Skip to comments.Kerchner v. Obama Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument
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 Obamas/Congresss 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."
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.
“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.
Amazing, isnt 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 .. wouldve 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 .....
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Ahh, but you see there's the rub. The US Government (i.e. The Executive Branch via the State Department) "recognizes" dual citizenship, but I do not think that the law explicitly does. Dual citizenship exists through a combination of judicial fiat (that says the US government cannot strip dual citizens of US citizenship in most circumstances) and an executive branch usurpation of legislative authority to authorize the recognition of dual citizenship has made it a reality....it may not exist in the letter of the law but it certainly exists in practice now. The US State Department teamed up with SCOTUS to bring this misguided policy into being. Great job team. /s
“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.”
I might as well say you’re obviously a martian who has green blood, which has as much justification.
Maybe Barack Obama, Sr. is NOT his father....
“There was only 1 definition available to the framers for citizens who were natural born. That of Vattel’s.”
That is a damn lie, and you know it. You know full well that no translation of Vattel used NBC until AFTER the Constitution was adopted, and you know there were other sources available for that phrasing.
You won’t win in court by relying on lying...
“So you see there, the U.S. DOES recognize dual nationality”
If by “recognize” you mean the U.S. government is aware dual citizenship exists, well, duh. What’s important is that it makes no legal difference, which is what I was getting at. The U.S. government does not legally recognize dual citizenship. Persons born with allegiance to another country is every bit a citizen as everyone else (aside from naturalized citizens, of course, who can’t be president).
That is, “A person born with allegiance...”
U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1
“U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1”
What about it?
think you left out a word:
The framers definition for a natural born citizen included people NOT born with allegiance to a foreign nation ...