these same political parties (private entities) control all aspects of the ballot. If this was the case, why does the “law” require notification to the nominated "candidate" by certified mail from the Secretary of State and the qualification documentation being expressly executed by the candidate himself?
One question that seems to stick out like a sore thumb, and one that Mr. Herron or Nordy have failed to answer, is what enjoins the delegates to the national convention in September? The purpose of the “presidential preference primary” is to enjoin delegates in this case to the Democratic Party’s candidate who would prevail at the primary election.
The argument that they make is missing this crucial piece of information. Their argument is simply put that there has not been an “election”; therefore, Obama has not been “nominated.” This places the “law” at issue and leaves a question to answer that they stay silent on. Florida statute 103.101 in sections 1, 4, 5, and 6 speaks about “binding” the political party’s delegates to the national convention so that the people’s voice can be heard as they voted. If, as they say, no election transpired, how are these delegates bound to proffer the voice of Florida’s citizens? Party hacks will do as they choose if not bound? Clearly, this was “not” the intention of Florida’s legislature when they drafted and made into law statute 103.101, and that is where Obama’s argument fails!
If in fact this is the case, the legislature needs to address this deficiency in current law and “expressly” declare that a given candidate if he ran unopposed is given the pledge of the delegates at the national or nominating convention; to do otherwise would nullify and disenfranchise the people of Florida. Florida statute 101.252 already does this, so any further legislation would only further clarify this issue!
Mr. Larry Klayman came next as counsel for the plaintiff; as mentioned previously, his opening statement started with a quote from John Adams, our 2nd President (“We are a Nation of Laws, not Men”) to bring some levity to this issue. Mr. Klayman said it was an honor to be seen before Judge Lewis once again. He was referring to Bush v. Gore, which he attended as co-counsel in this monumental case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. In a rare moment of levity, Judge Lewis answered back; he did not appear to be that old.
He then went on to explain that Florida’s election laws mirrored the intent of our Constitution and that a person must meet the unique conditions of Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5, the requirement that the person seeking the office of president must be a “natural born citizen.” Alternatively, they could be declared “ineligible” per Florida statute 102.168, which is shown below:
(3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:
(b )Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.
This is an important point and issue that the court must consider since Judge Lewis is specifically charged with upholding Florida state statutes. He then went on to discuss how the intention of the legislature and “laws” of Florida were in harmony with the United States Constitution and that his duty was to uphold the rule of law.
Mr. Herron will probably wish he had not brought up Ambler v. Norman, as it is a case that was heard in Leon County, where the circuit court set aside a primary win for a candidate on grounds that were of an administrative nature. On appeal, the matter was reversed as the court erred; 102.168 sec. 3(b) was only to be used for Constitutional matters of which Obama faces and not the administrative relief that was available in that case.
He then went on to explain that the court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate this question since Mr. Voeltz, an ardent Democrat, has questioned the qualification of Obama to hold the office of president per statute 102.168 and the grounds for the action of the court to determine the eligibility question of president Obama. He also cited that the court could make a declaratory judgment and require a mandamus decision to enjoin the Secretary of State in this matter to remove Obama’s name from the November general election ballot.
The discussion then turned to what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is, since this is at the heart of the question that must be answered regarding Obama holding the office of president. Mr. Klayman then defined the question as a child born of “citizen” parents. Judge Lewis questioned what “born” meant and whether each parent needed to be alive at the moment of birth. Mr. Klayman stumbled at this point, then regained his composure as he collected his thoughts. The parents of any given child do not change whether they are alive or not, so the Constitution is silent on this issue since it was not intended to answer all questions. Suffice it to say, at birth, the “parents” do not change for the child; it only means a “parent” has preceded them in death if they are born without one parent. This frail, meager, and in many cases inadequate requirement for the office of President is all the founding fathers could do to safeguard against a person of foreign influence ascending to the office of president.
Mr. Klayman then went on to explain that Obama’s father was allowed into the United States on a student visa. He was also not in the process of “naturalization”, so he could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered a citizen. Therefore, Obama was not a “natural born citizen” under the requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Numerous hypothetical situations were discussed as Judge Lewis probed the Constitutional requirement when persons were in foreign nations for themselves or their parents after being born on United States soil. Frankly, this did not add much to the discussion, although it was meant to probe the argument of Mr. Klayman. The definition of a “natural born citizen” did come up with Mr. Klayman citing Minor v. Happersett, a voting rights case from Missouri decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1875 where the definition was explicitly given: a citizen child born of two citizen parents.
The next issue that was discussed was the shell game and the semantics Mr. Herron and Mr. Nordy were attempting to pull over the court, by not specifically mentioning in their pleadings and in testimony the operative language of Florida statute 103.101 (wherein they only cited section 2 of this statute and left out sections 1, 4, 5 & 6 of their discussion.) These sections discuss the operative language of the election and pledging of “delegates” to the national convention as the candidate exits the “presidential preference primary” as the “nominee” from the state of Florida.
Mr. Klayman then discussed the portion of 103.101, where the candidate's name is left off the ballot when only one candidate is put up for nomination by a political party. He also explained Statute 101.252 where the same language is placed and is shown below:
101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.
(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office.
This is the portion of the “law" that Mr. Herron and Mr. Nordy were trying to hide from the court, since it works in conjunction with 103.101 where the “name is left off the ballot”; the candidate then exits the “presidential preference primary” as being “declared nominated.”
He then accused Obama’s lawyers of using these very same tactics in 2008 to squelch any review with the courts prior to Obama being sworn in and that they were repeating the same pattern of “pushing it down the road” until after the election and he was sworn in once again. A passing reference was made to “Graham”, another election case that was heard by the Florida Supreme Court. The findings of this case were essentially three fold:
1. Where the law is silent, the statutes must be construed in a manner that would not nullify the right of the voters of the state of Florida.
2. The operative date for a cause of action for ineligibility would be at the date the “primary” was closed or thereafter.
3. Any legal construction must enhance democratic rights of the voters.
He then when on to discuss that we live in a constitutional republic and that all the election laws of Florida and the United States Constitution must be read in concert with one another and be understood to enhance the voter's rights.
In rebuttal, Mr. Herron and Nordy again reiterated their construed interpretation of 103.101, again leaving out the fact that Obama left the “primary” as the nominee from the state of Florida with the Democrats delegates pledged to him for their national convention. One other issue was brought up in that the plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed without a demand for “declaratory” relief being explicit in the complaint. Mr. Klayman was given time to respond and made the parties aware that it included other relief as the court felt necessary. The subject then came up as to whether Mr. Klayman would be able to prove that Obama was not born in the United States, and he said he was not. Then Judge Lewis seemed to indicate he would grant a leave to amend the complaint to allow this to be entered.
On a personal observation, after the hearing concluded, both sides shared a little housekeeping task discussion as always happens after conclusion of hearings. However, Mr. Herron seemed to have a concerned look on his face; it was slight scowl. I can only guess why as this matter is probably going to the mats, and the short easy victories Obama has always had at these proceedings is just a bygone memory. Mr. Herron was expecting a dismissal at the conclusion of the hearing, and now his legal strategy lays in shambles (as well as that of the state's attorney Mr. Nordy, possibly their reputations as well.) Why they both went down this road is simply mind-boggling.
A simple reading of statutes 99.061, 101.252, and 103.101 shows the fallacy of their argument plain as day without any complicated legal analysis or gymnastics needing to be performed. Obama is indeed “nominated” per Florida law, and the “delegates” are pledged to him, which is the operative outcome of 103.101. Obama's and the States attorney's protests to the contrary is futile as far as Florida law is concerned.
At the end of the day, I am struck by one incontrovertible fact; Obama chose to create phony technical grounds to dismiss this lawsuit rather than throw down his so-called long form birth certificate he released in April of 2011 and other bona-fides as absolute "proof" of his right to hold office.
A hearing was held on June 18, 2012; it began precisely at 9 am Eastern Time in Leon County, Florida in the Court of Judge Terry Lewis to decide whether Obama would appear on the ballot in November and whether the lawsuit filed by Mr. Michael Voeltz (a lifelong Democrat) should be dismissed with prejudice. The same Judge who heard the famous Bush V. Gore (ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States), heard this matter. This famous case was started in his courtroom at the circuit court level where Judge Lewis presided in 2000 over Florida election statutes as well.
Speaking for the plaintiff was Larry Klayman; his opening statement quoted John Adams, our second President: “We are a Nation of Laws, not Men.” (framing the question for the court, the state of Florida and the Nation in his first utterance.) Mr. Klayman outlined that Florida election law does not operate in a vacuum but in concert with the Constitution of Florida, the United States, and our respective legislature(s). He showed that each party’s obligations and interests must be read in concert with one another.
This was in stark contrast to Obama’s attorneys and the attorney for Florida’s Secretary of State, who attempted to narrow the issues for the court and Judge Lewis. The basis for their argument was that since Obama was not in fact “nominated” by the Democratic Party and would not be until September, this action in this court was not ripe and should be dismissed with prejudice. Their argument was supposedly based on Florida Statute Chapter 103.101, which in their view states that since the election held last February was a “Presidential Preference Primary” election and that Obama ran un-opposed that he in fact was not “nominated” by the Democratic Party and therefore the action in this court was premature.
To dispense with some of the more technical issues, which will be discussed shortly, a synopsis will be presented first.
The basis of the argument came down to a multi-faceted supposition that was construed as a technicality by Obama’s attorneys and the State’s counsel. In their view, it was operative in the context that the Democratic Party (a private legal entity) controls the nomination process. To bring some clarity to this issue, it is ludicrous as a “matter of “law” to allow such an argument to stand. We have in essence three parties to the candidacy of any individual that seeks either a state or federal office. Therefore, to develop some reasonable logic, we need to look to each party’s rights, duties, and obligations in this process.
Only two of these parties reduce to a matter of law, the actual candidate and the election law within the state that the individual files to declare candidacy. The political parties (Democrats, Republicans, Marxists, Libertarians etc.) are legal entities that control who they will support with their funds, political machinery, and operatives. They must also meet certain qualifications under law and affirmatively execute certain documents that are filed with either local or state election officials.
Even if a political party chooses to “nominate” and support a given candidate, the candidate must tender the affirmative execution of qualification documents.
These political parties choose whom it is that they will support; the statute makes clear that the people of Florida will know their choice. They do not as a matter of “law” control the process as to the “legality” of any candidate(s) filing for any office within the borders of any state or for the nation for that matter, which is where their argument fails for Obama and his attorneys.
If we were to accept the argument of Obama and the state of Florida, we must accept the choice that the political party makes and only that choice. If this position and argument were allowed to stand, the voter’s choice(s) could then be nullified regardless of their choice of candidate after an election, a ludicrous proposition. Much to the chagrin of Obama, we are not a one-party state and government quite yet in the fashion of the communist party of the defunct Soviet Union, where only their party’s candidates appeared on the ballot.
If we accept Obama’s argument, that is in effect what we would have to accept.
Once again, it is the political parties’ “prerogative” to lend support, not declare who any candidate is; they only choose the declared candidate they wish to financially and cooperatively support. Therefore, we must look to the “laws” of the state of Florida for any answers to this issue and the legislature’s intent to enjoin the parties in the interests of the Constitution, the candidate, and the people of Florida.
Florida Statutes
Florida law under Chapter 99 (“Candidates”) declares what a candidate must do to become eligible to be placed upon any ballot for public office in Florida.
Chapter 103 discusses “Presidential Electors, Political Parties, Executive Committees, and Members”; Florida statutes are specific as to what must be done when a political party declares a “candidate” that will carry their “brand” of political identity of the nominating party.
It must be assumed that Chapter 103 was written by the legislature to make sure that any citizen of the state of Florida was aware of the “party affiliation” of any “person” who filed for any public office in Florida, or national office. In this matter, of course, for the office of president.
These private legal entities (political parties) do not control who would in fact be placed upon a ballot in the state of Florida. This is affirmed in the statutes that after “nomination” by a political party, the Secretary of State notifies the nominee by certified mail. Furthermore, the named individual, if they do not intend to run for the office of president, must decline the “nomination” to the Secretary of State. These safeguards have been legislated so the people of Florida will expressly know if a given candidate has a political party affiliation supporting them in an election. The action by the individual is considered affirmative so that the political party is not dictating to the “candidate” or the state of Florida who must appear on a general election ballot.
To do otherwise could disenfranchise the electorate and nullify any vote that the “people” could make when they voted their preference of any particular “candidate” for public office in Florida. The “political party” could otherwise substitute candidates at will even after an election for possibly capricious reasons if these safeguards were not in force.
Chapter 99 (“Candidates”) occurs first in Florida election law and therefore declares what qualifications a “candidate” must posses and would be considered a predicate condition for consideration to any office. Section 99.061 (“Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office”) declares what must happen for a candidate to be considered qualified for any particular party(s) nomination:
99.061Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office.—
(1)The provisions of any special act to the contrary notwithstanding, each person seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a federal, state, or multicounty district office, other than election to a judicial office as defined in chapter 105 or the office of school board member, shall file his or her qualification papers with, and pay the qualifying fee, which shall consist of the filing fee and election assessment, and party assessment, if any has been levied, to, the Department of State, or qualify by the petition process pursuant to s. 99.095 with the Department of State, at any time after noon of the 1st day for qualifying, which shall be as follows: the 120th day prior to the primary election, but not later than noon of the 116th day prior to the date of the primary election, for persons seeking to qualify for nomination or election to federal office or to the office of the state attorney or the public defender; and noon of the 71st day prior to the primary election, but not later than noon of the 67th day prior to the date of the primary election, for persons seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a state or multicounty district office, other than the office of the state attorney or the public defender.
Therefore, if we look at these statutes, we will ascertain what must occur for a candidate in-and-of-themselves to become eligible to be placed upon a ballot. This section of Florida law is shown below for these qualifications in Chapter 99.0955:
99.0955 Candidates with no party affiliation; name on general election ballot.—
(1)Each person seeking to qualify for election as a candidate with no party affiliation shall file his or her qualifying papers and pay the qualifying fee or qualify by the petition process pursuant to s. 99.095 with the officer and during the times and under the circumstances prescribed in s. 99.061. Upon qualifying, the candidate is entitled to have his or her name placed on the general election ballot.
(2)The qualifying fee for candidates with no party affiliation shall consist of a filing fee and an election assessment as prescribed in s. 99.092. Filing fees paid to the Department of State shall be deposited into the General Revenue Fund of the state. Filing fees paid to the supervisor of elections shall be deposited into the general revenue fund of the county.
As can be seen by the above statute, “party affiliation” is not necessary to be placed upon any election ballot in Florida. Furthermore, these qualifications are the minimal qualifications that a “candidate” must possess to be placed upon a ballot. So why would the legislature create this statute if a “candidate” could only be placed upon a ballot if they needed the endorsement(s) of a political party? The short answer is they would not! So, then, why was this statute drafted and made into law?
Again, it can only be seen in the light of the people of Florida to truly know what party was supporting a given “candidate”, not that they controlled the ballot of any person’s name within the state of Florida. An affirmative action must be performed by the candidates themselves when they file the qualifying documents with the Secretary of State; after they are “nominated” by a political party, they must again affirmatively decline by expressly declining the “nomination” directly to the Secretary of State if they choose not to run.
In Obama’s case the ‘law” is clear as shown below:
101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.-
(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office.
Now that we have examined the applicable statutes of a particular candidate’s qualifications and the express declaration of a candidate’s political party affiliation, we can turn our attention to the particular statute cited by Mr. Klayman, Chapter 102.168 Section 3(b), with the applicable law shown below:
102.168 Contest of election.—
(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.
Mr. Klayman has stated the particular statute that is applicable to this case, much to the admonishment of Obama’s counsel who vehemently opposes such a condition. The “taxpayer” requirement of the statute is satisfied from section 1, and an election did transpire and was challenged by a “person” of standing to bring a complaint to the circuit court as required in the statute. Mr. Voeltz has been specific in his complaint on what especially is a defect with Obama, namely his ineligibility to hold office under section 3 (b) shown above.
The statute discusses two reasons: either they are not eligible for “nomination” (again, a reference to a political party) or actual qualification for the office itself.
In Obama’s case, he is not eligible as he is not a “natural born citizen”; however, he is the de-facto nominee of his party and for his attorneys and Secretary of State to believe otherwise is mere folly. Having them make believe that it is contingent upon the Democrats’ Convention in September is merely obscuring the facts in this case.
If common sense was applied by these men, they would know that Obama is running for president in every state in the union, and by statute, he is already the declared nominee in Florida.
So, pardon me if the authorities are engaging in subterfuge; we can expect that from Obama. However, the Secretary of State for Florida is a real stretch since Obama is “declared” nominated per statute 101.252!
What in essence we have done is lay open the fallacy of the arguments made by Obama and his attorneys, as it is unreasonable to assume that a “private entity” (the Democratic Party) has complete control on who would be placed upon a primary or general election ballot in the state of Florida. If we follow the arguments of Obama’s attorneys, the people are disenfranchised and nullified by the sheer capricious whim of a political party that would be free to place any person upon a ballot in Florida, even against the expressed wishes of any given candidate, again a ludicrous proposition which the “law” precludes.
Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible
Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and that it doesn’t matter.
According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit, “…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.”
In numerous previous lawsuits questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats have maintained that voters, not the Constitution, should be the final arbiters of presidential eligibility. Though a disgraceful assertion on its face, such mindless rambling was about all that desperate Democrat attorneys had in their arsenals, apart from the perpetually employed “plaintiffs lack standing” defense.
But now, the cat is out of the bag, and the true sentiments of Democrat Party officials have finally been aired. It seems that, according to the left, as long as the acting president has the requisite contempt for the United States, is willing to work tirelessly to destroy the national economy, and will ignore both the rule of law and his Constitutional duty to enforce it, he is eminently qualified to hold the country’s top job.
In February, Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi ignored Supreme Court precedent, made a shambles of case law, and distorted the rulings of other courts in a pathetically obvious mission to find Barack Obama eligible for the Georgia presidential ballot. Although the first judge to decide an Obama eligibility case on the merits, his contempt for an honest judicial process certainly did nothing to mend the rapidly deteriorating reputation of the American legal system.
On Wednesday, United States District Judge S. Thomas Anderson joined a long list of robed colleagues, ruling that plaintiffs in the Tennessee case “lacked standing” to point out Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for the presidency. That is, plaintiffs could not claim sufficient personal harm should the Manchurian Candidate remain in or be re-elected to the White House.
Strange how the law works. After 3 ½ years of cynical disregard for the borders, language, and culture of the United States, one would think that some 240 million people have suffered “sufficient personal harm” to claim legal standing for a crack at His Royal Highness in a court of law! There are only 30 million illegals currently residing in the United States, and those the Attorney General refers to as “his people” might actually lack legal standing in the eyes of an honest arbiter.
At any rate, Democrats have finally admitted what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Barack Obama is NOT qualified to hold the job won for him by the national media in 2008. But it seems only the voters will have the authority to reclaim it from him. God willing, the vast majority who exercise that authority in November will be both American and alive
Read More in: Where's the Birth Certificate?
No comments:
Post a Comment