Skip to comments.Obama and Congress Request and Obtain Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Kerchner Appeal
Posted on 02/14/2010 11:50:10 AM PST by Man50D
On January 19, 2010, I filed the Appellants Opening Brief in the appeal of Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. which is currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. In that appeal, we maintain that the New Jersey Federal District Court erred in dismissing our case by ruling that plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge Obamas alleged eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military and that our case presents a non-justiciable political question. In our case, we have provided the Founders and Framers definition of an Article II natural born Citizen which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. We maintain that Obama is not an Article II natural born Citizen because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth. Obamas father was only a temporary visitor to the United States when Obama was born and never even became a resident let alone a citizen. Not being an Article II natural born Citizen, Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate (a long-form birth certificate generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which was posted on the internet by some unknown person in 2008) or through other contemporaneous and objective documentation. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept him as a natural born Citizen.
The defendants had 30 days within which to file their opposition brief. Defendants have requested and obtained from the Court an extension of time to file their brief. The Court has granted them until March 8, 2010 to file it. After that filing, I will then have a chance to file a reply brief within the next 14 days.
You may obtain a copy of my brief at this site. We will be posting here the defendants opposition brief after it is filed along with my reply brief. I hope that many of you will take the time to read these briefs so that you may learn first hand what the legal issues and arguments are regarding whether the plaintiffs have standing and/or are precluded by the political question doctrine to challenge Obama on his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, and what the meaning of an Article II natural born Citizen is.
Why is Congress even involved with this suit?
Hey Glenn Beck, Thomas Jefferson was a birther!
In Before The AFTER-birther Trolls.
Again, I was employed by an employer who had a Federal contract with Federal Government.
I had 60 days to produce a passport or Birth Certificate, or else I would not be able to work on the Federal Contract.
Very simple requirement, for a US citizen born in America. A Photo Copy WOULD NOT DO, it had to be an original Certified copy. Cost me 30 bucks, and I did it over the Internet, plus shipping/mail cost.
A Tough requirement, for a NON Citizen to comply, as it was meant to be.
WITHOUT A LEI!
I have worked for Homeland Security on a government contract. There was a requirement to use a RAPIDGATE kiosk to enter personal information and to submit fingerprints. There was absolutely never a requirement to supply a birth certificate.
We all “lack standing”
Note, “natural born” does not mean “native born.” Two very different things. “Natural born” means a citizen naturally (”automatically”) at birth, not one made a citizen by operation of law later in life, i.e. “naturalized” to be made as if natural.
His point in the second paragraph is appropriate, however. No proof has been offered.
“Worked for homeland Security and did not have to Supply BC”
Did you have access to Soc Sec Information and Medical records ? I did..... evidently it makes a difference.
The DOD just fingerprints you and runs an FBI and background check, no Birth Certificate....other than maybe the DOD can do their own checking for BC. Doesn’t mean Homeland Security was NOT checking on the BC, they might have done it themselves.
You need a birth certificate or passport to be a census taker - Obama qualify? (US Passport)
Onada’s “little” Constitutional problem that just won’t go away. The bloom is now off Onada’s paper flower bouquet. Because he is black—well half black—serious challenges to Onada’s qualification for presidental office were ignored.
But between the NJ, NY, VA and MA elections; plus his inability to move any of his agenda (despite his party’s majority in House and Senate; plus his on-going national security mistakes and plus an economy that has only gotten worse in the year he’s been in the WH (despite billions in bailout money thrown down the toilet) Onada is being seen for the empty commie suit that he is. He is now fair game.
More on “Natural Born,” i.e. citizen at birth
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
For purposes of the Constitution, the definition of natural born citizen has never changed. No Constitutional Term can be redefined without an amendment.
Well now this "unknown person" has a chance to present his alleged evidence to an actual court of law and put this issue to rest.
Because they know the truth and don’t want to be caught.
Trouble is, like “Milita”, it was never defined.
Many laws implement, define and restrict what might be otherwise be considered a Constittional right. FFA is an example.
MindBender your analysis is incomplete therefore leading to the wrong conclusion and definition of natural born citizen.
Go to Mario Apuzzo’s web site where he not only quotes the law but also case law on the subject, does it very thoughly/clearly showing Obama can’t be a Natural Born citizen:
The only problem with Mr. Apuzzo's analysis is that the courts do not agree with him.
His basic problem is that he, like all others in such a position, wants to be the authority on what men now dead 200 years were thinking. The courts conclude they were thinking something elase.
The other problem originalists face is that, if they are totally correct, then, as just one example, government can censor TV news.
How can they do that, you ask?
It's very simple. Freedom of the press goes not necessarily include Freedom of TV news. It's never mentioned.
We have freedom of speech, but can I cry "Fire in a crowded theater? Can I slander someone? Can a mercnant lie about goods she sells? Can a former felon bring a machine gun to Times Square?
The courts have rejected the absolute origionalist concept, and we are better off that they did.