Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Atty Mario Apuzzo will be on the Sean & Frank Radio Show, 680 WCBM, of Baltimore MD - Monday, 8 Mar 2010, 8:35 a.m. Segment
Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####
Lookin' forward to it!!! Sic 'em, Mario!!
ReplyDeleteI have read in the blogs that the courts' actions have all been routine applications of well-settled law on standing. Really? When all three branches of government turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who then has standing to support and defend the Constitution? Nobody? Is there case law on that particular issue?
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you something, if it were discovered that Obama were 30 years old, and the Legislative and Executive branches of government stood by and did nothing regarding Article II's age 35 requirement, and we were told to just buck it up and vote in the 2012 election if we didn't like it, would the people then have standing?
I still do not understand how the DOJ can represent Obama on this issue. It appears to me that there is a serious conflict of interest and apparently unconstitutional. Any thoughts Charles?
ReplyDeleteRobert, I wrote an essay asking this question here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/19/presidential-eligibility-three-simple-requirements-2/
I was trying to remove the "political correctness" of the citizenship part of the debate (including "birthright citizenship" and "dual citizenship"--both of which, although practiced, are not grounded in the Constitution), so people could see more clearly the debacle of lack of vetting, lack of Congressional action, and lack of standing in the Courts.
All of these problems, in addition to the proper definition of natural born citizen (which points to the even larger issue of the foundations of citizenship in this country) add up to a huge mess. And all have the potential to set precedent.
More and more people are waking up and seeing this. And instead of being labeled as patriots, they are called crazy, racists, and extremists.
God help us all.
Robert:
ReplyDeleteGood question. Judging from the Judicial response to date the answer would have to be that the man could be, say, 12 years old.
Once you trash the Constitution, there's no tomorrow and/or no stopping with any clause or sentence in it.
Sallyven:
ReplyDelete... "god help us all" ...
Certainly SOMEONE should since neither Congress nor the Judiciary seem to be interested in upholding the Oaths they took.
Guess we'll have to ...
Mario:
ReplyDeleteYour segment on the Sean & Frank show went very well for such a short time period.
The host seemed to actually be aware of the issue and of what you were expounding upon and pointedly gave out the URL for this site as a good source of detailed information on the issue ... which is certainly is!!
VERY fine work my man - keep it up.
The defense response today should be very interesting and, I'd think, have a good bit of the "same old, same old" in it. We'll soon see.
Mario,
ReplyDeleteBRAVO!!!
Your interview was direct, on point & thanks for calling out the constitutional lawyers & scholars who have stayed silent on this subject or publically cast us aside.
Keeping you & Charles in our prayers.
God Bless & God Speed,
Linda
Good interview Mario. I'll try to find a podcast replay of it for this site.
ReplyDeleteCharles