Funny how the same thing comes up multiple times. The first is my own comment on Voeltz v. Obama, where I said:
While I don’t see any real legal significance to the Voeltz lawsuit, it makes for good theater.
Shortly afterwards I saw a citation from the ObamaBallotChallenge web site in a comment on my site:
If you think the system is rigged and we can’t win, think again.This case has a better chance than most. If we lose the ruling, it’s very appealable. Even if we lose, we win, because political theater is one of our objectives. Obama and the rotten official power structure are being exposed more and more for all to see. This clown won’t be able to get elected dogcatcher when we’re through with him. But, we also want to lay the groundwork for possible future nullification of everything he ever signed.
And today we see that very same reference cited in a memorandum filed on behalf of Barack Obama in the Voeltz case referencing the previous, prefaced by:
Statements on a website seeking funds to support Plaintiff’s litigation suggest that Mr. Voeltz’ lawsuit is "political theater" and filed for an improper purpose
I can’t help but be reminded of the title of Sam Sewell’s blog: “The Steady Drip.” The opposition hopes to wear down Barack Obama’s public image by incremental smears, none of them actually true, but they hope that the sheer number of them will create doubt.
In the “Memorandum,” President Obama echoes the Florida Secretary of State’s contention that the election cannot be contested until the results are certified, and that President Obama hasn’t been nominated or elected to anything yet. He further argues that the decisions of eligibility lie with the electoral college and Congress, that “judicial review, if any, should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes provided for in the Constitution have run their course” (citing Judge Alsup in dismissing Robinson v. Bowen).
The “Memorandum” goes on to specifically address the spurious legal theories presented by Mr. Klayman attempting to redefine “natural born citizen.” I won’t summarize, except to note that the President’s position on the meaning of “natural born citizen” is the same conclusions that I have also reached:
The very essence of a natural born citizen is that he or she becomes “at once” upon birth, and not at some time later.
The full text follows: