Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

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. Sad.

Impeach? How can an illegal usurper be impeached? Removed and detained would be more like it.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Impeach? How can an illegal usurper be impeached? Removed and detained would be more like it.

Exactly. I agree. Also, I wouldn't expect Sen. Harry Reid to agree to anything relevant to Mr. Obama's usurpation of the Presidency. But the Dept. of Justice, which is responsible for the "removing and detaining" of anyone unlawfully occupying an office in the federal government, is subject to both Mr. Obama and his chief henchman, AG Eric Holder.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Chief Justice Royce Lamberth has passed on hearing the appropriate Quo Warranto vs. a usurping officer of the United States within the District of Columbia. So the remaining venue is the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, Art. III, § 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

If "other public ministers" does not include Mr. Obama, then he should be prosecuted as a "FOREIGN CITIZEN." Former Hawaii senior elections clerk Timothy Adams stated that Hawaii has no birth certificate (long form Certificate of Live Birth) for Mr. Obama. Therefore, until Mr. Obama presents proof of naturalization to the contrary, his only status known of certainty is "British Protected Subject" through his Kenyan father. One cannot "assume" any other status.

At 10 a.m. on Monday, Nov. 29th, the U.S. Supreme Court is to announce whether it will hear Kerchner v. Obama.

Originally Posted by Atty. Mario Apuzzo

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - DOCKET NUMBER 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy
against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make
their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims
against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II "natural born
Citizen" if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen
mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the
British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners'
Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security,
tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress
failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment
that Obama qualified as an Article II "natural born Citizen" before
confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively
prove that he is a "natural born Citizen."

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners' rights under the Fifth
Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security,
tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the
"natural born Citizen" status of presidential candidate, John McCain,
but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm

U.S. Supreme Court Docket[/url]]
No. 10-446
Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

Docketed: October 4, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-4209)
Decision Date: July 2, 2010

~~~Date~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)

Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.

Nov 3 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism. (Distributed)

Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:
Mario Apuzzo
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
apuzzo@erols.com
(732)-521-1900
Party name: Charles Kerchner, et al.

Attorneys for Respondents:
Neal Kumar Katyal
Acting Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ
(202) 514-2217
Party name: Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

Other:
Gary G. Kreep
United States Justice Foundation
932 D Street, Suite 3
Ramona, CA 92065
ggklawoffice@gmail.com
(760) 788-6624
Party name: Western Center for Journalism

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... 10-446.htm

Refer to the above link for up-to-date information about Kerchner et al v. Obama et al.

N. B.: Kerchner v. Obama does not sue for removal or impeachment of Mr. Obama, but only for an official, adjudicated determination of facts, one of which is Mr. Obama's eligibility or ineligibility for the Office of President, according to the Article II, § 1, ¶ 5 requirement that the President be a "natural born Citizen."

"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND.

Hardly what is required. All that is required is for the courts to actually follow the law with regard to government figures instead of protecting the unlawful ones in government. Government figures are NOT above the law.

=====================

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


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.

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.

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."

[HJ question - whose money was spent on covering up Obama's past?]

"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 Swiss 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."

.

Originally Posted by Charles Kerchner (CDR USNR Ret.)

Friday, November 19, 2010
Unconstitutionally Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution

Ineligible and Unconstitutionally Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution

by: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Obama is NOT Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British [Protected] Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother [Madelyn Dunham] likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governor ... ors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.
Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
James Shields [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump, amend, or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. We are a nation of laws, not men. We are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy where the current political whims of the the political majority can over rule the U.S. Constitution by a simple popular vote. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Comments

DREAM ACT VOTE TODAY, PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW!

Go here:
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1144057.html#1144057

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND.

Hardly what is required. All that is required is for the courts to actually follow the law with regard to government figures instead of protecting the unlawful ones in government. Government figures are NOT above the law.

Supreme Court Orders Will be Posted Here at 10 a.m..

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/orde ... court.aspx

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... 10-446.htm

10 a.m. update:

Originally Posted by the U.S. Supreme Court

10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

anybody here surprised?

Originally Posted by cayla99

anybody here surprised?

Nope!

PLEASE continue to TAKE ACTION AGAINST DREAM ACT!

Go here:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1144057.html#1144057