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

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.