Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Very informative post Minuteman...thank you!!

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/11/orders-for-today/

SCOTUS reporter Lyle Denniston[/url]]UPDATE: One or more opinions expected on Tuesday; orders will be released at 10 a.m. Monday[, Nov. 29th].

UPDATE 1:46 p.m.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced that it will issue one or more opinions in decided cases at 10 a.m. next Tuesday. On Monday at 10 a.m., the Court will release orders on cases considered at today’s private Conference. Earlier today, the Court released two routine orders on oral argument and an amicus filing.

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=232073

For WorldNetDaily.com, Brian Fitzpatrick[/url]]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 [on Monday, Nov. 29th, according to the above SCOTUS update.]

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."

[Congress attempted to change the definition of "natural born citizen" to "the children of citizens of the United States" in The Naturalization Act of 1790, but that attempt at interpreting the Constitution was repealed or corrected in The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795.]

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 The 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."

I don't think SCOTUS will hear the case, if for no other reason than two of its members might find themselves on thin legitimacy grounds. If appointed by an ineligible president, even with Senate confirmation, they will find that their appointments were weak constitutionally. Since this problem has never come up before, it could get really murky. the entire court would have to recuse themselves because of first hand knowledge. I think the best we are going to get is a whisper in zeros ear telling him not to run again.

Originally Posted by cayla99

I don't think SCOTUS will hear the case, if for no other reason than two of its members might find themselves on thin legitimacy grounds. If appointed by an ineligible president, even with Senate confirmation, they will find that their appointments were weak constitutionally. Since this problem has never come up before, it could get really murky. the entire court would have to recuse themselves because of first hand knowledge. I think the best we are going to get is a whisper in zeros ear telling him not to run again.

I agree Cayla, this will all be kept very quiet and Obama will not be forced to expose his criminal background. At the least I hope that, behind the scenes, they eviscerate those responsible for this travesty. Pelosi is at the top of my list! Obama will just fade away by the end of his first term.

Does anyone think that the policies that have been promoted by Wonder Boy could create problems for the courts as well as the eligibility issue?

Seems to me that the issues aggravating the American people and the Constitution will bear some pressure to continue pressing forward concerning the usurpation.

The opposition(?) party holds a superior hand, yes? Or will all fall complicit?

I cannot help but think this is far from over.

It would seem one thing to sweep a little dust under the carpet, but another to sweep a boulder. JMO

Originally Posted by At forums.hannity.com, Brianroy

The sooner we can legally and peacefully through the Courts with a "no if - ands - or - but Article III standing" and press the birther issue by just one wronged person in a direct chain of custody action from someone Obama appointed, or a policy exclusively set forth and owned by him, the more painless and quick the cure will be.

All we need is just that one case. If the ACLU can do that tactic, so can we.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

I have come to the belief that the federal government will never police its own, nor will it ever willingly reduce its power and control over the people and over the states. It simply has no motivation to obey our country's laws or to recognize state sovereignty. With few exceptions, there is no downside or punishment for criminal or unconstitutional actions performed by the feds.

Similarly, because of the convenient misinterpretation of the Constitution by the progressives (both parties), communists, and the liberals, they believe there is nothing in the Constitution that controls or limits the federal government's power and control over the states and over the people.

Our reliance on the federal courts to resolve federal questions in favor of the individual or the state at the expense of the federal government is unsound and a waste of our time and resources. The federal courts will never decide in our favor at the expense of the federal government [- even an unlawful, usurped government]. The Obama cases will never see the light of day until Obama is gone, if then.

Like all governments, our federal government understands and responds primarily to money, fear, and embarrassment.

It is also my perception and belief that we need to retake America, one state at a time. Nothing else will work.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

When is the Constitution like a Crocodile?

Apparently it is when you are a federal judge with lifetime (taxpayer-paid) tenure on either the District Court of New Jersey or the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, as is clearly demonstrated by case 09-4209, Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress, et al. If you remember in the District Court, Judge Simandle took it upon himself at the behest of the DOJ lawyers striving to defend Obama (who was initially sued before he took the Oath of Office and while still a private person) by repeatedly violating his judicial oath (meaning violating the Constitution that he swore to uphold).

[On July 7, 2010, MinutemanCDC_SC posted this reply at ALIPAC.us/ftopic-137238-days0-orderasc-3276.html ].

All these legal cases strike me as so much wasted effort any more. Taking this to court is like taking a toothache or a ruptured disk to a G.P. or family doctor.

THE COURT SYSTEM IS BROKEN, PEOPLE!!!
[IT IS INTIMIDATED AND COERCED BY THE DOJ.]



THE SYSTEM IS DOWN; USE ALTERNATE PROCEDURES.

First we pray. Rendering this case through a lawyer gets a lawyer's results;
rendering it through a Congressman or a Senator likewise goes nowhere;
submitting it to the lamestream media gets the truth totally squelched.

Now where else are you going to take it? To your mommy?

The following scenario is only my opinion, but it makes more sense to me than any analysis from the LSM.

As long as Mr. Obama has the armed forces under his command, he can laugh at the facts and thumb his nose at the people of the United States. If his ineligibility for office is ever really challenged, he can [probably] declare martial law...

But if the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who know that Mr. Obama is ineligible, decide that he is a clear and present danger to the United States - which he has been since arriving in Washington in 2004, but the JCS haven't declared it yet - the JCS will oust him from office in a banana republic replay of the ouster of Honduras Pres. Manuel Zelaya on June 28, 2009.

The difference in Honduras was that the army, the Supreme Court, and the Congress all wanted Zelaya out and gone. In the U.S. now, the military is largely disgusted with the Obama usurpation, but the Supreme Court is on the fence. * Meanwhile, the Congress has a large Democrat majority in the House and the Senate. Without Congressional approval, the JCS lack the legal authority to act in defense of the U.S., even though they have the power of armed force.

So the JCS are biding their time until the sea change on Nov. 2 or the Turkey-Syria-Iran(-Libya?) attack on Israel, whichever comes first. If Mr. Obama (raised as a Mus|im) sides with the Mus|ims, as he indicated he will do (The Audacity of Hope, p. 261), and against Israel, the military will have to restrain him for treason for not defending our only ally in the Middle East.

Is|am's political operatives in the U.S. surely recognize that the Democrats may well lose either the House or the Senate, or even both, on Nov. 2. Therefore, leaders of Mus|im Brotherhood-connected organizations in the U.S. will keep the pressure on Turkey, Iran, and Syria to provoke a war with Israel before [Jan. 3, 2011, when] the Democrats lose control of Congress, where the Constitutional authority to declare war resides (Art. I, § 8, ¶ 11).

But that's just my opinion and not a "prophecy" of any kind. Anything could happen. PRAY.

* [Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito won't convene oral arguments on Kerchner unless and until Assoc. Justice Anthony Kennedy shows some sign of agreement. Otherwise, he might join the four liberal Justices and create the initial SCOTUS interpretation of "natural born citizen" as something other than "a citizen born in the country of parents who were citizens at the time of the birth."]

Anything could happen. PRAY.

Thanks MinutemanCDC_SC. All points taken and appreciated.

Obama's Bell Tolls

Thanks Airborne!

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-219449-.html

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Obama's Bell Tolls

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-219449-.html

I'm not so sure. Nothing new here. We are now at precisely the same point where we started this thread two years ago.

Originally Posted by On Nov. 5, 2008, the initial post of this thread

On Dec. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court is to decide whether to hear Phil Berg's case. Only one or two percent of appeals to SCOTUS are heard, many because of a constitutional question. The question here is about who, if anyone, is empowered to investigate and enforce the qualification clause in Article II, Section I.

"No person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

All that has changed is the date, Nov. 29, 2010, and two names, CDR Charles Kerchner (USN Ret.) and Atty. Mario Apuzzo . . .

and two years of socialism, "stimulus" thefts, and Is|amization, amidst a parade of anti-America actions and policies,

two patriots in jail for supporting and defending the Constitution against an enemy, both foreign and domestic,

two more Supreme Court Justices to the left of Assoc. Justice Ginsburg,

and 70+ court cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, under the guise of lack of standing,
under pressure from Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama usurpation Dept. of "Justice".

The facts of the case are unchanged; only the external events have changed so as to incriminate the guilty.

We obviously want a Supreme Court interpretation of "natural born citizen," for now and for posterity.

Except that, henceforth, the nation needs that interpretation, violation of Amendment XIV appears to me to be adequate grounds for impeachment of Mr. Obama. All that is lacking is the necessary 2/3's majority in the Senate.

Originally Posted by The authors of Amendment XIV

"No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." - Amendment XIV, § 3.

To the best of my knowledge, communist ideology is still considered an enemy of the United States Constitution.

As is Is|am.