Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Supplemental-Appendix
Scribd ^ | 4/10/2010 | Mario Apuzzo

Posted on 04/11/2010 7:34:10 AM PDT by Elderberry

. We explained in Appellants’ Opening Brief and Reply Brief that while the issue before the Court is one of standing and political question, the merits of plaintiffs’ claims are important to the showing that plaintiffs must make to prove that they have standing. The importance of the merits of plaintiffs’ claims is made evident by the recent state court decision in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

We realize that the Ankeny case is a state court decision and not binding on the federal courts. We nevertheless cite to it because it is the only case in the United States that, although not necessary to its decision and without considering or even discussing much case law and authorities showing otherwise and by improperly conflating the clauses “natural born Citizen” of Article II and “citizen of the United States” of the Fourteenth Amendment, has reached the merits of the constitutional question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” finding that “persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents….” Id. at 688.

(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; birthcertificate; birtherobama; birthers; certifigate; kerchner; marioapuzzo; naturalborncitizen; obama; obamaisabirther

1 posted on 04/11/2010 7:34:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
...We nevertheless cite to it because it is the only case in the United States that, although not necessary to its decision and without considering or even discussing much case law and authorities showing otherwise and by improperly conflating the clauses “natural born Citizen” of Article II and “citizen of the United States” of the Fourteenth Amendment, has reached the merits of the constitutional question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” finding that “persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents….”

geeze... how 'bout a series of simple or compound sentences instead of this.

2 posted on 04/11/2010 7:48:58 AM PDT by 1234 ("1984")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Comment from Commander Kerchner, the Lead Plaintiff:

Our side is ready and rhetorically locked and loaded for the epic struggle. General Quarters has been sounded and the We the People are now awake on this issue and on the move to remove the unconstitutional Usurper from the Oval Office along with his corrupt and socialist backers with their foreign influences, money, and agenda for America to take our nation into a direction that is not American and violates our Constitution, the fundamental law of our land.

We are a nation of laws not men. Our hearing in court is coming. If we don’t prevail in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals this case will be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. We the People will not quit. This issue is not going away until Obama’s true legal identity is revealed and his constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander-in-Chief of our Military is thoroughly vetted in a court of law on the merits of the charges. The truth and the Constitution will win this fight in the end. We the People will insure that. So help us God.

Charles Kerchner
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Very interesting.


3 posted on 04/11/2010 7:49:23 AM PDT by muddler (Obama is either incompetent or malicious, and it makes little difference which.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx; penelopesire; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; Pablo Mac; ...

~~Ping!


4 posted on 04/11/2010 7:51:08 AM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

I admire these people who forge ahead with this issue in spite of being called nuts.
Odumbo first executive order to seall any information about him should tell even his sickist drooler the POS is hiding something.


5 posted on 04/11/2010 8:14:55 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
"Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Supplemental-Appendix "

So...what the hell does that mean...English, please.
6 posted on 04/11/2010 8:18:33 AM PDT by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

It’s hard for me to digest too. It appears to me that Mario is adding information that defines Natural Born Citizen.


7 posted on 04/11/2010 8:24:02 AM PDT by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FrankR; Elderberry; LucyT; BP2

It is customary to present case histories supporting your argument.

They’ve just added a case to support NBC, which was decided in a state court RECENTLY, therefore making it relavant.

(My thoughts: Was this part of the plan?)
Many have said the constitution is “out dated” has been altered through the years. The Indiana case proves it isn’t/hasn’t: thereby, mooting this argument. What say you BP?


8 posted on 04/11/2010 9:34:46 AM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Was reading Charles Kerchner,Commander USNR (Retired) words when this picture popped into my head thinking about him...lol. What a real man!
9 posted on 04/11/2010 9:59:44 AM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

10 posted on 04/11/2010 10:17:34 AM PDT by mirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mirkwood
That document is about as real as this one:


11 posted on 04/11/2010 10:36:12 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger
“Odumbo first executive order to seall any information about him should tell even his sickist drooler the POS is hiding something.”

For the record, that statement is categorically and demonstrably untrue, and has been demonstrated as such multiple times on this board. The Executive Order in question is a standard one detailing how Presidential records are to be treated and archived; that is, it applies only to those official records generated after Obama became President. It is no different from the similar Executive Order Bush signed out when he became President. It has absolutely nothing to do with Obama’s records before he became President, many of which are sealed by standard privacy laws applicable to any of us.

12 posted on 04/11/2010 12:54:03 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
“So...what the hell does that mean...English, please.”

One of these tpes of suits was filed in Indiana. Last year, an Indiana Court stated, based on existing Supreme Court dicta in Wong Kim Ark, that the citizenship of the parent is irrelevant to the natural-born citizen status of a child born here. That is, left unchallenged, it blows Apuzzo’s argument on that subject out of the water. He is simply filing a supplemental brief to argue why he thinks that Court was in error.

I doubt it will do him any good, but he is entitled to do so.

13 posted on 04/11/2010 12:59:01 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

The problem with the Indiana case is that it reference Wong KIm Ark case but admitted it DID NOT state that Ark was a Natural born citizen. Actually the Wong KIm Ark stated that due to the fact that Ark’s parents had immigrated (legally) and had set up residence that the child was entitled to Native born (naturalized ) citizenship equal to that of a Natural Born citizen ( both parents). The judge in this Indiana case choose to over rule a Supreme Court case by redefining the meanings of Natural born and Native born. State courts can not over rule Federal Courts.


14 posted on 04/11/2010 2:01:12 PM PDT by omegadawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn
“The problem with the Indiana case is that it reference Wong KIm Ark case but admitted it DID NOT state that Ark was a Natural born citizen. Actually the Wong KIm Ark stated that due to the fact that Ark’s parents had immigrated (legally) and had set up residence that the child was entitled to Native born (naturalized ) citizenship equal to that of a Natural Born citizen ( both parents). The judge in this Indiana case choose to over rule a Supreme Court case by redefining the meanings of Natural born and Native born. State courts can not over rule Federal Courts.”

Actually, it did not overrule a Federal Court. While it is true that Wong Kim Ark did not make a ruling as to what a natural born citizen is, since it was not asked that, the dicta do include a very detailed basis as to why “born here” is sufficient. The Indiana court simply quoted that dicta and made what to it seemed a self-evident conclusion.

It is always possible that the decision could be overruled, but I think the chances of that are pretty close to zero. I know people don't want to believe that, but there's a reason the Supreme Court has passed on the chance to review any of these cases so far.

15 posted on 04/11/2010 2:32:15 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

bump


16 posted on 04/11/2010 2:40:32 PM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or ...off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

I am corrected.
It looks like 0dumbo used other methods to seal or disappear all his personal information


17 posted on 04/11/2010 3:38:32 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

Awww ..... LOVED that character ... and
you’re right: a real man!


18 posted on 04/11/2010 3:38:36 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

The Supreme Court will not address this case because they don’t have the authority to remove obama. While they could the define the meaning of Natural born citizen( as in minor vs happensett..CHILDREN WHOM PARENTS ARE U.S. citizens are Natural born)as a separate case,it can not include obama. If the “birther” movement wants to remove obama they need to get the Supreme Court to uphold their previous definitions of Natural Born Citizens. Then they would have the ability to force congress to void obama’s election. NO FIGHT WORTH FIGHTING IS EASY.


19 posted on 04/11/2010 5:03:40 PM PDT by omegadawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muddler
Comment from Commander Kerchner, the Lead Plaintiff:

Our side is ready and rhetorically locked and loaded for the epic struggle. General Quarters has been sounded and the We the People are now awake on this issue and on the move to remove the unconstitutional Usurper from the Oval Office along with his corrupt and socialist backers with their foreign influences, money, and agenda for America to take our nation into a direction that is not American and violates our Constitution, the fundamental law of our land.

We are a nation of laws not men. Our hearing in court is coming. If we don’t prevail in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals this case will be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. We the People will not quit. This issue is not going away until Obama’s true legal identity is revealed and his constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander-in-Chief of our Military is thoroughly vetted in a court of law on the merits of the charges. The truth and the Constitution will win this fight in the end. We the People will insure that. So help us God.

Charles Kerchner Commander USNR (Retired) Lead Plaintiff

AMEN

20 posted on 04/11/2010 6:11:38 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative; omegadawn; Uncle Chip; pissant; AuntB; SierraWasp; mlocher; muddler; ...
One of these types of suits was filed in Indiana. Last year, an Indiana Court stated, based on existing Supreme Court dicta in Wong Kim Ark, that the citizenship of the parent is irrelevant to the natural-born citizen status of a child born here. That is, left unchallenged, it blows Apuzzo’s argument on that subject out of the water. He is simply filing a supplemental brief to argue why he thinks that Court was in error.

Good to see noise receive challenge. In "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution" (on page 4) is an excellent commentary about the how bad things can become left unchecked.

The Cosnstitution is our most fundamental law. It is, in its own words, "the supreme Law of the Land". Its translation into the legal rules which we live occurs through the actions ofall government entities, federal and state.The entitity we know as "constitutional law"is the creation of not only of the decisions of the Supreme Court. but also the various congresses and of the President.

Yet in the court system, particularly the decisions of the the Supreme Court, that mostobservers identify as providing the basis corpus of "constitutional Law". This body of law, this judicial handiwork, is, in a fundamental way, unique in our scheme, for the Court is charged routinely, day in and day out, with the awesome task of addressing some of the msot basic and important to the stability of the law so necessary for good government. But as constitutional historian Charles Warren once noted,what is most important to remember is that "however the Court may interpret the provisions of the Constitution, it is still the Constitution, which is the law, not the decision of the court."

By this, of course, Warren did not mean that a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court lacks the character of binding law. He meant that the Constitution remains the constitution and that observers of the Court may fairly consider whether a particular Supreme Court decision was right or wrong. Ther remains a vibrant ands healthy debate among the members of the Supreme Court, as articulated in its opinions, and between the Court and academics, politicians, columnists and commentators, and the people generally, on whether the Court has correctly understood and applied the fundamental law of the Constitution. We have seen throughout history that when the Supreme Court greatly misconstrues the Constitution, generations of mischief may follow. The result is that, of its own accord or through the mechanism of the appointment process, the Supreme Court may come to revisit some of its doctrines and try, once again, to adjust its pronouncements to the commands of the Constitution.



21 posted on 04/18/2010 5:53:16 AM PDT by Issaquahking (Help Sarah Palin! go to - http://www.conservatives4palin.com - You know what to do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking

So natural born means....not a caesarian section????? If not that your parents are citizens, what does it mean??
Sometimes these judges stretch so much, it’s like they are trying to be Mr. Fantastic of the Fantastic Four.


22 posted on 04/18/2010 6:14:51 AM PDT by Shimmer1 (To sin by silence when we should protest, makes cowards of men -Ella Wheeler Wilcox)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson