Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Kerchner v Obama

I agree! We need the government to enforce the Constitution as they would if it were a Republican.

You wrote-
“In my opinion WHERE Obama was actually born is completely moot. He has ALREADY declared via his fight the smears website that his father was a British subject. The defnition of ‘natural born’ requires TWO citizen parents, not just one. Therefore he cannot possibly be natural born.
This definition was defined by Emerich De Vattel in 1758. Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212: defines ‘natural born’ as ‘those children born in the country, of PARENTS who are citizens.’

This definition has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in:

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 in 1830 - they reinforced Vattel’s definition in this case.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 in 1875 - again the same definition as Vattel was reinforced in this case.

Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 - In this case not only was the same definition as Vattel reinforced yet again, but the source citation for this definition was Vattel!

United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) - Vattel was again cited as the source for the proper definiton of ‘natural born’ as understood by the framers of our constitution.

Nowhere has this traditional definition ever been overturned. Not in the 14th amendment which only defines ‘citizenship’, not ‘natural born status’ - not in any SCOTUS decisions (quite the opposite) - and not in any Acts of Congress. I’ve been shouting this from the rooftops for over a year and very few are even listening.”

Yes indeed!

Just a few more examples..

Law of Nations

"Because the law of nations is rooted in natural law, its substantive content was understood by the Framers as being immutable."
http://yalelawjournal.org/112/1/109_michael_t_morley.html

The Swiss juirist Emer de Vattel (1714-1767) was one of the foremost theorists of natural law in the 18th century. His writings were widely read in the American colonies and had a profound impact on the thinking of the framers of the American constitution. The Law of Nations (1758) is a 2 volume work in which Vattel explores the application of natural law to the conduct of states and sovereigns. He discusses the rights of obligation of the state itself, those of the sovereign power, the nature of good government, the right of the people to secession or rebellion, and the proper relations between sovereign states. The latter includes international commerce, international legal agreements, and treaties.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1306&Itemid=299

Law of Nations was strongly influenced by Leibnitz and Christian von Wolff
http://hua.umf.maine.edu/Reading_Revolutions/Vattel.html

"Vattel's The Law of Nations, was the most influential book on the law of nations for 125 years following its publication. The first English translation appeared in 1759. Numerous editions of The Law of Nations were printed in England during the Eighteenth century, which were widely read in the American Colonies, along with editions in the original French. The first American edition appeared in 1796"
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html

Thomas Jefferson to John Minor, August 30, 1814 "Before you enter on the study of the law a sufficient groundwork must be laid...[Latin and French ]...This foundation being laid, you may enter regularly on the study of the Laws....[Physics, Ethics, Religion, Natural law, Belles lettres, Criticism, Rhetoric and Oratory]...For these reasons I should recommend the following distribution of your time. Natural Law. Vattel"
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj110142))

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, April 28, 1793 "It seems as if his arrival would furnish occasion for the people to testify their affections without respect to the cold caution of their government. Would you suppose it possible that it should have been seriously proposed to declare our treaties with France void on the authority of an ill understood scrap in Vattel 2. § 192 toutefois et test argument &c. [ illegible] and that it should be necessary to discuss it?"
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj070117))

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, April 28, 1793 "The Law of nations, by which this question is to be determined, is composed of three branches, 1. The Moral law of our nature. 2. The Usages of nations. 3. Their special Conventions. The first of these only, concerns this question, that is to say the Moral law to which Man has been subjected by his creator, & of which his feelings, or Conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his creator has furnished him.....Certainly not when merely useless or disagreeable, as seems to be said in an authority which has been quoted, Vattel, 2. 197, and tho he may under certain degrees of danger, yet the danger must be imminent, & the degree great."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj070115))

Furthermore, Vattle's Law of Nations was openly read during the Constitutional Convention itself (from Madison's notes):

"In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers"
...
"To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford"
http://nhccs.org/dfc-0627.txt

And, less well known...

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789
Secret Committee Contract
"MS (Privately owned original, 1993). In the hand of Roger Sherman.
1 A copy of a 60-page notebook in the hand of Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman was made available for use in this supplement by Mr. Joseph Rubenfine of West Palm Beach, Fla. It contains 24 pages of notes on Sherman's readings from Emmerich Vattel and the Bishop of Bristol, various personal expense accounts from 1781 to 1784, and copies of reports now in the PCC on Continental expenses and indebtedness, battle casualties, and the hospital establishment as of July 23, 1781, of which only the present notes do not duplicate information available elsewhere."
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:44:./temp/~ammem_hkw9::

Bergdoll v. Kane is a Pennsylvania state-court case. It is not a federal case and has nothing to do with federal law.

Maybe not, but its still precedent which can be used in any state.

There is a long line of SCOTUS decisions holding that a plaintiff has no standing in federal court if he is raising a "generalized grievance" that all citizens have in common.

And there is a long line of SCOTUS decisions which clearly define the definition of Natural Born and that Obama isn't it.

The above url (not hyper linked) for reference on Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman's notes was a temp url anyway. That info can be found here:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(dg025422)):

And there is a long line of SCOTUS decisions which clearly define the definition of Natural Born and that Obama isn't it.

If the plaintiff lacks standing, the court never reaches that issue.

And no, there is no SCOTUS case clearly addressing who is a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of Article II. There are some dicta in a few old cases, none of which involved eligibility to be president (and thus aren't binding precedent), which go in both directions. The more recent of those cases suggest thast anyone born in the U.S., even to foreign parents, is a natural-born citizen. (That doesn't help Obama if he wasn't born in Hawaii, but again, I don't believe any federal court is going to rule on the merits of that issue.)

Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Our Constitution Show - Patriot's Heart Network - BlogTalkRadio Network - 9:00 p.m. EDT Tues 21 Jul 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress Update

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/07/22/Our-Constitution-Foundation-and-Principles

If the plaintiff lacks standing, the court never reaches that issue.

BS. The standing issue is a court contrived monstrosity to pass on troublesome cases they don't want to have to deal with. Please show anywhere in the constitution itself where citizens 'must have standing' to have their civil rights upheld. Not court decisions, IN THE CONSTITUTION. And be specific.

In this instance there have been many cases with legitimate standing (Major Cook, Kerchner v. Obama, Keyes V. Obama, etc. etc.) The court is refusing to do its constitutional duty and protect the constitution and each and every single one of these judges who punted should be impeached immediately. The FACT that these partisan judges have failed to rule on any of the merits of these cases does not in any way mean any of these plaintiffs lacked genuine standing.

And no, there is no SCOTUS case clearly addressing who is a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of Article II.

More BS.

• Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830)
• Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)
• Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394
• United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890)

There are some dicta in a few old cases,

Glad you admit it.

none of which involved eligibility to be president (and thus aren't binding precedent), which go in both directions,...

BS. Since within the U.S. Constitution the restriction to being 'natural born' ONLY applies to U.S. Presidents that is pure spin. And not very good spin at that.

The more recent of those cases suggest thast anyone born in the U.S., even to foreign parents, is a natural-born citizen.

BS. These cases refer to citizenship alone, not the natural born issue. The natural born definition has not been altered anywhere to date since Vattel. Not in the 14th amendment, not in SCOTUS, and not by any Act of Congress.

The most recent congressional legistation dated April 2008 regarding John McCain's natural birth status submitted by Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Obama himself while still a Senator was put to a judiciary committee meeting to resolve the issue and the conclusion was:

"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, [Please note the plural here - the definition TWO parents going all the way back to Vattel has not changed] you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff said.

Leahy concurred."

Reported here and again here. McCaskill later tried to pass legislation re-defining natural born to mean born to only 'one' citizen parent but it failed to pass. The definition requiring TWO citizen parents remains, co-sponsored by Obama himself, and was not revoked in spite of Democrats best efforts. The bigger question is why was McCain targeted but Obama got a pass with a known non-citizen father?????

Keep spinning but you're not doing very well.

Now, how could Obama be born in Kenya or Hawaii and then have his mother enrolled at the University of Washington later that same month? Unlikely movement!

Perhaps, but classes for the Fall term at U. Washington don't start until late September. She'd have needed to be there a week or two before that, to find a place to live, to register for classes, get her books, etc.

However her friend puts her in the Seattle area in late August, with a really tiny, and "all pink", little Barry, whose nappies she did not know how to change yet.