Supreme Court of the US Voeltz v.

The State of Florida, Secretary of State Ken Detzner, Barack Hussein Obama, and the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission Jurisdiction The Supreme Court of the US has Appellate jurisdiction of all Cases and Controversies regarding questions of state statute adherence to the Federal Constitution, appealed to it after the highest judicial body of a state has ruled. 28 US 1257 State Courts certiorari The Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction in all cases where a State is a party. Even though the 11th Amendment has given sovereign immunity to the states against lawsuits, sovereign immunity has been abrogated by Congress in cases where a state, acting though its officers, has violated the due process and equal protection rights of a state citizen. We held that through the Fourteenth Amendment, federal power extended to intrude upon the province of the Eleventh Amendment and therefore that 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment allowed Congress to abrogate the immunity from suit guaranteed by that Amendment. Seminole Tribe v. Fl., 417 US 44, 59 (1995) Federal Questions to be ascertained 1) Who is responsible for vetting the Constitutional qualifications of a candidate for President of the United States pursuant to A.2 S.1 United States Constitution, that No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.? Does the US Constitution restrict the vetting of Constitutional eligibility for President to Congress, or is it a judicial question? 2) What is a natural born Citizen?

3) Did the state of Florida violate the 14th Amendment Constitutional rights of petitioner Michael C. Voeltz by not finally adjudicating his cases prior to the section 2 window established by Federal statute 3 US Code 5? 4) Can a sitting President be removed due to Constitutional ineligibility found after the fact of the administration of the Presidential oath? Background Petitioner Voeltz, a Broward County Florida registered Democrat, filed suit within 14 days after the Florida Presidential primary of January 2012, in Leon County Circuit Court, using Florida Contest of Election statute 102.168(1)(3)(b), which allows for any elector (voter), eligible to vote on an election, the ability to contest the eligibility for office sought of any person nominated or elected to office ( ). Petitioner maintained that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen, as defined by law of nations (original common law) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1884), because he was born a British subject, since his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a British subject. Hon. Judge Terry Lewis ruled that Barack Obama was not nominated or elected as a result of the Florida primary ( ), even though the plain wording of Fl. statute 102.252(1) indicates that he was nominated for president to the Democratic National Convention . Judge Lewis also ruled that Florida Election contest statutes, and statute 102.252(1) do not apply to Presidential elections, even though Federal statute ( ) mirrors 102.252(1). Judge Lewis also denied that Petitioner Voeltz had asked for a Declaratory judgment as to Mr. Obamas eligibility, even though he asked, in the alternative, for the court to make that determination. An Appeal filed after the case languished until 2 months after the meeting of electors (it was filed in July, 2012), well after the section 2 window of 3 US Code 5, and was adjudicated as moot ( ), and per curiam affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court. Petitioner Voeltz also filed suit via Fl. Statute 102.168(1)(3)(b) after the General election ( ). Hon. Judge Kevin Carroll ruled that the government had already determined that Barack Obama was eligible, never gave petitioner Voeltz a hearing, as required by Fl. Statute 102.168(5), and dismissed

the case well after the section 2 window, in violation of Federal, and Florida law (3 US Code 5 and Fl. Statute 102.168(7)). The case is now deemed finally adjudicated as the First District Court of Appeals ruled per curiam affirmed, with no opinion, foreclosing any possibility of appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. (Grate v. Florida, 750 So. 2d 825 (1999), Florida Supreme Court Docket No. 95, 701).

Argument 1) Congress is specifically charged with vetting the qualifications and elections of its own members (art. 1 s.5), but not that of the President. No Senator, Representative or any person holding trust or profit under the United States shall be an elector, who chooses the President (art. 2, s.1, c.2) The Electoral Count Act 1887 (now 3 US Code 5, Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors) is the correct avenue for the contest of a Presidential candidates eligibility (See See Daniel P. Tokaji, Commentary, The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 31 (2008)), and was designed specifically to make the counting of electoral votes a ministerial task of the joint session to count the votes (Amendment 12). The joint session accepted Floridas claim of section 2 status and no objections were made pursuant to 3 US Code 15, therefore Congress has made no discretionary determination regarding the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama. No discretion is described in the 20th Amendment regarding Congress vetting a President elect, only the ministerial duty of removing him/her if that person shall have failed to qualify, and replacing that person with the Vice President elect, or the discretionary duty of providing for the case, if both the Vice president elect and the President elect shall have failed to qualify. Shall have failed is future perfect tense, and describes an action taken in the future after the current or future determination of disqualification has already made. The 20th Amendment does not say, [I]f Congress determines that the President elect fails to qualify

Floridas election contest statute (102.168(1)(3)(b)), used by petitioner Voeltz, perfectly aligns with the Federal statute 3 US Code 5 for adjudicating a contest of the eligibility of any person nominated or elected President. 2) The Constitution does not in words say who shall be naturalborn citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1874) The Common Law is law of nations, which is part of the law of the United States. See Sosa V. Alvarez, 542 US 692 (2004), See also Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No. 10-1491(2013). Law of nations defines the term of art natural born Citizen. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. E. de Vattel, Law of Nations, (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883), Book 1 Ch. 19, S. 212. The natural born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents. Alexander P. Morse, A Treatise on Citizenship by Birth and by Naturalization, Little, Brown, 1881, pg. xii Barack Hussein Obamas father was a British subject, not an American citizen, when Obama 2 was born, therefore he is not Constitutionally eligible to serve as President. 3) During the 2000 General election Al Gore used the same election contest laws in Florida as petitioner. It was held in the Florida Supreme Court that all of Floridas election statutes apply to Presidential elections, and the US Supreme Court agreed. (See Palm Beach Co. Canvassing Board v. Harris, Nos. SC00-2346, SC00-2348 and SC00-2349,(2000), footnote 20.)

Al Gore was afforded adjudication all the Court before the closure of the 3 US Code that the voters of Florida would not have invalidated (See Bush v. Gore, 521 US 98,

way to the US Supreme 5 section 2 window, so their votes (2000)).

Petitioner Voeltz was given much different treatment than Mr. Gore. He was afforded the Franz Kafka treatment, and was told that the laws did not apply, and was treated with derision and scorn. No adjudication was made prior to the 3 US Code 5 section 2 window, as Florida blatantly broke Federal law, Article 2 of the US Constitution and in doing so have failed to provide a Republican form of government. They have shut petitioner down by simply not rendering a written opinion at the Appellate level, instead of rendering an opinion whether Mr. Obama is eligible, as is required by Florida law. Petitioner Voeltz, and the nation itself, has suffered a severe violation of due process and equal protection of the laws. 4) That the President must be a natural born Citizen is a self executing Constitutional provision, needing no statute to enforce. If the person acting as President is found judicially to be not eligible for the office then the Vice President simply assumes the Presidency, as in the case of the Constitutional disability of the President. (12th Amendment). (See also 3 US Code 19, that the Vice President shall assume the presidency due to the inability of the person acting as President. Inability can certainly be defined as having no legal competence, or as Constitutional disability. Remedy Petitioner asks that the Court make a determination as to the eligibility of Barack Obama, to serve as President, or in the alternative to remand this case back to the Florida Circuit Court with a mandamus for full discovery and exposition of the facts, and adjudication of the case.