Appeals court: We're listening to eligibility case (re: Kerchner v. Obama)

WND ^ | February 23, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[parsifal]

Its a fairly long case:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

parsy, who will also try to scan it again;

[parsifal]

Oh, and the whole case is about it.

parsy

[Kenny Bunk]

“if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” <

parsy, in re Wong Kim Ark, this is the phrase upon which I hang my hopeful not-a-natural-born-citizen hat:

is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen

Now I grant you it is not a Hoot Gibson 10-gallon hat. But to me, it seems to say that the Ark kid is just as good a citizen as a "Natural Born Citizen," which is to say he was not the same thing. A Ham sandwich and a Turkey sandwich are both sandwiches, but if the menu says "Turkey," it doesn't mean "Ham."

Wonder what the court will say.

[Kenny Bunk]

IF the American court system doesn’t soon step up to the plate and take this CONSTIUTIONAL matter seriously, then America is in HUGE trouble. In one single year this wicked cave crawler has wreaked much destruction. CO...

Talk about outrage, O Canada, the very Constitution that our Kenyan Chappie drove his truck through, is, O bitter irony, exactly what is protecting him!

(1) There is only one court in the land Constitutionally able to handle the eligibility case: The Federal District Court in Washington, DC, with appeal to the SCOTUS.

(2) Fraud, criminal, foreigner he may well be, but he IS the sitting POTUS and can only be removed by Impeachment in the House and Conviction in the Senate. That is regardless of what the District Court and the SCOTUS have to say about it.

(3) While ineligible to hold the office, he has been placed in it by proper authority, and is thus pretty much immune to any civil or criminal prosecution while there.

[parsifal]

Keep it simple. What the Wong court is basically trying to do is define the meanings of citizens, naturalized citizens and natural born citizens. Since these terms are not defined by the Constitution, they engage in an analysis of the intent of the Framers. That is, what did the Framers mean when they used these words.

So, page after page, they analyze. They even explore the “laws of nations” stuff that the birthers are trying to pretend isn’t in there. When they get to the end, they figure out there are two kinds of citizens. Those that are born here, and those that are naturalized. There are a few exceptions to the “those who are born here” type, but none apply to Obama.

If you are born here, you are a citizen, and a natural born citizen. If you ain’t born here, you may be a naturalized citizen. That’s pretty much it. You can go into more detail, but a lot of it isn’t necessary to the issue of Obama.

Now, because the Wong Court went to such length to figure out what the Framers meant, there is a lot of citations to cases and treatises. Some people start off thru the case and get lost as to where they are and pull some tidbit of language from here or there and go off on a tangent. Permanent domicile —You have to have that. No. That’s pulled out of context.

Forget all that crap. If you are not a lawyer, you will work yourself into a new tizzy every 30 seconds with a tidbit of language. You will zing around caroming off a phrase or clause like a silver ball in a pinball machine. The Wong court said that a little Chinese kid was born here. His parents were citizens of China. The Wong court said he was citizen, not a naturalized citizen, but a citizen.

And from the language, you can tell that he is also a natural born citizen, even if the Court doesn’t say so in one discrete place in the case. That’s it. The Wong court gets to that conclusion by relying on English common law, which the framers knew well, because many of them were lawyers. When they said natural born citizen, they pretty well knew what they were talking about. There might have been a few little exceptions here or there to be ironed out, but basically if you born in a country and you don’t fit into the exceptions, you are “natural born subject” which is the same thing as a natural born citizen.

Now there are some knowledgeable crybabies who don’t know how to lose an election like a good American. And there are some people who listen to the crybabies and follow them without knowing any better.

So the knowledgeable ones read Wong and they don’t like it because it holds what they don’t want to hear. Obama is natural born citizen relying on Emglish common law....DAMN THOSE ENGLISH, they say! So they set about to find a way around the English common law. They got to, because English common law is real clear about the situation.

So the crybabies figure out if they can get to some non-English common law, they may have a way to overturn the election. It ain’t got a damn thing to do with any love of the Constitution. If they loved the Constitution, they would follow both the facts and the law.

So, the crybabies go to “international” law, kinda like Orly Taitz’s is running off to the United Nations. They find this guy named Vattel who adds some more qualifications to being a citizen. They pounce on poor Vattel like he’s the only cheap prostitute in town and they just got off the ship after 6 months. Kinda.

They construct this new fabric of natural born citizen based on Vattel and start pumping him like crazy. BS. You see, the Wong Court has already reviewed the laws of nations type stuff, and they don’t find anything there which is really too far out of line with English common laws which say born here is enough. Along the way they discuss some of the Vattel like “allegiance” arguments and THEY ANSWER THEM. The Wong decision HAS ALREADY BUILT THAT INTO ITS DECISION.

Now, is this just me? Is this just my opinion. Yeah. But its why most legal people don’t have a real legal problem with Obama being a natural born citizen. Now lawyers need to eat, too. Sooooo, if you pay them several hundred dollars per hour, they will “hop to” and start spinning out the BS. But its BS. Most legal people figure Wong covers it.

Now within the last few months, another court has decided this way. So it ain’t just me. Here’s the case. Only five pages are applicable. Pages 13-18, as I recall. Its got “Natural Born Citizen” heading where it begins.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Now if you read this, you will note that a couple of Plaintiffs filed “pro se” that is without a lawyer. They did their own legal work, and LO AND BEHOLD, they somehow miss the Wong case. A Supreme Court Case which is in every legal analysis of the issue, they miss. Somehow, these two guys find the Vattel, stuff, which ain’t exactly falling off the book shelves. This Court reminded them about Wong!

And that “kinda” stuff above? Well Vattel isn’t really even LAW. Its Vattel listing out some of the laws of the world and talking about them. It would be the same as citing the Law for Dummies book as law itself.

parsy, who hopes this helps

[AmericanVictory]

The whole case is about citizenship under the 14th Amendment for a child born of parents who were not eligible for citizenship under the so-called Chinese exclsuion laws as then in effect although they, the parents, were legally resident in this country. There does not seem to be any mention of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 in the case or the issue of presidential eligibility. Therefore, if by “it” that is what you are referring to then you woild appear to making a completely false assertion. Wouldn’t you agree?

[parsifal]

Have you read the Wong case?

parsy

[AmericanVictory]

Yes, have you? Where does it mention Article II, Section 1, Clause 5? Perhaps you can help me out. I don’t see where it discusses that provision or purports to decide upon it.

[parsifal]

Are you talking about “natural born citizens”?

parsy

[AmericanVictory]

No, I specifically asked about Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, where the qualifications for presidential eligibility are set out. Where are those qualitifictions set out in the opinion in Wong Kim Ark/

[Canadian Outrage]

That is a sad state of affairs then. Imo, he and others have clearly broken laws. Election laws. They are signed Affidavits that are untrue. No different than perjury. And I don’t see how that the Military has to obey orders given by a Fraud CIC!! If the Courts are powerless, then it has to be THE PEOPLE that solve this crime. CO

[verity]

Let me know how it turns out.

[Kenny Bunk]

If the Courts are powerless, then it has to be THE PEOPLE that solve this crime.

Steady, old boy! The courts (The Federal district court in DC, and the SCOTUS) are far from powerless. And the people have already solved the crime.

Unfortunately, in regard to a sitting President, criminal or fraud though he appears to be, no matter what the courts say, only Congress can remove him. Once removed, he will be subject to the normal laws of the land.

Seriously, all we can do now is box him in, wake up the Republican Party, and work to save the country depite his presence. He must be stopped.