One of the persistent problems for birther plaintiffs is timing1. The venerable case of Barnett v. Obama, just denied by the US Supreme Court, suffered from being filed too late (after the Presidential Inauguration). The political candidate plaintiffs were no longer candidates by then, and the court had no power to remove a sitting president and so could not grant the relief sought. No standing, no case.
Just the opposite appears to be the case in the Florida ballot challenge of Voeltz v. Obama. Larry Klayman, representing Voeltz, argues that the Court should order the Florida Secretary of State to certify Barack Obama’s eligibility for President before placing him on the ballot and an injunction against Obama being on the Ballot. The Florida Secretary of State argues that Obama has not been nominated by the Democratic Party yet and as such the suit is not ripe, not ready to be heard.
This problem of ripeness seems to be a sticky one. One needs a “perfect storm” of an applicable statue, a plaintiff with an actual injury in fact, and something the court can do to redress the complaint.
While I don’t see any real legal significance to the Voeltz lawsuit, it makes for a good theater. We have the high-profile attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch, and affidavits submitted by Jerome Corsi, Mike Zullo and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. WorldNetDaily says that it will provide a video feed and claims are made that finally, once and for all, a court is going to rule on the definition of “natural born citizen.” We are somewhat hampered by the lack of the text of defense motions and orders, having to rely solely on what Klayman represents, meaning a somewhat “sensational” bias.
A hearing is scheduled for June 18 in Tallahassee.
- Florida ballot challenges at Obama Conspiracy Theories
- Articles tagged “Florida”
- Articles tagged “Larry Klayman”
- Articles tagged “Voeltz v. Obama”
1One of the persistent problems for me is bananas.