Posted on 11/23/2010 9:43:51 PM PST by Errant
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Will the Court affirm the Circuit court's opinion that the trial court did not err when refusing to hear Appuzzo's case, or just refuse to hear plaintiff's appeal entirely.
It's the latter that is much more likely. They'll deny cert, probably without comment.
So it is.
Now suppose a lower court found that Obama was born in Kenya to BHO, Sr. and a British tourist. The Supreme Court could affirm or deny the lower court's ruling or simply allow it to stand. But my point in #156 was that it wouldn't matter anyway, since the Constitution leaves no doubt that it's up to Congress, not the courts, to remove a president.
IOW, birthers looking for relief in the courts are wasting their time.
I'll take you last point, first. Yes. This is absolutely correct.
"Now suppose a lower court found that Obama was born in Kenya to BHO, Sr. and a British tourist. The Supreme Court could affirm or deny the lower court's ruling or simply allow it to stand. "
It's possible that a lower court could try such a case on the merits, presuming that it was brought by someone with standing. And on the merits, a lower court could opine that because of the facts and the law, Obama wasn't qualified - assuming such a case was brought before Obama was inaugurated (and assuming the trial court issued a TRO, restraining Obama's inauguration until such time litigation had ended).
"IOW, birthers looking for relief in the courts are wasting their time."
Yes, with respect to this term, that too is absolutely correct. There is no judicial remedy to this "problem" for this term.
It is possible that a suit could be brought in federal court (or state court) by someone with standing (like his opponent, a state Secretary of State or a major political party), to disallow him ballot access because of qualification problems. There is ample precedent for such a case being heard on the merits if it's brought by a qualifying plaintiff.
The court would be placed in the strange predicament of hearing a case that argues that a man who is president, shouldn't be allowed access to the ballot because he's not qualified to be president. Unusual, but theoretically not impossible.
Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity have all questioned Obama’s eligibility, his birth certificate and his Natural Born Citizen status. Today, November 23, 2010, Rush Limbaugh called Obama an imposter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szWer9Nqv6Y
Full disclosure, two of my five children were born abroad on US base hospitals while I was serving on active-duty. The most accurate thing we can say with respect to their qualification as "natural-born" citizens, is that it's entirely unsettled law. Since the Supreme Court has never heard a case specifically addressing this issue, there is no definitive answer.
Having said that, I think that most constitutional scholars and most professors of law would agree that the chances of a court ruling that a child born on a base hospital to US parents, one of whom was in service to his country, was not eligible to be president, is virtually ZERO.
In fact, if you ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she believes that her grandson who was born in Paris (a place with no US bases) is ENTIRELY eligible to be President because he has two US parents, or so she opined in the oral arguments for Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS back in 2000 or 2001. I suspect she isn't alone, and indeed Breyer seems to echo that opinion in those very same oral arguments.
I doubt that a Robert's Court would read "natural-born" so broadly (although Kennedy is notoriously liberal in immigration cases), but I'd be shocked if they didn't unanimously agree that children born abroad while on US military bases, are indeed eligible to be President.
Here's the best part - I received my dental qualification on-line. Call me if you need a checkup. I've got a new Dremel and an awesome pair of pliers I'm dying to try out.
The stuff you dream up amazes me.
Check out Mario Apuzzo’s web site. There may be archives of radio shows he has done. I forget the exact timing but he sued Obama when he was a private citizen and before Congress tallied the votes. He also sued Congress, Pelosi, Cheney and others. He anticipated no standing arguements, etc. Mario Apuzzo’s case was by far the best filed. It has been slowly working it’s way through the courts and has not been thrown out.
More people and FR’ers should get behind Mario instead of watching idiot ball games and dance contests on TV like drooling idiot TV viewers.
Make that Kettlecorn, please.
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeere we go!
It really is remarkable, isn't it? Medication might help, but there's a chance we're well past that point.
From the post in your link:
"This is part of the transcript of the exchange between Congressman Serrano and Justice Thomas.
There was no discussion of Obama, and there is no way of knowing if Thomas was thinking of the president or his eligibility."
SERRANO: So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one.
THOMAS: We're evading that one. We're giving you another option.
[end transcript excerpt]
I can see both points of view on Justice Thomas' statement. Given the boiling controversy over Obama's eligibility to be president, it's understandable that some people would come to the conclusion that Justice Thomas was referring to that.
Did he use this unique opportunity to obliquely refer to the Obama eligibility issue? I don't think there's any real way to know.
Laura Ingraham was a sell out anti-birther along with Neil boring Boortz, Hugh worthless Hewitt, Beck, O’Reilly, Medved, Coulter (sadly but she dates muslims and liberals) and a few others.
Something happened on the same day when they all came out. Probably Saudi Prine Al Waleed bin Tal who owns stock in Fox,CNN and Disney/ABC plus has the other 3 networks - told them to attack “birthers” because the Saudi paid good money to get the muslim in the white hut.
Those who have not smeared birthers include:
Rush - he makes little jokes about it to keep it alive but NEVER smears or makes fund of “birthers.”
Savage, Hannity, Miller, Levin, Steve Malmzberg, Cunningham and one or two others.
“So where is his “Certificate of Loss of Nationality” or even a copy?”
Sven hasn’t made one yet. Give him time.
I’ve got a bicuspid that’s bugging me.
If I send you a .jpg of the tooth, can you have a look?
Sure, but wait until after Happy Hour. I'm much better once I've had a few cocktails - you know, just to steady the hands, and whatnot.
The evidence that they were talking about Serrano is overwhelming. The evidence that they were talking about Obama doesn't exist.
The birthplace of Washington’s parents were irrelevant as to his eligibility for POTUS. Article II Section I clause 5 contains a grandfather exception, to wit... No person except a natural born Citizen, or A CITIZEN of the UNITED STATES AT THE TME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the office of President.
In the case of Barry Obama/Soetero/Soebarkah/whatever, unless he is in fact the immortal blood sucking vampire that I suspect that he may be, there is no way that he can lay claim to being covered this 221 year old clause.
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.