Posted on 02/09/2009 4:07:52 PM PST by patriotgal1787
On January 31st, World Net Daily reported on a new lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, this one targeting Congress as a defendant for its "failure" to uphold the constitutional demand to make sure Obama qualified before approving the Electoral College vote that actually designated him as the occupant of the Oval Office.
It is being brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. and names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
TONIGHT --
Atty. Mario Apuzzo will be on the Andrea Shea King Radio show on BlogTalkRadio at 9 p.m. EST.
He will be discussing the new filing on the Kerchner et al v Obama et al, which is suing Congress for unconstitutionally and illegally confirming an unqualified (non-Article II natural born citizen) as the President.
Joining Apuzzo on the show will be Charles Kerchner Jr., the lead plaintiff .
Obama is on the suit as a "necessary party" since his removal is the ultimate goal of the suit.
They will discuss the new filing and will take Q&A on the matter of Kerchner v Obama. Please read the new filing at this link provided by Atty. Apuzzo so you know the details of the case if you wish to call in and ask questions, or see the other link below in this message. LINK to the show here.
We get underway at 9 p.m. ET, sharp.
Big BUMP to you. Stay on this story. It will take sustained and determined effort to expose this marxist fraud.
Anyone know if Mario has a different angle to get past the spineless & corrupt judiciary denying standing to Americans as in WE THE PEOPLE Americans?
Mario Apuzzo? Godfather? /s
I am betting in an hour that O shills/BC deniers will be turning up in this thread.
....a different angle to get past the spineless & corrupt judiciary denying standing to Americans as in WE THE PEOPLE Americans?
::::::::::::
It is an American tragedy that the SCOTUS has not heard the suits brought before it. It puts into question the veracity and dedication of the SCOTUS if they will not stand behind the Constitution and not recognized the STANDING of the American citizen, for whom the document stands for, and protects.
That is the greatest tragedy to date...it's not that Obama didn't prove he was eligible, it's that the court doesn't 'dare' question 'The One' to see if he is. Yuk
Don’t know if you are on still or if you have someone operating your ping list.
How about this? barry signed the SCHIP bill the other day, which includes a tobacco tax increase. The position would be, the new law (in particular the tax increase) is void because the man who signed it is not eligible to be POTUS. It seems to me that anyone who pays the tax would have standing. Any lawyers out there with an opinion on this?
I’m no lawyer (though Barry specialized in constitutional law).. but if I recall correctly, by law, he doesn’t have to present evidence that will incriminate himself.
If they can somehow get a hold of his birth certificate.. or present other evidence, then they’ll have him. (his phoney selective service card comes to mind)
.. of course, all of this is predicated on the justices actually having the spine to look at the case.
Again, the media and Federal enforcement agencies are awol. .. otherwise, they’d be fighting to get the scoop from Rezko et al.
I am not an Obama shill, but I am a lawyer, I have practiced in federal courts for 30 years, and I have some sense of how the federal courts work. This lawsuit will not go anywhere, because, under basic separation of powers principles, the United States Congress cannot be sued, and certainly not for a claim that they didn't do their job right.
The Senate and House met in joint session, presided over by Vice President Cheney, and decided unanimously that Obama is qualified to be President. The courts will not second-guess that determination, and certainly not in this kind of case.
That is at least plausible on its face-- the suit that is the subject of this article, in contrast, is a joke and will certainly be dismissed.
The challenge to the tobacco tax does get over the standing hurdle, but may face other obstacles. (Google "enrolled bill doctrine").
Sure you have. I have seen multiple posts by you but you never have said what will work. I wonder why but I tend to know why.
Because this is a political question which was resolved by the House and Senate, and will not be revisited by the Courts under long-settled separation of powers principles.
Enrolled bill doctrine (Wikipedia): [i]f a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. How is someone ineligible for office an “appropriate official”?
Not true but you always seem to come up with wonderfully supportive posts for Obama - every time like clockwork.
You did not answer my last question.
Sorry forgot to add that you are wrong see Dr. Edwin Vieira’s web site. He is a Harvard AB, MA, JD, PhD and Constitutional attorney. Eventually Obama will have to produce proof. It would be settled if he was actually POTUS but he is a not unless he has proof he is.
Well, the Birther shills are already here.
Wrong. A known and real Constitutional attorney named Dr. Edwin Vieira with an AB, MA, JD and PhD from Harvard says you are wrong. Are you also the guy on another web site claiming to be “Georgetown JD?”
It will come out. Read Dr. Vieira’s blog and you might learn something.
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.