Opposition to motion to dismiss

Plaintiff maintains that the case of Voeltz v. Obama, 1D12 -3489, is of greatest public importance, since it is regarding the election of the President of the United States, although the defendant, presently the President of the United States, and now a candidate for nomination to that office of the Democratic Party, does not. Apparently the defendant has little regard for the importance of the office he now holds putatively. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the plenary power of the state, and its actions therein, with regard to Presidential elections, is of unique and utmost public importance. "[I]n the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest. For the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation." Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 794,795 (1983) And, The President is vested with the executive power of the nation. The importance of his election and the vital character of its relationship to and effect upon the welfare and safety of the whole people cannot be too strongly stated." Burroughs v. United States, 290 U. S. 534, 545 (1934) It is inconceivable to think that the Constitutional eligibility of the President of the United States should be a lightly regarded manner, and not solemnly considered by the Florida Supreme Court. The President is the chief executive, and commander in chief of the armed forces. If he is ineligible then what law is there? Could the Constitution then be enforced? The safety and security of the United States hangs in the balance. In their motion to dismiss, defendants claim the defendant Barack H. Obama

has not been nominated or elected, and unbelievably, nor has any qualification occurred. Florida statutes would disagree with that claim. Florida statute 99.021(3) states that this section does not apply to a person who seeks to qualify for election pursuant to ss. 103.021 and 103.101. Therefore the presidential candidates are qualified in section 103 Florida statutes. Going further, Florida statute 101.252(1) states that, Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office. Therefore since Barack H. Obama has been qualified by the law of Florida statute 103.101, by the admission of the defendant himself, and since he was the only candidate qualified, his name was not placed on the ballot (ss. 103.101(4)). It follows by Florida statute 101.252(1) that Barack H. Obama shall be declared nominated for the office if he is the only candidate qualified by his party, and not placed on the ballot. He was nominated for the office of President to the Democratic National Convention by the Florida Democratic delegation, who shall vote for him as the Party Nominee to the general election. The statute does not say that the candidate shall be on the general election ballot, just that he will be nominated for the office, which he certainly was by his partys Florida delegation. Plaintiff therefore claims that Barack H. Obama was nominated or elected by the plain wording of Florida statutes, and that by the operation of Florida statute 102.168(1) he has the right to challenge the certification of election

or nomination of any person to office, regardless of the office sought, since he is an elector qualified to vote in the primary election, regardless of whether that primary was held, on the basis of the ineligibility of the candidate for the nomination or office in dispute (Fl. ss. 102.168(3)(b). Florida statutes 101.252(1), 103.101(4) and 102.168(1)(3)(b) all relate to the same subject matter of the placement of the candidate on the ballot, that candidates nomination upon being the only one qualified for the primary, and the ability to contest the eligibility of any person nominated or elected. It is well-settled that a statute should be construed in its entirety and as a harmonious whole. See, e.g., Sun Ins. Office, Ltd. v. Clay, 133 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1961).

"all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole. Where possible, courts must give effect to all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with another." Forsythe v. Longboat Key Erosion Control Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1992) It is fundamental that a construction that renders another related statute to be meaningless and without operation should not be adopted by the courts. Burnsed v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., 290 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1974). The construction of Florida statute 101.252(1) as not applying to Presidential primaries invalidates the plain meaning of Fl. ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b), and silences the will of the voters to vote for an eligible candidate, in an election related to all of the people of the United States, and leaves the possibility that Florida voters votes will be invalidated later by a finding of ineligibility, touching off a serious constitutional crisis. Therefore it is paramount that the Florida judiciary

make the determination of Barack H. Obamas eligibility for President now, before the general election, so that a special primary may be held upon a finding of ineligibility. The security requirement that the President shall be a natural born citizen has been held to mean one born in the United States to US Citizen parents (plural) by the US Supreme Court. ( Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1874), Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 655, 693 (1898)). It is a self-executing constitutional provision.
This provision lays down a sufficient rule by which the right or purpose which it gives or is intended to accomplish may be determined, enjoyed, or protected without the aid of legislative enactment. Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d at 851.

"[T]he modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-operating. This is so because in the absence of such presumption the legislature would have the power to nullify the will of the people expressed in their constitution, the most sacrosanct of all expressions of the people." Gray v. Bryant, 125 So. 2d at 851. And see, Schreiner v. McKenzie Tank Lines & Risk Management Services, Inc., supra. The lower court has offered spurious dicta with respect to Mr. Obamas eligibility which should not be considered, as that question should not be reached upon its determination that no qualification, nomination, or election had occurred on January 31, 2012. The court also relied on State court decisions and ignored the holdings of the US Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court has held that eligibility of a candidate is a judicial determination upon any challenge properly made (Shevin v. Stone, 279 So. 2d 17,22 (Fla. 1972), and Voeltz v. Obama is a properly made challenge,

satisfying all aspects of the election challenge statute. Therefore the Florida judiciary must determine the eligibility of Barack H. Obama, as the gravest matter of the security of the United States, and its sovereign citizens before the general election is held. The normal appeals process will take the case past that time, which will make this case an even graver constitutional concern.