Thread: Supreme Ct confers on eligibility

BORN IN THE USA?

U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility
Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 23, 2010
9:45 pm Eastern


By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."

If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.

(Story continues below)




If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.

"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Mario Apuzzo

Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.

A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."

Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.

"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."

"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."

"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.

Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.

According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.

"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."

Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.

Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.

Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.

"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."

"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."

Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.

"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.

"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232073

This would be wonderful if the case goes forward but I won't hold my breath. We have cowards in our justice system.

But it's true that a natural born citizen under the US Constitution is a child born in the United States to two US Citizens because when the Constitution was written that is what a natural born citizen was. Everyone else had to be naturalized when they turned 18. Then a couple of years later Congress passed a law that made children of 2 US citizens born overseas to be considered natural born citizens, but then 4 years later changed that back. Today, children of 2 US citizens born overseas have to file papers with a Consulate Office and upon both the issuance of a passport and entry into the US only then become US citizens automatically upon entry, but are never natural born citizens, just US citizens.

Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama were natural born citizens and neither one were eligible to be President. Ironic isn't it? A nation with at least 200 million natural born citizens, and we have 2 non-natural borns nominated by our two political parties to be President, both champions of open borders and amnesty.

Our founding fathers were very brilliant and wise. They knew the difference between how a natural born citizen thinks and someone isn't.

We need to pass legislation that clarifies that no person can be President, Vice President, Speaker of the House of Representatives or Secretary of State except and unless they are natural born citizens, born here to two US citizens, and amend the US Constitution to reflect that. Every state should do likewise for their Governors and Lt. Governors.

Either way the people will win. Hopefully the SCOTUS will consider with great care.

This usurpation will not just go away into the night. Americans love a good conspiracy to crack, and interest will just continue to grow. Think of the educations gathered while the hunters hunt.

Is there anything more dangerous than a bunch of Americans searching history and referencing the Constitution and the documents and writings and history related or surrounding it? Think of all of the topics that one comes across while on the hunt.

Obama made a BIG mistake by critizing some of the Supreme Court Justices about their decision on Campaign Donations.

So Joe Biden would be President and Republican House Leader John Boehner would be next in line for President. This could get very interesting . Karma

So Joe Biden would be President =NO!!!

If we can prove he was not eligible...then every decision he made....like picking Biden.....would be null & void......I have read that either Bush would return temporalily ...or McCain would be in by default.....

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

So Joe Biden would be President =NO!!!

If we can prove he was not eligible...then every decision he made....like picking Biden.....would be null & void......I have read that either Bush would return temporalily ...or McCain would be in by default.....

Actually, the Speaker of the House would assume the office since Biden would have been selected by an illegal usurper to the office.

And what if the Speaker is arrested for treason also

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

And what if the Speaker is arrested for treason also

As of January, that would be John Boehner.