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
“If there was ever a nonjusticiable “political question,” this is one”
That is your opinion.
This is not a political question. It is a constitutional one. This is why SCOTUS has decided at least 5 cases where citizenship was at issue. It is not a political question. Its a legal one. That is your mistake and the reason perhaps why you are a lawyer and not a judge.
Not hearing a case is not the same as reversing a case, or affirming the decision of a lower court. People confuse these all the time, and apparently so are you.
“What in the world are you talking about?”
I’m talking about the Vattel worship on these threads, despite the fact that his relation to the Constitution is speculative at best and anyway irrelevant after the 14th amendment.
Who is and who is not a Natural Born Citizen for Presidential eligibility purposes needs to be decided, it will come up again like McCain Jindahl etc..We the people have a right to know who is and who is not eligible to be President before we go through this crap again.
I never said they were the same thing. I predicted that the dismissal of the Kerchner complaint would be affirmed by the Third Circuit and that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the case.
Please ping me if either prediction proves untrue.
“I’ve just shown you proof that the state department (which, as you know, is part of the government) DOES recognize it.”
Yes, you found the word “regognize” somewhere in the vicinity of “state department” and “dual citizenship.” Whoopdeedoo. As I stated above, I meant the U.S. government does not legally recognize dual citizenship. That dual citizens are every bit the citizen as everyone else. Which is absolutely true, and need not be demonstrated by me since everyone knows it.
By the way, if you apply a little reason and read between the lines of what you quoted, you’d see they assume dual citizens are not legally different from other citizens, too. There are a couple of stipulations. But one is purely a matter of state department policy (not the law), andf therefore a practical matter. The other has to do with foreign laws that might interfere with U.S. laws, which is obviously another matter altogether from dual citizenship qua dual citizenship.
This is the oath that a naturalized citizen MUST make to become an American citizen.
It is an attempt, through the instrument of an an oath of allegiance, to make the naturalized citizen partake of the attributes of a natural born citizen, namely: NO DUAL ALLEGIANCE!
The Oath of Allegiance is as follows:
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/oath-of-allegiance.html
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
This is the STANDARD we set for a NATURALIZED citizen.
Surely the STANDARD MUST be as high for a NATURAL BORN citizen.
Therefore, it would be illogical to suppose that one with allegiance — FROM BIRTH — to a foreign country could be a natural born citizen.
In conclusion a NATURAL BORN citizen MUST be one BORN free of foreign entanglements.
STE=Q
'while I'm young'? also, can't SCOTUS 'punt', by not accepting case?
U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1
In my humble opinion here is the key outstanding constitutional question that has yet to be addressed by the Supreme Court or by legislation: Is there any difference between an Article II Section I “natural born citizen” and a 14th Amendment “citizen-at-birth”?
I love my groupies!
ALSO:
St. George Tucker:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.
The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
STE=Q
He posted an anti-birther comment at Huffington Post...so?
NOTE ON POST #90:
At link adjust for “results 50” and go to result #50
for St. George Tucker citation.
STE=Q
That is another urban myth on these threads. All Judge Carter did was demonstrate professionalism by being polite to a lunatic attorney who showed up in his court room. Orly’s own incompetence is what led her to misinterpret his words to be some kind of binding promise, which any attorney worth anything knows judges don’t offer, for obvious reasons.
Your thread has the freeper Obots in a frenzy...wonder why.
It is an attempt, through the instrument of an an oath of allegiance, to make the naturalized citizen partake of the attributes of a natural born citizen, namely: NO DUAL ALLEGIANCE!
The Oath of Allegiance is as follows:
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/oath-of-allegiance.html
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
“This is the STANDARD we set for a NATURALIZED citizen.
Surely the STANDARD MUST be as high for a NATURAL BORN citizen.
Therefore, it would be illogical to suppose that one with allegiance — FROM BIRTH — to a foreign country could be a natural born citizen.
In conclusion a NATURAL BORN citizen MUST be one BORN free of foreign entanglements.”
Actually, by your argument, someone with a foreign citizen parent would have to be naturalized, which we know is not true.
The U.S. doesn't hinge citizenship on foreign laws. Just because one has a theoretical right to assert citizenship in another country does not mean one’s U.S. citizenship is in any way affected.
In a sense they can. It depends on the case. But ultimately if the court won’t hear the case, the lower court’s ruling stands.
So, where did you get your crystal ball? The FOUNDERS spoke French, and READ french. They knew exactly what they were doing and WHY. The phrase didn’t getin there by accident. It was deliberate. Your whole argument rests on an ASSUMPTION that the phrase was included for what amounts to accidental reasons. BS. The framers were utterly specific for a reason, regardless of how much you don’t want to believe it.
I don’t think I will need to ping you. It will be all over Freep when/if that happens.
Ok smartie, translate this:
Haole.
Hint: its native Hawaiian.
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.