« Is the GOP Senate primary over? Connie Mack says so | Main | Voter groups will sue Florida over non-citizen 'purge' »

Florida judge hears ‘birther’ challenge to President Obama’s re-election bid

The argument has been debunked and rejected many times, but that hasn’t stopped people from continuing to file lawsuits disputing President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve. A South Florida man is behind one of the latest challenge, asking that Obama be blocked from having his name listed on the Florida ballot this fall.

Plaintiff Michael Voeltz filed the suit in Leon County circuit court in February. His attorney, Larry Klayman, says he has evidence Obama wasn’t born in the United States and therefore is not a citizen eligible to serve as president. Even if he were born in Hawaii, Klayman said, the president isn’t a “natural born citizen” as required in the U.S. Constitution because his father wasn’t a citizen.

Gov. Rick Scott has been a critic of Obama, but his administration is siding with the president on this issue. Attorneys for Secretary of State Ken Detzner appeared at a hearing this morning alongside the president’s lawyers to argue for the case to be dismissed.

The suit is without standing because Obama won’t officially become the Democratic nominee for president until after the party’s convention in September, the defense argued. Right now he is simply a candidate, albeit one without opposition in primary, they said.

“In this case, there has been no nomination to office, there has been no election to office as a result of the presidential preference primary of January 31,” said Mark Herron, a lawyer representing Obama.

Plaintiff Voeltz is described in the lawsuit as a registered Democrat. But according to a state voter registrations database updated in Janaury, Voeltz is listed as having no party affiliation. His address is in Plantation, a suburb of Fort Lauderdale.

UPDATE: According to a clerk with the Broward County Supervisor of Elections office, Voeltz switched from "no party affiliation" to Democrat on Nov. 23, 2011. END UPDATE.

Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis didn’t indicate when he would making a ruling. While Obama and the state want the suit dismissed, Klayman said he is hopeful he will be allowed to conduct research and bring the issue to trial. He believes Obama should be exposed once and for all.

“We want discovery in this case. We want to take depositions of Hawaiian officials where the president claimed he was born,” Klayman said.

By the way, Klayman also said he does not believe Sen. Marco Rubio is eligible to serve as vice president for those same reason. We have already written about the "birther" movement's effect on Rubio here.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Romney's father was born in Mexico. Where is that lawsuit?


If we went to war with Kenya.. would there be a conflict of interest ? yes.. this is why only a Natural born citizen can be president. So no loyalties. What if obamas relatives were all from IRAN ? or SYRIA ? muslims are muslims just different tribes.


Hahahaha that's funny


Mr. Simpson,perhaps you need to read the Constitution to learn who is considered a Natural Born citizen. This is another frivolous lawsuit. A conflict of interest was when former President Bush wanted to give control of our east coast ports to a Muslim country, where, it just so happened his brother was getting rich through business dealings.

Then Senator Hillary Clinton was the one who blew the whistle on Bush, preventing that deal from going through. At the same time, she was violating law by accepting campaign money from lobbyists who her husband was teaching how to get money from our government ~ his UAE business partners.

Would think people living in Florida would know about anchor babies, and that might shut them up, regarding this asinine challenge to our president.


Jesus, what a waste of tax payer dollars.

Can't take anymore

Wow! I can't wait to file suit to have the world declared flat, gravity declared only a "theory" and the wearing of tin-foil lined hats by all voting age persons to be made mandatory. With enough donations to my legal fund from the overly rich rightwing crazies out there I just might have a chance of bumping this up to the newly remodeled US Supreme Court (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party) where the chances are better than 50-50 it would prevail.

David Farrar

Obama, Rubio and, possibly even Mitt Romney, are not Article II 'natural' born Citizens according to natural law.

As de Vattel's 1757 treatise of the law of nations observed, Sections: 212, 213, 214 and 215: a 'natural' born citizen is a person born under the cloak of allegiance of the father. This is a self-evident natural fact. It is not something de Vattel dreamed up. It is as self-evident today as it was in 1757.

As an example: Let's go back before 1776. Suppose we take two North American Indian tribes, let's say Iroquois and Sioux. Now let's say a man from the Iroquois tribe and his wife, who happens to be from the Cherokee tribe, and pregnant, are traveling across Sioux territory and they stop and camp on Sioux territory for the night. During the night the Cherokee mother gives birth to a child on Sioux territory. Does that make the child Sioux, Cherokee, or Iroquois? De Vattel's Law of Nations tells us the child, by the Natural Right of Inheritance, is a member of the Iroquois tribe, the citizenship of the the father.

The fact that the child was born on Sioux territory gives the Sioux the right to decide if they want to adopt the child and make him/er Sioux or not. They might instead even kill the entire Iroquois family for trespassing. The option is theirs (by plenary authority of government, not by natural law). It is the same with every nation, including the U.S. This is why de Vattel says that the soil is just the place of birth and not the country that one is from, which goes by the father because it is determined as a function of natural laws, not legal privileges.

This is exactly what the qualifier in 'natural' born Citizen means...a citizen by natural law, not by legal privileges or any other plenary authority of government.

It's the same with the 14th Amendment. Yes, the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett said Virginia Minor was as much a citizen before the 14th Amendment was adopted as she was after the 14th Amendment was adopted. The Minor court decision was in effect saying: "Because Ms Minor was a natural born citizen. She didn't need to be 'subject to the jurisdiction' to be a natural US citizen at birth. Only naturalized or statutory US Citizens at birth need be 'subject to the jurisdiction' because they aren't natural born Citizens.

This is why the state case of ANKENY vs. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, No. 49A02-0904-CV-353 is unconstitutional. It attempts to usurp natural law with the plenary authority of government in defining the the qualifications of the two highest offices in the nation.

ex animo

Fogbow BFB

Gosh, Farrar, you sure do write lots of pretty words.
Too bad the totality is bull.
But you keep pushing on, brother. We need the laughs.

Fogbow BFB

And it's kind of ironic that you use two Native American tribes in your example, considering de Vattel, in the Law of Nations, championed the idea of Europeans dispossessing Native Americans of their tribal homelands. So de Vattel would have laughed at your example, as we all do.

David Farrar

Gosh, BFB,

for a minute there I thought you actually had something to say.

But it is true, Ankeny v Indiana is a clear attempt by the government to create the 'ruling class,' since Article II, if nothing else, is all about the qualifications of the two highest offices in the government: the presidency and the vice-presidency -- the 'ruling class.'

This is exactly the reason why the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 unanimously adopted, without debate, the term 'natural' born Citizen, as it was understood by de Vattel rather than place the power to create the ruling class within the plenary hands of Congress.

Sadly, it wasn't enough to keep the courts and Congress from attempting over the years, and, especially within the last few years, from attempting to create the 'ruling class' themselves rather than leavening it in the hands of de Vattle and natural law.

The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975, according to J.B. Williams, June 8, 2011, over at NewsWithViews.com, when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33 which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.

Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33 in 1977 under H.J.R. 38, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.

Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress - “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 - “Natural Born Citizen Act - Defines the constitutional term "natural born citizen," to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678 on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act - Declares that the term "natural born Citizen" in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V - natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee -- All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511 – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen'' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States; - Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”

The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II...excerpt from By J.B. Williams, June 8, 2011,

ex animo


Sooo Friggin ridiculous. By the same logic, Mitt Romney is not a Natural citizen either.

Fogbow BFB

There are 2 levels of citizenship in this country: natural and naturalized. Period. All the pretty words you write won't change that, Farrar.

By the way, how'd that court case of yours go?

Mary Adams

Davy-boy, you can repeat your nonsense a million times and it won't make it anything but nonsense.

A. Shore

He should really be bringing suit against the guy who swore Mr. Obama into office, Chief Justice Roberts.

As an attorney, 'due diligence' would have required him to look into Mr. Obama's qualifications.


lots of dumb negro's in this blog


Farrar, de Vattel's opinions carry exactly no weight whatsoever in determining American law. American citizenship, by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, is conferred by being born here - see the case of Wong Kim Ark. Your insistence that a long dead Swiss thinker overrides the United States Supreme Court is, in a word, ludicrous. It is rather amusing that you insist the Sioux have the right to slaughter the entire Iroquois family by the authority of government, yet insist that they do NOT have the right to determine their own citizenship laws because it's a "natural right".


David Farrar, are you sure you want Orly to represent you?


teh bottom line on this is a lot of people have been brainwashed by Limbaugh, Fox news etc

So the repubs have to dig back in to their bag of dirty tricks, espeically to get out the vote. its apublicity stunt.

Remember the thorough debunked Swift boart story in 2004. Sometimes I wonder if the repub party has a bunch of pathological liars running their show

BTW re the economy - My dad graduated college in 1929 Despite everything that hoover did (little) and Roosevelt did, the economy didnt begin a serioous recovery till the late 1930s = with the re=armament due to the forthcoming war in Europe

Want to fix our economy - bring back the $15 trillion*** stolen /destroyed by the wall street bankers under bush's watch.

***CBO estimate - the CBO is non-partisan.

David Farrar

"..in determining American law;" I should think not. Good grief, man; do you have no true inkling what de Vattel represents?

These are natural laws, that are natural truths, and all natural truths are self-evident facts.

Now if you are asking me does a Court base its decision on the law and the "facts" of the case? Yes; I would agree.

As you raised the issue of the 14th Amendment, perhaps I wasn't clear in my explanation.

As many like to point out; there are only two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized. But I am sure even you will agree these terms are simply manifestations of natural law and positive law.

As I stated above, a natural born citizen doesn't derive its citizenship from positive law, but from natural law. It is not subject to the jurisdiction as to its citizenship.

On the contrary; anyone and everyone who isn't a natural born citizen is a citizen by positive law, and subject to the plenary hand of government.

So in Ankeny v Indiana we have the plenary authority of government creating the ruling class rather than the ruling class being created by natural law.

ex animo


Here are the applicable statutes:
Obama's lackeys will have some splainin' to do, because they are dead wrong:

102.168 Contest of election.—
(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.
(2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.
(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:
(a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.
(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.

"any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election."
Obama by operation of the statutes was NOMINATED by the D party of Fla. to the D. National Convention.

103.101 Presidential preference primary.—
(4) The names of candidates for political party nominations for President of the United States shall be printed on official ballots for the presidential preference primary election and shall be marked, counted, canvassed, returned, and proclaimed in the same manner and under the same conditions, so far as they are applicable, as in other state elections. If party rule requires the delegates’ names to be printed on the official presidential preference primary ballot, the name of the presidential candidates for that political party may not be printed separately, but the ballot may reflect the presidential candidate to whom the delegate is pledged. If, however, a political party has only one presidential candidate, neither the name of the candidate nor the names of the candidate’s delegates shall be printed on the ballot.

Obama was the only "qualified candidate", so his name was not printed on the ballot

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.

"The names of candidates for political party nominations for President of the United States shall be printed on official ballots..."

1) CLEARLY the statutes state that the primary ballot is for "POLITICAL PARTY NOMINATION".

2) "...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."

Since Obama was the only "qualified" candidate, his name was not printed on the ballot, and he was considered "NOMINATED". All the election statutes comprise a continuous statute, and all individual statutes have separate meaning. No statute, by operation, can void another unless explicitly stated (law of statutory construction).

Mike Voeltz

The comments to this entry are closed.