Posted on 11/30/2010 2:24:09 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
The Supreme Court has again cast aside an appeal that raised doubts about President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a grass-roots legal issue that has gained little legal or political footing, but continues to persist in the courts.
The justices without comment Monday rejected a challenge from Charles Kerchner Jr., a Pennsylvania man who sought a trial in federal court forcing the president to produce documents regarding his birth and citizenship.
Kerchner's attorney, Mario Apuzzo, had argued in a petition with the Supreme Court that Obama did not fit the definition of a "natural-born citizen" required for the nation's highest office, as defined by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
doesn’t obama have to re-qualify (citizenship wise) if he wants to be placed on any 2012 ballet?
all it will take is just one state to enforce this requirement, for this to blow up for him.
The South started the war, and and the South takes full responsibility for everything resulting from its own actions.
Hey, you're the one who brought it into an Obama's citizenship thread, not me.
According to the HDOH, he has a real BC but it’s not legally valid because it was amended/altered in 2006 (my best guess based on HDOH responses is that the amendment was actually to COMPLETE it so it is also a late BC). This was revealed indirectly through legal responses the HDOH has made to requests for documents.
The HDOH has also indirectly confirmed that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery.
I have a question for the moderator: Why did it take so long for my previous post to show up? I posted about 4 hours ago.
Where in the Constitution are either state governments (the people responsible for deciding how presidential electors are chosen) or Congress given the authority to interpret and apply the Constitution?
Article III directly gives the authority to the federal judiciary.
That means some state SOS is not allowed to decide what “natural born citizen” means, and without being able to decide that, how can they evaluate a candidate’s eligibility? Same thing holds true for Congress.
Actually, all indications from the Hawaii Department of Health are that Obama does not have a legally valid birth certificate from there. The one he’s got was amended/altered in 2006 and is thus legally invalid.
Check Fukino’s statements again. She said that they have his original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures and that they have “vital records” claiming that Obama was born in Hawaii. Nowhere does she say that they have a LEGALLY VALID BC for Obama (they don’t) or that Obama WAS born in Hawaii (Hawaii officials can’t vouch for the accuracy of any of the claims on an amended/altered BC unless and until the BC is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and found to be probative, according to HRS 338-17).
The HDOH has indirectly confirmed, in 2 different ways through official, legal communications, that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery.
For more information and the documentation for my claims you can start at http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com and follow the links.
Article III is very short. I don't see where it directly gives the authority to "interpret and apply the Constitution" to the Courts.
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to point the wording out?
Let's assume you are correct. Do you seriously contend handing over more power to five lifetime tenure guys in black robes is a good idea?
I posted a sample law that could be enacted at the state level, at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2635107/posts I’d actually really like to get some feedback and constructive criticism on it because I would like to try to make contact with people at the state levels in states where there’s potential for something to be signed into law. So anybody who’s reading this and cares about this issue, please give it a look and see what you think.
We should see a handful of states pass laws for the 2012 presidential elections that makes Obama and other candidates prove that they are natural born citizens. I predict Obama will bow out to avoid any real evidence that he is at least ‘native born.’ And if he does do that, it becomes a two step that takes us back to the courts to compel (backed by state laws) the federal judiciary to rule on natural born citizenship.
I liked it.
Every government official takes the oath to support and ‘defend’ the Constitutution. Using a cliche, a lot depends on what you mean by ‘defend’. It can be active or passive. To me the higher offices like Congress or Courts demand that the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution be carried out in the active mode. Any person in these offices who seeing or knowing
of a wide public concern about some possible breach of the Constitution has a moral,ethical and legal obligation of their sworn ‘to defend’ oath to assure the citizens of the USA that the Constitution is wholy preserved from any suspected breach. In this framework of dedication it is apparent that the people occupying these offices, especially the Courts, have failed their oaths.
Every government official takes the oath to support and ‘defend’ the Constitutution. Using a cliche, a lot depends on what you mean by ‘defend’. It can be active or passive. To me the higher offices like Congress or Courts demand that the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution be carried out in the active mode. Any person in these offices who seeing or knowing
of a wide public concern about some possible breach of the Constitution has a moral,ethical and legal obligation of their sworn ‘to defend’ oath to assure the citizens of the USA that the Constitution is wholy preserved from any suspected breach. In this framework of dedication it is apparent that the people occupying these offices, especially the Courts, have failed their oaths.
That was genuinely LOL comment! Thanks for a good laugh!!
While you are well known here as an Obot jamese777, you are correct. That is why the Kerchner complaint charged Cheney, Pelosi, and Congress with denying equal protection under the law. Cmdr. Kerchner sent registered letters asking that Obama be vetted as McCain was. The reason that Obama wasn't vetted was that every Senator knew he was ineligible. But they also knew McCain was almost certainly ineligible too. Every Senator signed Senate Res 511 in hearings for which in the Senate Judiciary Committee the requirement for two citizen parents was repeated by Michael Chertoff and Patrick Leahy.
Nothing important is being hidden. Obama is ineligible because of our common law, repeated in a dozen cases though not essential to a decision. The Congressional Research Service published an internal memo in April 2009, sending it to all in Congress, telling Congress how to respond, how to evade answering the question of Obama’s eligibility. And all of Congress concealed the fact of the fourteen page memo, by request, and because it would reveal that they all knew there was a problem with Obama's eligibility.
What we see here is the corruption of the Supreme Court. The two Obama appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor, whose appointments would have been nullified if the the court confirmed John Marshall, Morrison Waite, Horace Gray, John Bingham, Joseph Story, James Wilson, etc. etc., refused to recuse themselves. That is a clear conflict of interest. It doesn't require an article or amendment to understand that having a judge decide whether her or she is to lose his job is unethical. We do not have an ethical court. They now perform ceremonial functions while it still serves the purpose of the executive to bless their edicts with the adjective "Supreme."
Commander Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo have exposed the coupling of our executive, legislative, and judicial branches. They have exposed the value of having dupes appointed justices of the court. Republicans too have been exposed as complicit. For most the duplicity is personal. Its about money. It is unlikely that Lisa Murkowski ever held a principle that couldn't be bought. Democrats control electoral processes in Alaska and showed that they can put anyone the chose into office. The guarantees in the Declaration and the Constitution are now impressive sounding slogans with no recourse of an honorable court to resolve departures from our core of law.
The only path now is to assert the power of people, and that must start with undoing what George Soros and others undertook before we understood the consequences of not having verifiable elections. We have no way of knowing how people vote, and both parties have failed to insist. Soros funded Acorn years ago, and the Secretary of State Project to help take away representation of and by the people. We haven't a clue how people really vote. While there may still be a few local precincts with party oversight, paper ballots, and hand counts, they are a small minority. No other mechanism today would satisfy a court's chain of evidence requirement, or our FDA's audit trail requirements for drug certification (from personal experience).
After overcoming Acorn and Soros’ Sec. of State. project, and the corruption in most every SEIU administered state election office, we must vet every candidate for adherence to the Constitution, and remove him if they fails. Then we can replace federal and Supreme Court Justices because they have a sworn duty to address violations of the Constitution. The Senate can remove Justices. Federal judges are political appointees. The sudden appearance of a Russian- Educated attorney from the firm of Obama’s Senior Council, Robert Bauer, into the office a federal judge Carter who had promised discovery stinks - it is the appearance of corruption. Carter violated a witnessed promise of discovery if Orly Taitz would forgo her right to discovery since the Government Attorneys had not responded to a properly filed complaint. He lied, probably under duress.
Obama is in violation of the Constitution, having been born a British subject. Every justice is aware of this. Supreme Court justices have grounds for original jurisdiction. They can't question elections, but they can question a violation of Constitutional eligibility. Roberts, who took three tries to administer the oath of office, understands this, and should be impeached. Only Justice Thomas has acknowledged the Court's intransigence.
So jamese777, you are correct. Republicans knew, and protected McCain, because Hillary would surely be president if McCain were exposed late in the election cycle. It would be interesting to know who informed every Republican that they must keep quiet about Obama's ineligibility. Republicans, understandably, didn't have the stomach to remove McCain themselves during the primaries, even though some smart Democrats had spelled out his eligibility problems clearly. An amendment or clarification should make foreign-born children of military citizens eligible, but it hasn't yet happened. The latest to try were Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama in SB 2678 in Feb of 2008.
And you are correct about Roberts. What do they have on Roberts? Was he the holdout? He knew before he administered the oath that Obama was in violation of Article II Section 1, and thus lied when he was sworn. The two Obama appointees should have recused themselves, but there is no law that I know of governing recusal. That they know the words from Minor v. Happersett, and have not done their duty is misprision - seldom used, but appropriate, just as natural born citizenship is a seldom used definition.
There is no way that the Supreme Court is going to allow discovery on Obama’s birth certificate for the simple reason that they do not want to be responsible for what might occur if it is ever proven that he is ineligible.
That, IMNSHO, is the reason why every other challenge has failed as well.
The considered judgement of the black-robed brigade is that the removal of an illegal President would be more dangerous to the country as a whole than letting him serve out his term and hoping he won’t do too much damage before he is replaced.
I disagree, but there it is...
Article III, Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting....(snip, a list of different kinds of cases)... In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Cognress shall make...”
When it talks about “both as to Law and Fact”, “Law” refers to interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution, laws, or treaty, and “Fact” refers to the facts of the case at hand, which is the APPLICATION of the law to the particular case.
So, for instance, the definition of “natural born citizen” would be an interpretation of the Constitution. Looking at the circumstances of McCain’s birth, for instance, and determining whether he specifically is a natural born citizen would be application of the law to the facts of the case.
Without knowing the definition of “natural born citizen”, a state SOS could obey a law requiring McCain to present his BC, but without a definition of “natural born citizen” that SOS wouldn’t know whether McCain was a natural born citizen or not. And the same thing with Obama based on the dual citizenship issue as well as other things that would be readily apparent if his actual documentation was known.
The judiciary has been able to get away with murder because we the people don’t have any way to hold them accountable - partly because they can always deny standing if they don’t want to rule on something. The system is set up to have a check on the judiciary by allowing the people to amend the Constitution. So if SCOTUS, for instance, would rule that gay marriage is a Constitutional right, the way that the people could check the power of the court to legislate from the bench is by amending the Constituiton, for example, to forbid same-gender marriage.
Of course, activist courts have also denied the people the right to amend their own state Constitutions, so the problem you’re talking about is a real one - and I definitely sympathize with your point.
But just because some referees make bad calls doesn’t mean that you play football without any referees. You have to have referees. You just have to do whatever you can to make them less tempted to make bad calls. Part of that is how judges are appointed and/or approved. We should never have elected Congress-critters who would approve a SCOTUS justice who had falsified the AMA statements on partial-birth abortion in order to push through Clinton’s pro-abortion agenda. What she did is contempt of court, and our elected Congress-critters rewarded Kagan with a SCOTUS position after seeing the contempt she has for the rule of law as well as the role of science? If we had elected decent Congress-critters we could have had some influence over SCOTUS.
Lost case after case? No trial has been allowed. Not one judge granting the opportunity to present evidence. No red flag for you?
for a starter, don't let this news/historic story DIE
This case was not even about that. It was about his father being a British subject, and Obama not being a natural born citizen.
Actually, when a judge doesn’t even hold a trial in case after case it usually means the subject is frivolous.
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.