Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner appeared on Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate. Topics discussed: Appellant's Opening Brief filing yesterday with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA for the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit, the one year anniversary of the filing of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit filed at 2:50 a.m. on 20 Jan 2009, and ongoing efforts to educate the public and promote knowledge about the merits and issues involved in this lawsuit in the national print media. Dr. Kate's Blog with link to radio show from there:http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-unconstitutional-obama/
~Direct link to Revolution Radio show at BlogTalkRadio.com:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2010/01/21/revolution-radio-the-unconstitutional-obama
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired), Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, see this site and help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org
Lookin' forward to the talk. The two of you make a great pair at clarifying the issues involved!
ReplyDelete"Break a leg" as we in the entertainment biz say!!
thankyou-jen
ReplyDeleteTake a look at this article, An All-White Basketball League? That’s Funny," at http://www.pamil-visions.net/an-all-white-basetball-league-thats-funny/210801/
ReplyDeleteThe article takes the metaphor of an imaginary all-white basketball league based in the South and tries to use it to show that the "natural born Citizen" clause is racist. Again using the metaphor, it argues that "sports is about inclusiveness" and that such a league will "tak[e] our nation several steps back..."
It talks about white people wanting to set up an all-white basketball league. It says that to be a team member, "you must not only be a natural born citizen of the United States, but have a Caucasian mother and father." The writer considers the concept of such a league to be equivalent to pushing an "elitist mentality onto the nation."
In describing the league's requirement of having to be a "natural born Citizen," the writer, Kristen, says, "I mean, what does this really sound like, people? Let’s call it what it is."
What Kristen does not get is that in order to be a "natural born Citizen," you must have been born in the U.S. to a mother and father who are also U.S. citizens. I do not see any race or color in those qualifications. Kristen's article is nothing but a desperate attempt at playing the race card in the Obama eligibility issue. It is a loathsome attempt at that. It is demagoguery at its best and pure race bating. What is the writer saying, that we are supposed to give Obama a pass because he is "black?" The writer should should just get over the fact that Obama does not qualify for the Office of President, not because of his race or the color of his skin but because he does not meet the constitutional eligibility requirements which have absolutely nothing to do with his race or color. To try to justify Obama's holding on to an office for which he is not constitutionally eligible by using his race or color is despicable and itself racist.
Lastly, if the writer wants to write about anything, she should start by writing about Obama refusing to show his birth certificate to the nation. But then I guess because Obama is "black" he does not have to do that.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
I just left this comment at Dr. Conspiracy's blog:
ReplyDeletePart I of II
"You said “the rest of the world knows that there is no well-known legal authority stating that the common law required citizen parents.” You are very wrong about that. Without getting into so much of the evidence, I will just direct you to Thomas Jefferson and the Minor v. Happersett decision itself.
In Minor, Justice Morrison Waite said:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens” (emphasis supplied).
Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 (1874).
The Supreme Court in that very paragraph in effect said that a “citizen” is a child born in the United States to United States citizen parents. Since Happersett was born in the United States to parents who were both United States citizens, it was not necessary for the Court do determine the answer to the second question, i.e., whether it is relevant to consider the status of the child’s parents when determining if the child is a “citizen.” As we can see, the Court clearly defined a “natural born Citizen” to be a child born in the United States to United States citizen parents. Note that the Court did not say “citizen fathers.” The Court said that as to this class of citizen there has never been any doubt as to their “natural born citizen” status. On the other hand, the Court refused to say that a person born in the United States to foreign parents was even a “citizen,” let alone a “natural born citizen.”
First, the Minor decision has to be analyzed with the understanding that our citizenship laws have to be defined within the historical context of the beginnings of our nation. We started the new nation by way of revolution. At that point we had to first have “citizens.” These were the first members of the new society and therefore its first “citizens.” Thereafter, we had “natural born Citizens.” These were the descendents of “citizens,” the latter being either born citizens or naturalized citizens. Hence, our nation needed citizens first before we could have “natural born Citizens.”
Second, we have to consider that in Minor’s quoted passage, the Court referred to the “common law.” Hence, the Court said that the “common law” provided the definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Under that “common law,” the Court clearly defined a “natural-born citizen” to be a child born in the United States to United States citizen parents. Note that the Court did not say “citizen fathers.” The Court said that as to this class of citizen there has never been any doubt as to their “natural-born citizen” status. On the other hand, the Court refused to say that a person born in the United States to foreign parents was even a “citizen,” let alone a “natural born citizen.”
Continued . . .
Part II of II
ReplyDeleteIn referring to the “common law,” and providing a definition of “natural-born citizen” that requires that the parents of the child also be citizens, clearly the United States Supreme Court did not look to let alone rely upon English common law for that definition, for that law only required birth on the soil and made no reference to the child’s parents (jus soli). If Minor had looked to English common law there is no way that it would have had any doubts that a child born in the jurisdiction to alien parents would have been a “natural born subject” (the expression that the English common law used). Minor was decided in 1874 while Wong was decided in 1898, or 24 years later. Minor, being closer in time to the Founding would have more precedential value and be more reliable than Wong Kim Ark on the question of whether English common law defined an Article II “natural born Citizen” and what the definition of that citizen is.
In light of Minor’s clear statement as to what our federal “common law” (not English common law) said regarding what a “natural born citizen” is, one can only wonder how Wonk Kim Ark could have gotten the question of whether English common law defined our national citizenship so wrong. Wong Kim Ark becomes highly suspect given that it made no attempt to explain Minor’s clear rejection of the English common law as the basis for defining national citizenship and its embracing of jus sanguinis citizenship rather than jus soli citizenship.
Wong only answered the question left open by Minor, i.e., whether a person born in the United States to foreign parents was even a “citizen.” The decision had nothing to do with what a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, the decision dealt with the issue of whether our nation was going to allow a person born on U.S. soil to alien parents to be an initial member of our society. The Court said yes and that is all it said. But allowing that person to be an initial member of the society did not make that person a “natural born Citizen.”
Clinton: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs
Obama: “I am a natural born citizen…”
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/
According to the Left, Obama has satisfied his burden of proof that he is a natural born citizen with just his posted Certification of Live Birth. Can anyone tell me which burden of proof was used to make this legal conclusion? By a preponderance of the evidence, by clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt?
ReplyDeleteI saw this hoax article about the all white bball team, on DRUDGE!! It's totally bogus! Unbelievable how far they will go, when there are highly qualified natural born Americans who are black, why are they focused on this one idiot who is horribly inept, constitutionally unqualified, anti-American, and destructive?
ReplyDeleteRobert: Obama's COLB settled that he's a statutory US Citizen (if it's as it reads), and as Article II excludes statutory citizens as eligible for POTUS (unless alive at the time of ratification), then Obama's COLB has established that he is ineligible to be president.
ReplyDelete