Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supremes get case against 'putative' President Obama
WND ^ | October 01, 2010 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 10/01/2010 6:59:23 PM PDT by RobinMasters

A new court filing that returns the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to the U.S. Supreme Court warns that unless the judiciary makes a definitive decision in the dispute, it will be the same as allowing the political interests in the United States to amend the U.S. Constitution at will.

A petition for writ of certiorari has been filed with the high court in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the dismissal of a case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.

Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; chicagomob; corruption; eligibility; harvardresumefraud; naturalborncitizen; noaccountability; nobc; nobirthcertificate; nodocumentation; nointegrity; nojustice; notruth; noveritas; obama; obamavsamerica; obamavsconstitution; resumefraud; scotusvsamerica; scotusvsjay
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: rawcatslyentist

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and Happiness.

They do not have our consent...

Seventy percent (70%) of Mainstream voters rate its performance as poor. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/


41 posted on 10/02/2010 11:12:11 AM PDT by EBH (We have lost our heritage of "making money.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and Happiness.

They do not have our consent...

Seventy percent (70%) of Mainstream voters rate its performance as poor. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/


It was about the same for the previous administration. That’s why polls are not the determiners of who is in or out of office.

We have elections in order to fire those who a majority opf voters deem to be incompetent and hire those who a majority of voters feel will be more competent.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval


42 posted on 10/02/2010 12:21:34 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Yes, the SCOTUS appropriately wants to avoid impacting the political process so far as possible. OTOH, one can see scenarios where the people, and, basically, the rule of law have no other means of remedy.

When Congress will not do its job in a transparent and accountable way, and the SCOTUS — again, appropriately — is very cautious about impacting the political process, there are times the country is going to get screwed royally.

I’m not saying the SCOTUS should not take an appropriate case. But the real answer to this is to get legislation passed that makes the process for evaluating whether a candidate is eligible to serve as president something that is NOT arbitrary and capricious, as it sometimes appears it is now.

IOW, a process that has a written STANDARD, set PROCEDURES, a process for REVIEW, and a REMEDY for failure to apply the standard and procedures in a reasonable way.


43 posted on 10/02/2010 1:33:32 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I don’t know who you are referring to as “they” in your post, nor am I following what you’re saying about the two examples.

The bottom line is that the majority made a ruling based on the FACTS presented. It did not make a ruling on facts NOT presented. The facts presented were that WKA’s parents were both legal residents of the U.S., legal domiciliaries of the U.S., and, moreover, even engaged in business in the U.S.

I don’t understand your point in resisting that statement of the case. Those were the facts, period. A case is decided on the facts before it, period (no matter what the Court says in dicta). If a future case is presented that involves the same legal question, but materially different facts, the holding in the first case is not BINDING precedent.

The only point here is that some see a way to argue that the facts of Obama’s parents’ ties to the U.S. can be distinguished from those of WKA’s parents. Therefore, the argument goes, since the two cases are distinguishable on the facts, the Court need not apply the ruling in WKA as BINDING precedent.

That is all.

I don’t see how someone can argue that WKA’s parents were not both legal residents, legal domiciliaries, and engaged in business in the U.S. (for decades). Those were the facts in WKA.

The facts in any case based on Obama’s parents’ connection to the U.S. are very different. That is all.


44 posted on 10/02/2010 1:51:50 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

The only facts that differ are that one parent was a born citizen, and the other was ‘merely’ here on a long term visa for study rather than employment - although as the husband of an American, he could have chosen to apply to stay here permanently.

To rule Obama isn’t a NBC, the court would have to toss out the reasoning of WKA and come up with an entirely different rationale, and do so to overturn the popular election of a sitting President.

Ain’t going to happen. Someone trying to overturn Obama’s agenda would be better off donating to good candidates than supporting BS cases like this.


45 posted on 10/02/2010 5:19:51 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

May I ask if you are a lawyer?

The differences between the parental ties of WKA to the U.S. and those of Obama’s parents are quite easily distinguishable. Although a court could still find that Obama is a NBC — on whatever ground — it is simply incorrect to say the “only difference” is a “mere” one. It doesn’t matter what Obama’s parents “could have chosen” to do; what matters is what they did — where they resided, where their domiciliary was, what kind of contacts they had and retained with this country.

Legal residency is not an inconsequential status. Neither is legal domiciliary.

Rahm Emanuel, for example, is facing questions about his eligibility to run for Mayor of Chicago because, it is argued, he is not a legal resident of Chicago, having changed his legal residence to Washington D.C. for the last 18 months or so.

Those arguments may not prevail, but they could. They are not inconsequential, depending on the law.

None of my comments are based on the likelihood of Obama being ruled ineligible or not. I am simply observing that, when the usual legal analysis is applied to WKA, there are arguments to be made that the facts of the Obama case are distinguishable from the facts of the WKA case.


46 posted on 10/02/2010 6:30:57 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Walts Ice Pick

The remedy is to raise enough hell so that Congress, or at least one state, passes a law requiring certain information proving eligibility to serve as president before a candidate can be placed on the ballot.

Regardless of the merits of this case, there is no reason for the country to go through this.


47 posted on 10/02/2010 6:35:27 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

Not a lawyer, nor have I ever pretended otherwise.

However, unlike WKA, one of Obama’s parents was a NBC of the USA. The other was legally residing here on purposes approved by the US government, with the option at the time of Obama’s birth of remaining here.

WKA’s parents did NOT have permanent domicile in the USA. “they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.”

Notice they point out they were here on business and NOT “in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China” - which would have prevented WKA from being a natural born subject, and thus a NBC according to their argument.

Compared to WKA, Obama’s mother was a NBC, she retained citizenship to death, and his father was here legally with the option of remaining...while WKA’s parents were BOTH non-citizens who both left the USA.

COULD a court reject the reasoning of WKA? Well, the Supreme Court can and has done pretty much whatever it has wanted without check from anyone - so yes, they COULD reject it and decide Obama needs to be thrown out of office.

But it is more likely that Obama will be struck down by lightening...


48 posted on 10/02/2010 6:43:36 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: LorenC
No they didn't. The supposed Senate “hearings” about McCain's eligibility are an urban myth.

For those who have simply watched apparent disagreements, wondering what the truth is, this comment is an excellent example. Trolls don't have egos. They, perhaps like Muslims practicing Taquia, have a goal - to confuse the public. The characterization of trolls as Muslims, such as those telling patently false tales about their intent with the trophy mosque in Manhattan, may not be far from the truth. They may be part of a Muslim contingent buying time for our Muslim born officeholder.

As for the “urban myth” of SenRes 511 and SB2678, trolls assume that most of you won't check, which is probably true. So if they can confuse half of you they have been successful. Truth has a different meaning for trolls, and for Muslims.

Here is the “Thomas” record, the Library of Congress, for S.R.511
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.RES.511:

Here is the pointer to McCaskill’s bill, with Obama as co-sponsor, trying to assert that foreign born children of military citizens are eligible for the presidency. Had it passed it would have violated the Constitution. Perhaps anticipating the crisis they were creating by being quiet about Obama, the Senate wouldn't pass this one, and the Democrats had plenty of votes, including, of course, McCain, Snowe, etc. etc. More likely, they were all complicit in the Obama coverup, but could claim ignorance about natural born citizenship, as they generally have. It was safe to pass a non-binding resolution, SenRes 511, since it said, in essence, "We think he should be eligible, given all he has done for his country." Were McCain eligible, SenRes 511 would have been entirely pointless!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:190:./temp/~bdrHfn::|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=110|

We should have a troll table somewhere on FR to warn those looking for some semblance honest dialog. Remember, trolls aren't offended by being proved wrong. Their goal is to confuse as many as they can. With Obama’s approval rating in the thirtieth percntile, one might wonder why they still bother.

49 posted on 10/02/2010 8:22:32 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The other was legally residing here on purposes approved by the US government, with the option at the time of Obama’s birth of remaining here.

That option is called naturalization. Short of that, Barak Sr. was not a permanent resident and did not have a permanent domicile in the United States.

WKA’s parents did NOT have permanent domicile in the USA.

Gray says they did in the facts of the case, which you convenienly omitted: "His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; ..." He said it again in affirming that 14th amendment citizenship at birth was the ruling, "...of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States ..."

which would have prevented WKA from being a natural born subject, and thus a NBC according to their argument.

Gray made no argument that being a natural born subject makes one a natural born citizen.

But it is more likely that Obama will be struck down by lightening...

Good pun.

50 posted on 10/02/2010 9:13:49 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding
As for the “urban myth” of SenRes 511 and SB2678,

I'm sorry, but you apparently are thinking of something you think you read, instead of what I actually wrote. I mean, I wrote "The supposed Senate "hearings" about McCain's eligibility are an urban myth." You quoted that sentence. And yet you responded by writing a whole bunch of material about SR511 and SB2678.

Did you see me write anything about SR511 or SB2678? No. Because those are real. I'm not sure why you spent a whole long response linking to evidence of legislation I didn't dispute, while you quoted the line where I specifically disputed the alleged hearings. It's almost as if your reading comprehension momentarily suffered, or you wanted to be intentionally evasive.

On the other hand, while you went on at length about those two things, you COMPLETELY avoided the two things I DID dispute: the supposed "investigations" of McCain's birth and the supposed "hearings" about his eligibility. And you avoided those issues, and focused on the undisputed bills, while simultaneously claiming that I was trying to confuse and mislead.

Which is strange, because if I'd claimed that the Senate had held hearings on something, and then someone claimed I was fibbing, I'd respond by either admitting I was wrong or showing evidence that the hearings existed. Not changing the subject and talking about non-binding resolutions, while claiming that my critic was a liar.

(Also, since you seem to be operating under the illusion that Senate Resolutions are hugely important, consider that SR511 came between SR510 ("A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month.") and the non-passed SR512 ("A resolution honoring the life of Charlton Heston.") And SR514 was to congratulate the Boston College men's ice hockey team on winning the 2008 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I National Ice Hockey Championship.)

Once again, and to be abundantly clear this time so you can't try to change the subject to avoid admitting you're wrong, there were no Senate investigations about McCain's birth or eligibility. There were no Senate hearings about McCain's eligibility, and the only time McCain's eligibility even got mentioned in a Senate hearing was the Leahy/Chertoff exchange you quoted from, which was a single question-and-answer during a Homeland Security hearing.

So do you have evidence of the investigations or hearings you claim exist? Or are you just going to change the subject again, and try to turn the attention away from your own mistakes?

51 posted on 10/02/2010 10:31:43 PM PDT by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
"...which would have prevented WKA from being a natural born subject, and thus a NBC according to their argument."

Ah, the trolls are always trying to help you read carefully. They make Free Republic into a sort of “Where's Waldo,” where Waldo is misdirection. All you need do is find a single nonsense assertion such as the famous troll Mr Roger's “...would have prevented WKA from being a natural born subject.” Mr Rogers has spoofed you twice in one phrase. WKA never was a “subject” unless the citizenship laws of China used the term, and “thus a NBC” has no meaning other than to confuse. Don't forget, Wong Kim Ark has nothing to do with natural born citizenship. Wong Kim, born of alien parents but on U.S. soil, was determined to be a CITIZEN. Trolls will, of course, always claim otherwise because their only goal is to confuse.

There is a wonderful short essay about why the term subject is hostile to the notion of citizenship in the U.S. It is by Dr. David Ramsay, a founder and President of the States United during the Continental Congress. Here is what Dr. Ramsay says about subjects:

The United States are a new nation, or political society, formed at first by the declaration of independence, out of those British Subjects in America, who were thrown out of royal protection by act of parliament, passed in December, 1775.

A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by revolution, the political character of the people also changed from subjects to citizens.

The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who collectively, possesses sovereignty.

Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure: but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.

52 posted on 10/03/2010 1:29:44 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

We’re getting ahead of ourselves discussing WKA in a thread about the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Kerchner v. Obama. The petition does not cite U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Attorney Mario Apuzzo tries to argue that the definition of “natural born Citizen” in doubt, and says he’d like to brief the issue, but he has no basis to bring it before the High Court.

The Constitution gives SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction, on this case. The Supreme Court reviews decisions of the lower courts. The District Court and the Circuit Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The lower courts did not decide anything about whether Obama is a natural-born citizen nor what that term means; on those issues there is nothing for SCOTUS to review.

The petition is 75% a con job. It opens, as court’s rules require, with “Questions Presented”. Only the first of the four questions addresses a ruling by the lower courts, and that’s all there is.


53 posted on 10/03/2010 6:09:58 AM PDT by BladeBryan (The Kerchner Con)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I agree with you on the probable result.


54 posted on 10/03/2010 6:20:07 AM PDT by fightinJAG (Step away from the toilet. Let the housing market flush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

If you were capable of reading, you would see that the Court used the meaning of the “precisely analogous” phrase ‘natural born subject’ to derive the Founder’s intent in using “natural born citizen”. Thus, if WKA qualified under common law as a NBS, he would have met the Founder’s intent for being a NBC, and thus a citizen per the Constitution, which would override any treaties with China.

But that requires reading, which you seem incapable of doing. Here is a link for anyone on this thread who wishes to read WKA. They should ask themselves, “Why does the Court spend so much time on the meaning of NBS & NBC if it is irrelevant to the case?”

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


55 posted on 10/03/2010 7:06:21 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: edge919

The facts are the parents of WKA returned to China and lived there as citizens. They did NOT remain forever in the USA. And while Obama’s father left the USA, his mother remained a US citizen for the remainder of her life.

Under the law, at the time of WKA’s birth, they had the right to remain in the USA - as did Obama Sr.

“Gray made no argument that being a natural born subject makes one a natural born citizen.”

He says that the meaning of terms like NBC is found in the meaning of the common law terms, and says “The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”

Other quotes he cites in the decision include:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and “mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;”

Etc. Etc.

Apparently they quoted these, not because they had any relation to the case, but because Justices are paid by the word...


56 posted on 10/03/2010 7:17:19 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
And while Obama’s father left the USA, his mother remained a US citizen for the remainder of her life.

This is generally supposed, but it honestly doesn't have any concrete factual basis that I'm aware. She married two foreign nationals. Many nations retained derivative citizenship, wherein the female spouse attains the citizenship of her husband. Indonesia didn't just not recognize dual citizenship, it forbad it.

So, you can't say with any degree of certainty what Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro's citizenship might have been at any point after her first marriage.

57 posted on 10/03/2010 7:34:08 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Did a natural born subject of the king of England have the right of expatriation, Mr. Rogers?


58 posted on 10/03/2010 7:36:49 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Under US law, yes. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Impressment


59 posted on 10/03/2010 7:41:03 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Well, if nothing else, this will slow Obama and his Administration from their treasonous usurping of the Constitution, if only for a few minutes.

Not even that long.

60 posted on 10/03/2010 7:44:29 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Hey mo-joe! Here's another one for your collection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson