Obama Attorney’s Desperation Leads Him to Tell Florida Judge He is Not the Democratic Nominee

The case before Florida Judge Terry Lewis claims that Barack Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements for President of the United States.  The lawsuit, believe it or not, was filed by a registered Democrat.  Just last week I wrote about Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Cold Case Posse Investigator Mike Zullo filing affidavits in the case.

At that time, Obama’s attorneys had asked Judge Lewis to dismiss the case because Barack Obama met the legal definition of a natural born citizen.  Lewis didn’t buy their argument and demanded they provide documented evidence to back up their claim.  He pointed to the fact that the claimant’s attorney had provided a Supreme court decision that had defined natural born citizen to mean that both parents were US citizens.

In the latest round before Judge Lewis, Obama’s attorneys evidently could not produce the requested documentation to support their claim that Obama is a natural born citizen.  Out of what seemed to be an act of desperation on their part, they tried to divert addressing the central claim in the case by telling Lewis that Obama is not the Democratic nominee and therefore the case is irrelevant.

According to WND, Judge Lewis challenged Obama’s attorneys by indicating that there was only one name on the Democratic ballot for president and therefore the delegates were bound to that candidate.  He also asked them about a letter submitted by the Democratic Party to the Florida Secretary of State that only listed one name.

Larry Klayman, attorney for Michael Voeltz who filed the lawsuit against Obama’s eligibility, argued before Judge Lewis that state law describes anyone as being the party’s nominee if they are the only name on the ballot.

In a twist, Lewis asked Klayman a hypothetical question about the eligibility of a person who was born of two US citizens but later on emigrated to some other country such as Israel.  Klayman replied that the Founding Fathers could not have accounted for every situation, but that it was clear that they intended to prevent dual loyalties of anyone ascending to the leadership of the nation.

Judge Terry Lewis still has not rendered a decision in the case which could have as much, if not more historical importance than when he declared Bush the winner over Gore in 2000.  If Lewis rules in favor of the claimant, Michael Voeltz, it could keep Obama off of the November ballot in Florida.  It may also prompt similar lawsuits in other states which in turn could keep him off of their ballots as well.

If, however, Lewis rules against the lawsuit and supports Obama’s right to be on the November ballot, it will make it all the more difficult for anyone else to succeed in getting a similar case upheld anywhere else.  Considering the fragile condition of our nation, its very fate could lie in the hands of Judge Terry Lewis, for the second time in twelve years.