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

Skip to comments.

Kerchner v. Obama Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument
puzo1.blogspot.com ^ | 6/15/2010 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq

Posted on 06/15/2010 10:48:31 AM PDT by rxsid

"Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia has notified me today by letter dated June 15, 2010 that there will not be any oral argument on the Kerchner appeal to that Court. The case will be submitted on the briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence is therefore not required.

The Court also informed me that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.

The court can call for oral argument when it has questions. As we know, the Federal District Court granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen" because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual and conflicting allegiances if he was born in the U.S. or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court or to the Court of Appeals contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court. Hence, the Court might not have any questions and so it did not see any need for oral argument.

Of course, it is our hope that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, we will then be filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word in any event.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/06/kerchner-et-al-v-obamacongress-et-al.html


TOPICS: Government; History; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; fraud; kerchner; marioapuzzo; naturalborncitizen; obama; soetoro; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-323 next last
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

 

Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

...

the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro * NOT Obama / Soetoro
* This assumes HI birth.
A citizen of 2 countries at birth.

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].) This notification would then have automatically generated the newspaper announcements. (This was the practice of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin at the time).

Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
 

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


 
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).

 

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

 

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

Prior to the Constitution

"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."

Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."

Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."

In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].

Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.

Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:

"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.

The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Those (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations for ex.).

The Constitution

The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

...

Article 1. section 8, clause 10:

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"

Again, those phrases are not from English common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."

After the Constitution is penned

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"

Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.

The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.

The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).

1 posted on 06/15/2010 10:48:31 AM PDT by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Fred Nerks; BP2; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; ...
Ping!

"Kerchner v. Obama Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument"

2 posted on 06/15/2010 10:49:29 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Justice will be done and the truth will be known. Luke 12:2. Let it be soon.

3 posted on 06/15/2010 10:52:06 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Good Luck !


4 posted on 06/15/2010 10:52:33 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Not good - indicates they will probably affirm the lower court.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!
5 posted on 06/15/2010 10:52:46 AM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines, RVN '69 - St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Is this good or bad??????


6 posted on 06/15/2010 10:53:33 AM PDT by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa
Then on to the Supreme Court!

7 posted on 06/15/2010 10:54:48 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; onyx; penelopesire; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; Pablo Mac; ...
“This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.”
8 posted on 06/15/2010 11:05:19 AM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, hunker down & go Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; rxsid; onyx; penelopesire; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; Pablo Mac

Obama = Whiny Little Bitch


9 posted on 06/15/2010 11:12:17 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops....and vote out the RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
You could toss marxist in there too ;)
10 posted on 06/15/2010 11:19:58 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

Obama = Whiny Little Marxist Bitch


11 posted on 06/15/2010 11:20:46 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops....and vote out the RINOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE ‘GOVERNED’ BY GREAT BRITAIN?”

Uh, when he or she has dual citizenship. Ever heard of it?


12 posted on 06/15/2010 11:32:28 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Perfect!


13 posted on 06/15/2010 11:35:13 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Is this good or bad??????

In 32 years as a lawyer, in which time I have argued more than 40 appeals, I cannot recall a single case in which a federal appeals court refused a request for oral argument and then went on to reverse the lower court. In other words, if they are taking the case without oral argument, that is a pretty strong sign that they think the appeal is without merit and they plan to affirm the lower court.

14 posted on 06/15/2010 11:42:26 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"“HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE ‘GOVERNED’ BY GREAT BRITAIN?”

Uh, when he or she has dual citizenship. Ever heard of it?

-----------------------------------------------

No, I haven't heard of dual citizenship (pay no attention to post #1). /s

So, how can one be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S. and be born the subject to a foreign crown as well?

15 posted on 06/15/2010 12:13:25 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“So, how can one be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the U.S. and be born the subject to a foreign crown as well?”

The same way everyone else is a natural born citizen.


16 posted on 06/15/2010 12:15:17 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"“So, how can one be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the U.S. and be born the subject to a foreign crown as well?”

The same way everyone else is a natural born citizen.

-----------------------------------------

Ah, well...there you have it! The framers definition for a natural born citizen included people born with allegiance to a foreign nation and as such, the only person in government required by the Constitution to be NBC is that of the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Of course, all citizens are natural born citizens, including Ahnold. Brilliant!

/s

17 posted on 06/15/2010 12:21:03 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Nope.

Dual citizenship at birth is an automatic disqualifier.


18 posted on 06/15/2010 12:24:55 PM PDT by NOVACPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NOVACPA

“Dual citizenship at birth is an automatic disqualifier.”

Nope, it isn’t. Our government doesn’t even recognize dual citizenship. They could care less. People born U.S. citizens possess all privileges of citizenship regardless of whether or not they happen to be able to claim privileges from other countries.


19 posted on 06/15/2010 12:29:08 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Genoa; ConorMacNessa; LucyT
Then on to the Supreme Court!

And they have already been forewarned by the illegal alien and usurper's unreported and unprecedented visit at John Roberts on January 14, 2009 before he got his foot in the door breaking into the W.H.!!!

After that the very intelligent and astute Chief Justice could NOT even perform a correct swearing in Oath, but was stammering through it looking in the Devils' evil eyes???

20 posted on 06/15/2010 12:33:34 PM PDT by danamco (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Excellent news! Great first post too by the way!

The faster this moves through the lower courts the better.


21 posted on 06/15/2010 12:37:19 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma; ConorMacNessa

This is good. At this point it is better if our side loses every battle. If the other side loses they control the timetable better on Appeal. This way Apuzzo controls it. It has to make its way through this process. Its almost better to lose each round. It has nothing to do with setting precedent, its about getting it to SCOTUS which is the only place it can be decided.

SCOTUS will I Pray make the correct decision and throw that F’ing usurper out on his ASS forthwith.


22 posted on 06/15/2010 12:40:03 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Every court is going to punt on this automatically. It’s all about getting it to the court that can decide it. No lower court is going to affirm that Barry is an usurper. No one wants that. It has to get to SCOTUS for the truth to be decided.


23 posted on 06/15/2010 12:41:49 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: danamco
You're right, I was amazed that Roberts messed up so badly. What had the Chief Justice of the United States so shook up that he couldn't remember the oath that any schoolboy could say by heart?? Could it be . . . . .

24 posted on 06/15/2010 12:41:50 PM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

“What had the Chief Justice of the United States so shook up that he couldn’t remember the oath that any schoolboy could say by heart?? Could it be . . .”

...absolutely meaningless? Yes.


25 posted on 06/15/2010 12:46:02 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: danamco

“After that the very intelligent and astute Chief Justice could NOT even perform a correct swearing in Oath, but was stammering through it looking in the Devils’ evil eyes???”

He gave the correct oath to him later. Get over it.


26 posted on 06/15/2010 12:46:57 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
No, there is evil afoot.

27 posted on 06/15/2010 12:48:43 PM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
The point is that the federal judiciary is very afraid. Of what?

28 posted on 06/15/2010 12:49:52 PM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

“The point is that the federal judiciary is very afraid.”

Not that I can discern.

“Of what?”

Nothing.


29 posted on 06/15/2010 12:51:25 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Nothing.

0

30 posted on 06/15/2010 12:52:34 PM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Remember how Judge Carter suddenly lost his nerve?

31 posted on 06/15/2010 12:53:42 PM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Danae
SCOTUS will I Pray make the correct decision and throw that F’ing usurper out on his ASS forthwith.

SCOTUS will deny cert. without dissent the same way they did in the first seven Obama eligibility cases to reach them.

32 posted on 06/15/2010 12:54:39 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

“Remember how Judge Carter suddenly lost his nerve?”

No. Did the MIB visit him?


33 posted on 06/15/2010 12:55:33 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; STARWISE; maggief; onyx; penelopesire

Fireworks before the fourth of July!?!


34 posted on 06/15/2010 1:00:38 PM 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 2 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
You suggested that dual citizenship is not a disqualifier for the office of POTUS.

The Constitution says one must be a "natural born citizen" to be eligible for that office.

What do you think the Framers intended by using the phrase "natural born citizen?"

Do you have proper Tea Party attire?:


35 posted on 06/15/2010 1:01:22 PM PDT by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I'd like to know, wouldn't you?

36 posted on 06/15/2010 1:08:03 PM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane; NOVACPA
"“Dual citizenship at birth is an automatic disqualifier.”

Nope, it isn’t. Our government doesn’t even recognize dual citizenship. They could care less.

--------------------------------------------

Absolute nonsense.

from the link in post #1: Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

"US State Department Services Dual Nationality

The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

...

The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. "

So you see there, the U.S. DOES recognize dual nationality...however, it is discouraged for the variety of reasons cited.

And to believe that the framers intended for the Commander in Chief to be allowed to be born with allegiance owed to a foreign country is beyond absurd.

37 posted on 06/15/2010 1:08:35 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: danamco

That event always unnerves me.


38 posted on 06/15/2010 1:11:05 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, hunker down & go Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter

“What do you think the Framers intended by using the phrase ‘natural born citizen?’”

The one and only definition there’s ever been: people born citizens.


39 posted on 06/15/2010 1:14:49 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Amazing, isn’t it?

That some blockheaded dreamers actually believe
that our brave Founders, after having suffered,
bled, pledged, and in many cases, did lose lives,
families and fortunes .. and in some cases .. lost
ALL .. in fighting the greedy foreigners from Great
Britain for so many years .. would’ve so nonchalantly
excluded such a vital issue as allegiance to country
and national loyalty when considering the qualifications
for the office of chief executive of the country ?

Some people .....


40 posted on 06/15/2010 1:18:17 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, hunker down & go Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Not all of those got “denied” The did not get heard.

I will be shocked if they refuse to hear this case. If they do, then the constitution no longer applies and I stop paying federal taxes. Then the IRS can sue me, and I will counter sue saying they have no constitutional authority over me, because the government it represents no longer is a legal constitutional one.

If SCOTUS refuses this case, then the United States no longer exists.

I think they will hear it. Too much is at stake.


41 posted on 06/15/2010 1:24:58 PM PDT by Danae (If Liberals were only moderately insane, they would be tollerable. Alas, such is not the case.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“And to believe that the framers intended for the Commander in Chief to be allowed to be born with allegiance owed to a foreign country is beyond absurd.”

People tend to go overboard with intent. The actual meaning of the words matters more than the various hopes and dreams ascribed to the framers. If they wanted it so that no dual citizen would ever be president, they should have said so.

Gaos between what the framers wanted and how the constitution worked out abound. For instance, the 14th amendment was passed to protect former slaves and make them every bit as much citizens as whites. But that doesn’t mean that any interpretation of said amendment that strays from specific application to black people is incorrect. The framer’s sought to secure citizenship for blacks through a particular mechanism. Namely, making it so that “All persons...” born or naturalized in the U.S. would be U.S. citizens. “All persons” means all persons, not all black persons, even if the “intent” was all about black people.

Likewise, the infamous concept of “substantive” due process is bunk, even though the original intent of due process was to secure the substance of liberty. Far from being various unenumerated rights itself, however, due process—as is obvious to anyone who can read—is the right to a process. That is the mechanism through which our rights to be secured.

Just like the second amendment secures our rights by allowing us to keep and bear arms. Anyone arguing for “substantive” arms-bearing would be laughed out of court, even though clearly it was the intent that the right to keep and bear arms would secure other unenumerated rights. Yet, somehow, we’ve tramelled up the cause with the outcome concerning due process. Oh, well.


42 posted on 06/15/2010 1:33:24 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Amazing, isn’t it?

That some blockheaded dreamers actually believe
that our brave Founders, after having suffered,
bled, pledged, and in many cases, did lose lives,
families and fortunes .. and in some cases .. lost
ALL .. in fighting the greedy foreigners from Great
Britain for so many years .. would’ve so nonchalantly
excluded such a vital issue as allegiance to country
and national loyalty when considering the qualifications
for the office of chief executive of the country ?

Some people .....


The 14th Amendment, ratified in a different era and under very different circumstances altered the work of the Founders on allegiance just as the Founders were adamant that Senators not be directly elected and yet the 17th Amendment changed that.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution moved the nation from reliance on “jus sanguinis” (right of citizenship by blood) to “jus soli” (right of citizenship by soil).

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
There is no exception in the 14th Amendment for presidents as being treated any differently than any other citizen. At least that has been the interpretation of the Supreme Court since the 19th Century.


43 posted on 06/15/2010 1:35:15 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: danamco
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
44 posted on 06/15/2010 1:40:02 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia has notified me today by letter dated June 15, 2010 that there will not be any oral argument on the Kerchner appeal to that Court.

It sounds like they've already made up their minds. No need for further witnesses or arguments your honor. Which probably means that they have sided in favor of Obama rather than the Constitution.

45 posted on 06/15/2010 1:45:52 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Not all of those got “denied” The did not get heard.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in every Obama eligibility case that came up-- that means they refused to hear the case. They will do the same in this one.

I will be shocked if they refuse to hear this case.

The Supreme Court refused to hear any case challenging the constitutionality of the Vietnam War, which was probably the most contentious issue in my lifetime. There are some issues which are very important, but which the Court just doesn't decide. This is one of them.

46 posted on 06/15/2010 1:46:36 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
There was only 1 definition available to the framers for citizens who were natural born. That of Vattel's. There was no need for them to state that people born citizens of multiple countries were not natural born citizens. There was already a definition in place.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment deals with "citizenship" and not "natural born citizen" and you know that.

From post #1 again:

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

You appear to be someone who believes the Constitution is a living, breathing document that should be interpreted by whomever may be in power in a particular election cycle, in whichever way they deem necessary at the moment.

b.t.w., the framers made the distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" in the very requirement itself.

47 posted on 06/15/2010 1:52:24 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Prayers up! This may be our only chance to get Obama out of the WH before it’s too late. At the rate he is destroying this country, we might not make it until November and we sure won’t make it until 2012.


48 posted on 06/15/2010 1:53:47 PM PDT by penelopesire ("Did you plug the hole yet daddy?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
The 1797 English edition of The Law of Nations was translated by Thomas Nugent. Nugent died in the 1770's. He published an English-French Dictionary. This places the infamous 1797 Edition translation manuscript before the drafting the of Constitution. Photobucket
49 posted on 06/15/2010 1:53:58 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“Furthermore, the 14th Amendment deals with ‘citizenship’ and not ‘natural born citizen’ and you know that’”

I think you know natural born citizen means nothing but citizen from birth. But you don’t like Obama, so you’ll say anything.


50 posted on 06/15/2010 1:55:49 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-323 next last

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