Saturday, April 17, 2010

The Court and Congress Expected the Other to Resolve the Obama Eligibility Question

On Thursday, April 15, 2010, Hon. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was giving testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the issue of the composition of the United States Supreme Court. The hearing was broadcast on C-Span. Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-NY (now the most senior Member of Congress of Puerto Rican descent), and he were having a pleasant exchange. Rep. Serrano was explaining to Justice Thomas how he feels “a little uneasy” despite much of the dismay of his friends on the “left” about having a hearing for the Supreme Court because of the respect that he has for the Court. He added that it was “humbling” but that the public understood the importance of what the Court does and the impact that it has on the future of our country. Justice Thomas thanked Rep. Serrano for his words. Rep. Serrano then jumped in and commented on Justice Thomas’ view on who can sit on the Supreme Court. The following exchange occurred:

Rep. Serrano: I’m glad to hear that you don’t think that there has to be a judge on the Court because I am not a judge. I have never been a judge.

Justice Thomas: And you don’t have to be born in the United States. So you never have to ask, answer that question (smiling).

Rep. Serrano: Oh, really?

Justice Thomas: Yeah (the audience laughing).

Rep. Serrano: So, you haven’t answered the one whether I can serve as (Justice Thomas interjecting) President but you answered this one (smiling).

Justice Thomas: We’re evading that one (laughter from Justice Thomas and the audience). We are giving you another option (more laughter from Justice Thomas and the audience).

Rep. Serrano: Thanks alot.

Justice Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Rep. Serrano: Mrs. Emerson.

Mrs. Emerson, Ranking Members, then starts to address Justice Thomas as he continues to laugh.

The YouTube video may be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA.
A biography on Rep. Serrano may be found at http://serrano.house.gov/Biography.aspx.

What does all of this mean in relation to Obama’s eligibility question? What is the message behind all the joking, laughter, and body language that can be viewed on the video? From Justice Thomas’ first mentioning that one does not have to be born in the United States to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, it appears that Justice Thomas is telling Congress that the Court is angry with Congress for allowing Obama to sit as President even though there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he was born in the United States. Rep. Serrano read the real message of Justice Clarence’s statement and let him know about it, saying “Oh, really.” Rep. Serrano did not like Justice Thomas blaming Congress for the mishandling of the matter so he shoots back at Justice Thomas by telling him the Court failed to answer the Obama eligibility question when it should have but now is answering the question of whether someone who is not born in the United States can sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. From this comment we can conclude that Congress did not believe that it was its job to answer the question of whether Obama is eligible to be President and expected the judicial branch of government to answer that question. This is borne out by the many letters that Congressmen wrote to concerned Americans on the question of what was being done to address the issue of whether Obama was eligible for the Presidency. Justice Thomas then answered that the Court is “evading that one” and giving Congress “another option.” Here we can see that the Court is telling Congress that it avoided addressing the Obama eligibility issue so Congress could resolve it through the political process, giving Congress some other unknown “option” to resolve the crisis. We can only speculate what that other “option” is at this point. Needless to say, it appears that both Congress and the Court are angry at each other for the constitutional crisis that each accuses the other to have caused regarding the Obama eligibility question.

The Obama eligibility issue has run its course through the political process. We can reasonably expect Obama to run for a second term. We surely do not want to repeat during Obama’s second run for President what occurred during his first. We cannot reasonably expect to resolve the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii and the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause by way of Americans voting at the polls. This issue is not going away. It is dividing our nation and needs to be decided as soon as possible. There is now no other way to resolve the question of Obama’s eligibility other than through the legal process. As Chief Justice John Marshall so well taught in many of his important U.S. Supreme Court decisions, there is no doubt that the judicial branch of government is well equipped and capable of deciding this critical issue of constitutional law and by doing so will not interfere in the work of the other two branches of government. The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case which is now pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia with a tentative merits hearing date of June 29, 2010 gives the judicial branch of government the prime opportunity to put this constitutional crisis finally to rest one way or the other.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 17, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

P.S. Read the comments made on March 25, 2010, by Minister of Lands, Mr. James Orengo, Member of the Kenyan Parliament on the issue of Obama's country of birth during a session of the Kenyan National Assembly:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/current-minister-of-kenyan-government.html

73 comments:

Benaiah said...

United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=897

“…the framers …understood that for liberty to exist the populace needed to be educated enough to understand liberty and to be able to defend liberty. They also understood that liberty was not on automatic pilot, that liberty would not exist simply because it was once started, and that having won it it was very delicate and had to be protected…”

Christinewjc said...

I first heard about this video clip over at a site called "Above Top Secret" via The Obama File. Found the comments quite interesting. Much speculation was bantered about by different people posting comments at that site.

This "joking" between Justice Thomas and Rep. Serrano appeared to be confusing at first, but your explanation is excellent and makes the most sense. It certainly demonstrates and explains why no one wants to get involved with settling this issue.

Personally, I don't find it funny - at all! It makes me terribly sad for our nation. What a huge letdown these people are! They are supposed to be at the forefront in protecting our liberty and freedom! The checks and balances that the Framers devised are not working because of what...political correctness? Political expediency? Fear of being called "racist?" The race-baiting and false accusations of racism against ordinary Americans who don't want socialism is happening anyway. What would we have to lose? Nothing - but the truth about Obama. Americans WANT the truth. We The People are so sick of all of the lies!!

I already knew that we had two branches of gangster government with ObaMARXIST and this radical progressive Congress. But hearing a justice of the Supreme Court actually "joke" about such a serious issue made my jaw drop and my heart sink.

I'm disgusted, disappointed and appalled!

Dixhistory said...

DixHistory's, quick read on Obama being a dual citizen at best!
Obama is ineligible to hold the office of president based solely on the fact that he had dual citizenship at his birth. A fact which obama has admitted on his campaign website and in his book. He also described himself as “native citizen” rather than the “natural born Citizen” required by the US Constitution to be eligible for the office of President of these United States. In a Democracy like these uneducated people try and tell you we have as our form of government, Obama's Natural Born Citizen ship might be called a political question but in our Republic it is a legal matter.


Heck I had just up dated my pages and come here to find I am in the ball park.

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/obama.htm

James said...

This doesn't sound good about your case getting to SCOTUS if you loose your appeal.

Dixhistory said...

I want to express my thought on what James said:

"This doesn't sound good about your case getting to SCOTUS if you loose your appeal."

If my guess is right obama is shooting himself every time he appoints another SC judge.

I feel sure that Justice Thomas as well as a couple of others would love to hear a ripe case on its merits.

Justin said...

I think the other "option" Thomas was talking about was Serrano being a SC judge instead of the POTUS.

juniper55 said...

Check out full broadcast of CSPAN coverage:

Look for "On America and the Courts" and the titles:

Justices discuss security, future court cases at budget hearing

or

Justice Breyer: Court may deal with health care legislation

The hearing was from Thursday and it was apparently broadcast Saturday April 17 in the evening.

http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/04/17/HP/R/31915/Justices+discuss+security+future+court+cases+at+budget+hearing.aspx

I haven't watched the full thing yet but there was an exchange right at the beginning about Sotomeyer (sp?) being the newest member and the first of Puerto Rican heritage.

Praying for oral arguments!! And heavenly intervention...

Benaiah said...

Legislation introduced by Rep. Serrano:

H.R. 182
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-182

To provide discretionary authority to an immigration judge to determine that an alien parent of a United States citizen child should not be ordered removed, deported, or excluded from the United States.

H.R. 4862
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-4862

To permit Members of Congress to administer the oath of allegiance to applicants for naturalization, and for other purposes.

H. Con. Res. 3: "English Plus Resolution"
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc111-3

[...]

Whereas multilingualism improves United States diplomatic efforts by fostering enhanced communication and greater understanding between nations;

Whereas multilingualism has historically been an essential element of national security, including the use of Native American languages in the development of coded communications during World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War;

Whereas multilingualism promotes greater cross-cultural understanding between different racial and ethnic groups in the United States;

Whereas there is no threat to the status of English in the United States, a language that is spoken by 92 percent of United States residents, according to the 2000 United States Census, and there is no need to designate any official United States language or to adopt similar restrictionist legislation;

Whereas ‘English-only’ measures, or proposals to designate English as the sole official language of the United States, would violate traditions of cultural pluralism, divide communities along ethnic lines, jeopardize the provision of law enforcement, public health, education, and other vital services to those whose English is limited, impair government efficiency, and undercut the national interest by hindering the development of language skills needed to enhance international competitiveness and conduct diplomacy; and

Whereas such ‘English-only’ measures would represent an unwarranted Federal regulation of self-expression, abrogate constitutional rights to freedom of expression and equal protection of the laws, violate international human rights treaties to which the United States is a signatory, and contradict the spirit of the 1923 Supreme Court case Meyer v. Nebraska, wherein the Court declared that ‘The protection of the Constitution extends to all; to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue’: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the United States Government should pursue policies that--

(1) encourage all residents of this country to become fully proficient in English by expanding educational opportunities and access to information technologies;

(2) conserve and develop the Nation’s linguistic resources by encouraging all residents of this country to learn or maintain skills in languages other than English;

(3) assist Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians, and other peoples indigenous to the United States, in their efforts to prevent the extinction of their languages and cultures;

(4) continue to provide services in languages other than English as needed to facilitate access to essential functions of government, promote public health and safety, ensure due process, promote equal educational opportunity, and protect fundamental rights; and

(5) recognize the importance of multilingualism to vital American interests and individual rights, and oppose ‘English-only’ measures and other restrictionist language measures.

jayjay said...

Benaiah:

Yep, that entire HR4862 shindangle is merely part and parcel of the Omnesty efforts.

Just a few more pieces of our country ripped away by these Communists.

A pen said...

While it is possible the exchange was as Mario suggests I see it as a taunt that the congress did in fact know it was going to violate the constitution and it was done with the full knowledge of the court. The deal struck was if Obama could get voted in that the lower courts would use standing to remove the supremes from the question. This way the supremes avoid embarrasing themselves but the politically vulnerable would carry the entire burden and pay the price. Thomas is laughing at the legislative branch has stuck their nose in a beehive. Serrano is laughing because if congress goes down they will take the justices down with them. That meeting between Obama, Biden and the court minus only Alito, the lone patriot, was the closing of the deal. Their fates are tied together. In either case the two racist views were out in the open. All the more reason to flush the guilty from their perches.

The Stacker said...

Do you think they know the details of Obama's vital info OR they just know that it is dubious at best and should have been investigated???

VERY interesting. New thing every day. Now find the smoking gun. The 4th leg needs the national enquirer or something to actually get something done here to make it undeniable.

Spaulding said...

Stacker, what more does the court need to know? Obama's father was never a citizen. It has nothing to do with Obama's citizenship, which may well be, as he "claims,
native born U.S." The court knows full well. We most likely don't understand the political undercurrents.

It seems not too extreme to consider whether supreme court justices could be removed for not being proactive where they are aware of a clear violation of the Constitution. It has been stated that they have original jurisdiction in cases pertaining directly to Constitutional interpretation. It will take conservative quorums in both the house and senate, but that could happen. They may not just be avoiding the question, but may be violating the law by avoiding the issue?

James said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDkXOPMMiI0&feature=related
So what is the definition of "Home Country"?
Home Country:
noun
The country in which a person was born and usually raised, regardless of the present country of residence and citizenship
http://www.allwords.com/word-home+country.html

Obama won't release his BC...Hmmmm

Bob said...

Mario,
Any chance the conservative Justices are waiting for Obama to appoint at least one more lib Justice and then hold serve until very close to the Nov. 2012 elections? At that point, the Court hears an Obama case, rules that he does not meet the "natural born Citizen" requirement, rescinds all passed legislation under Obama (including Health Care and any possible Cap & Tax legislation), dismisses the two lib Judges appointed by Obama, and then waits just two or three months for a Conservative to become President who will then quickly appoint 2 more conservative judges to tip the balance of power firmly into conservative hands in the Supreme Court for at least the next 20+ years? I suspect, by 2012, Republicans will have firm control of the House and Senate - maybe not a fillibuster-proof Congress, but pretty close, so nominating very conservative, strict Constitutionalist Justices would create the firestorm it once might have.

Man, talk about a slap to the face of the libs in Congress for not doing the right thing and removing Obama when they had the chance (and still had the numbers in the House & Senate to appoint alternative lib justices and re-pass Health Care with Biden stepping in as the interim President until the a new election for President could be held).

Just a wild theory to throw out there which could explain all of the delay on the part of the conservatives on the SCOTUS. I hope our SCOTUS would not "play politics" like this, but then again, they had the chance to rule on this issue BEFORE Obama was sworn in, but refused to do so.

Bob said...

Mario,
Any chance the conservative Justices are waiting for Obama to appoint at least one more lib Justice and then hold serve until very close to the Nov. 2012 elections? At that point, the Court hears an Obama case, rules that he does not meet the "natural born Citizen" requirement, rescinds all passed legislation under Obama (including Health Care and any possible Cap & Tax legislation), dismisses the two lib Judges appointed by Obama, and then waits just two or three months for a Conservative to become President who will then quickly appoint 2 more conservative judges to tip the balance of power firmly into conservative hands in the Supreme Court for at least the next 20+ years? I suspect, by 2012, Republicans will have firm control of the House and Senate - maybe not a fillibuster-proof Congress, but pretty close, so nominating very conservative, strict Constitutionalist Justices would create the firestorm it once might have.

Man, talk about a slap to the face of the libs in Congress for not doing the right thing and removing Obama when they had the chance (and still had the numbers in the House & Senate to appoint alternative lib justices and re-pass Health Care with Biden stepping in as the interim President until the a new election for President could be held).

Just a wild theory to throw out there which could explain all of the delay on the part of the conservatives on the SCOTUS. I hope our SCOTUS would not "play politics" like this, but then again, they had the chance to rule on this issue BEFORE Obama was sworn in, but refused to do so.

Bob said...

Mario,
Any chance the conservative Justices are waiting for Obama to appoint at least one more lib Justice and then hold serve until very close to the Nov. 2012 elections? At that point, the Court hears an Obama case, rules that he does not meet the "natural born Citizen" requirement, rescinds all passed legislation under Obama (including Health Care and any possible Cap & Tax legislation), dismisses the two lib Judges appointed by Obama, and then waits just two or three months for a Conservative to become President who will then quickly appoint 2 more conservative judges to tip the balance of power firmly into conservative hands in the Supreme Court for at least the next 20+ years? I suspect, by 2012, Republicans will have firm control of the House and Senate - maybe not a fillibuster-proof Congress, but pretty close, so nominating very conservative, strict Constitutionalist Justices would not create the firestorm it once might have.

Man, talk about a slap to the face of the libs in Congress for not doing the right thing and removing Obama when they had the chance (and still had the numbers in the House & Senate to appoint alternative lib justices and re-pass Health Care with Biden stepping in as the interim President until the a new election for President could be held).

Just a wild theory to throw out there which could explain all of the delay on the part of the conservatives on the SCOTUS. I hope our SCOTUS would not "play politics" like this, but then again, they had the chance to rule on this issue BEFORE Obama was sworn in, but refused to do so.

Puzo1 said...

Bob,

There are so many things that could happen in this Obama saga. It is very difficult to predict anything. Of course, it is good to think into the future and run through various scenarios so that one may be prepared for when and if things may happen.

I wish I could say more but I would be merely speculating if I did.

Bill Cutting said...

James Monroe
First Inaugural Address
Tuesday, March 4, 1817

"The Government has been in the hands of the people. To the people, therefore, and to the faithful and able depositaries of their trust is the credit due. Had the people of the United States been educated in different principles, had they been less intelligent, less independent, or less virtuous, can it be believed that we should have maintained the same steady and consistent career or been blessed with the same success? While, then, the constituent body retains its present sound and healthful state everything will be safe. They will choose competent and faithful representatives for every department. It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin. Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties."
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres20.html

Guy4013 said...

This is for Mario (and Charles)

You may have seen this little news article so I apologize if I repeat the story. Maybe, others have not sen it. I found it rather amusing.

It seems that Geo Washington has not returned two library books due back to the New York City library on Nov 2, 1789.

One book due back, that Oborters claim no one ever read during the forming of the Constitution, was "Law of Nations" It was a library book in the NY City library in 1789.

Maybe most of the Founders read Vattel's "Law of Nations" after all.LOL

Benaiah said...

H. J. Res. 5
Sponsor: Rep. Serrano
Introduced: January 6, 2009

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual [Obama the USURPER] may serve as President.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5

H. J. RES. 5

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 6, 2009

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article--

‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’.

The Stacker said...

Mario,

As much as we don't like it, one can believe/explain why the court might opt for surpassing the removal of an elected official (when NBC hasn't been defined officially) due to mootness and standing just because of the timing and the race impact, which I'm SURE played a role.

Unfortunately, that's how the Supreme Court rolls. They don't HAVE to take cases, so that's what we are left with: their whims, which very well may be temporarily NOT helping turn around a Constitutional "crisis."

I'm quite sure, however, that if they were aware and they decided against it for above reasons, they told Obama that next election he might not be so lucky. That's one of the reasons why I think it is likely that he won't run.

Obama is in a real bad position. His supporters will explain away everything, but ultimately the truth is coming out and if he doesn't run again, he'll look even more guilty --- incumbent not running for re-election? Unprecedented.

Let's keep up the pressure.

Charles, I know how you can prove if he was born at Kapiolani or not. You see, I am into getting a smoking gun or the PRECURSOR to the smoking gun. Are you interested? I will not post it on this board.

Benaiah said...

Justice Clarence Thomas: We're 'evading' eligibility
Does testimony hint at division behind Supreme Court's doors?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=142101

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president, the high court is "evading" the issue.

The comments came as part of Thomas' testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court's budget earlier this week.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., actually raised the question first amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative, but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the Court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option.

[...]

cfkerchner said...

Stacker,

Of course we'd be interested in any of your ideas regarding the hospitals in Honolulu. But it is much better if you give the idea/evidence tactics directly to my attorney. Contact Attorney Apuzzo with your idea. His email and phone number is in the upper right corner of this/his blog. Stacker, if you want to help the nation and you have a good idea, contact Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

CDR Kerchner

Benaiah said...

Justice Clarence Thomas: We're 'evading' eligibility
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=142101

[Rep. Serrano:] "I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the Court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you [Rep. Serrano] another option [you are eligible for the Supreme Court, but you are NOT eligible to the office of President].

[...]

Birdy said...

If an Obama eligibility case comes before the Supreme Court, and the court has two Obama appointees, then I would think that they would have to recuse themselves. That would change the makeup of the court to four conservatives, one swing, and two liberals. I like those odds :-).

James said...

If what Thomas says it true, then it is very troubling. I think is would be a fruitful avenue to track down retired justice David Souter and find out what he knows. I think there may reason to believe that David Souter might have retired over something to do with the Eligbilibity issue.

The Stacker said...

Birdy,

It doesn't even matter. I'm pretty sure it would go 5-4. Kennedy would be hard to peg though; I'm unsure what is position would be.

In all of this the Dems still haven't been able to overcome. One more liberal justice out when the next president comes in and the Court is conservative basically ... forever.

Charles, Mario's email is undeliverable. Can you direct me elsewhere?

cfkerchner said...

Stacker,

Atty Apuzzo's email is "apuzzo@erols.com". It's working fine for me today. You must have typed it in wrong. Try it again.

CDR Kerchner

Guy4013 said...

I believe the SCOTUS opinion should be 4-3. There should only be 7 Justices eligible to pass an opinion.

Obama losses 4-3 with all four conservative Justices supporting the Constitution.

Bob said...

Hey Stacker,
Do you really think that a Supreme Court vote on this issue would come out 5-4 (either for or against)? I know there are some really liberal Justices, but I don't see much of a way around this one. Even if you are a liberal Justice, I would think you would have to reach the conclusion that "Well . . . unfortunately, Art II, Section 1, Clause 5 states that the Pres has to be a 'natural born Citizen' and the drafters of that requirement made it clear that it requires two US citizen parents to a child born on American soil to meet that definition. While I don't like this outcome and believe that this law is outdated and should not apply to a President today, the only way to fix this is to amend the Constitution. Unless/until that happens, the fact that Obama's father was a British citizen at Barry's birth make Barry unable to meet the 'natural born Citizen' requirement".

Now, it certainly is possible that Barry DOES meet these requirements (but I have not seen any documentation proving without a doubt that he was born to two US citizens and on US soil), in which case the decision should be 9-0 (or 7-0 if Barry's two nominated Justices abstain) in Barry's favor. Likewise, if it is established that Barry's father is Obama Sr. (as his mother's divorce records state), then I would think the Lib Justices would have no wiggle room. Simply stating "Yeah, we know what the law says and we have heard what the intention of the Founders were in drafting these conditions, but we are going to ignore them in this case" could actually be an impeachment just waiting to happen (and, as many of your realize, impeaching a sitting Justice ain't easy or very common).

Dixhistory said...

Stacker I think the SCOTUS did define NBC without any doubts.

SCOTUS 88 U.S. 162 Minor vs. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875 "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be Natural Born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 it's 'Citizens' became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or Natural Born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." Off site to source record, clause 9.

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/obama.htm

The Stacker said...

Bob,

Let me remind you that we have the likes of Ginsburg (who hasn't made sense in YEARS and clearly shown crazy liberal partisanship) and now Sotomayor (sympathetic to immigrants and outsiders) who I am SURE are all about the 14th amendment = automatic citizenship for anyone born here, even two foreign nationals. It's not that much a stretch to see Breyer and Stevens (or replacement) going lock and tow.

It IS very obvious but think about how many decisions have been super obvious that go 5-4?
1. DC hand gun (DC vs. Heller)
2. Citizens United

I don't have any faith in these people anymore. The only reason I do believe that most if not all decisions will be solid is because of the 5-4 conservative advantage (and Kennedy is unpredictable at times, but I find him reasonable).

To sum it up, think about how stupid it is that a person born here to non-American parents is automatically a citizen. That is madness! Yet it has been the precedent for a good 30-40 years now, hasn't it?

I don't trust these people one iota.

The Stacker said...

Bob, in response to part 2 of your nice post, I have thought about all the possibilities.

It just doesn't make sense that Obama wouldn't be his father. The other thing is that if he had affidavits, he could still argue he got legit BC by Hawaiian standards and just say F Off, you can't prove that I wasn't born here ... which we can't (yet).

The man is very confused, so I guess it is possible that someone else is listed as father (who is an American Citizen) but he didn't want that to be known (let's say it was a lie but he needed it to get the BC even though BO is his real father ... I don't know).

The whole thing is insane. One thing I do know is that he was not born at Kapiolani. That's the only thing I'm really certain about. Now, if we can prove this and someone can run with it, pressure will be all the more intense. Because then he has to address it ... then things will really start to unravel. He will then say "I never said I was born there" (which is true in the same vein of his online "birth cert" --- it's just an image), the White House press release was just an image, his "signature" was just an image, WH never confirmed they sent it to Kapiolani newsletter, remember? BUT, all the congressmen said he was (including Abercrombie) and the general report is that he was. If we show he wasn't ... we'll put the pressure ON FULL TILT.

Then we can get the smoking gun on the deceiver.

Puzo1 said...

Above, we have seen the exchange between Justice Thomas and Rep. Serrano regarding the eligibility requirements to be President. Rep. Serrano is also involved in another critical aspect of the Office of President, that is repealing the Twenty-Second Amendment of the Constitution which now provides that no person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice.

On Jan 6, 2009, Rep. Serrano proposed H.J. Res. 5 which is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. This resolution has been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary. On February 9, 2009, the resolution was referred to the House Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

"This resolution is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. If this joint resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution, three-fourths of the states must ratify the proposal. A joint resolution, if not amending the constitution, may also be signed into law by the president."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5.

The resolution would need two-thirds of the House and Senate to pass. Then it would be valid as a Constitutional Amendment if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification.

We all need to keep our eyes and ears open on this proposed constitutional amendment. We should also study the reasons why the framers passed the Twenty-Second Amendment and ask ourselves why those reasons are not still very relevant today. We should also ask Rep. Serrano why he believes that there should not be any term limits for the Office of President.

jayjay said...

The Stacker:

It's already "undeniable"!!!

Obama himself has told everyone several times in writing that he is not a nbC when he told us his daddy was an alien from Kenya born under the BNA of 1948 and that he, the son, was governed by those same laws. He's ineligible!

SCOTUS is not, you see, a court that is a trier of fact, but one that is rather like a super-appeals court overseeing what lower courts do and how it stacks up - or not - with the law of the land. So SCOTUS has not "evaded" the eligibility issue at all (YET) since it has not yet come before them in a proper manner with in an acceptable legal format.

With the progress of the Kerchner et al v. Obama et al case, however, the eligibility issue will be well and truly before the court with a massive amount of legal reasoning, earlier SCOTUS precedents, etc. In addition I would hope to see oral arguments before SCOTUS on the matter. So there will be no "evading" as Justice Thomas joked - he knew that SCOTUS had evaded nothing at all on the matter but the joke is wholly on the Congressman.

Congress, OTOH, had clearly evaded their responsibilities in the eligibility matter and that is part and parcel of what the Kerchner action is all about and why they are named as defendants. Sorrento is apparently so ill-informed that he didn't realize what Thomas was saying since he most probably thought that it WAS the SCOTUS responsibility to "try" such factual things and give advisory opinions ... it is not and the Congressman is WAY off base but then look at all the Flying Monkeys who are no more informed overall. He fits well with them.

The Stacker said...

jayjay,

At least now you are not calling me a flying monkey. Thank you.

In the world of "true" arguments, it may very well be undeniable. I actually agree with you. I think it IS undeniable.

The problem is that SCOTUS DECIDES, not us, whether the argument/case/inquiry comes "in a proper manner with an acceptable legal format" (as you say).

What does that mean? It may be deniable in some form. That's what is driving us nuts.

What else is undeniable?

There is NO process to check for Article II eligibility for a candidate for president. It is undeniable and simultaneously maddening / madness. Yet, it is reality.

The pressure cooker is heating up. As I've said before, let's keep it stoked and find the smoke ...

James said...

If Stacker has some bomshell evidence, he needs to send it to Mario.

jayjay said...

The Stacker:

Just to be honest about it, I believe it is undeniable that you are a Flying Monkey no matter your pretense.

And SCOTUS does not "decide" based upon anything but the presentation of factual material and a lot of it. It is the job of the Plaintiff to present that material and that is being done very nicely by the Kerchner et al case.

That means, Oh Winged One, that the facts are not "deniable in some sense" as you cleverly phrase it. They are facts.

As for the procedure to determine eligibility, there is indeed already one in place but it has functioned poorly and allowed a man who have never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies. In case you cannot recognize the procedure it is a multifaceted thing called produce a verifiable original long form birth certificate, show all of your higher education records that you have been hiding, prevail
upon all your kinfold and other hangers-on and hail fellows well met (as far as your election was concerned) to explain how they came to make the numerous public statements - some now part of the official documents of that country - as to how they came to know you were born in Kenya.

You may not like it, but the procedure there and is even there in Congress which is why both houses of same are named (along with a couple of pertinent individuals) as defendants.

You may prefer to delude yourself and in the process try to delude those lurking and posting on this thread that there is, somehow, some "gray area" that leaves a doubt as to your hero's eligibility. There isn't as we - and history - will all come to recognize and you can take that to your Flying Monkey bank!!

medical said...

Citizens have to show their "papers" to conduct business and enter many buildings. "Body scanners" peek through clothing and view the nude bodies of our women and children before we fly. Cameras equipped with "facial recognition" capability track us day and night. "OnStar" has admittedly been used by FBI to listen to and track us. Cellular telephones are tracked and listened in on without a warrant - the microphone and camera can be opened even when the devices are off. Internet traffic is monitored and the cameras and microphones of our computers are opened without a warrant or probable cause. The list of needless government intrusions into our daily lives is now endless and growing and it makes NO sense. Why is the Usurper's life exempt from ANY and ALL scrutiny? HE'S OUR EMPLOYEE! WE THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF WASHINGTON'S HYPOCRISY!

avodlp said...

Looks as though the "Father of Our Country" just couldn't get enough of that 'obscure Swiss jurist':

President George Washington racks up $300,000 late fee for two Manhattan library books

BY Rich Schapiro
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, April 17th 2010, 4:00 AM
First U.S. President George Washington stiffed a Manhattan library for two books, racking up $300,000 in late fees.

On Oct. 5, 1789, Washington borrowed the "Law of Nations," a treatise on international relations, and Vol. 12 of the "Commons Debates," which contained transcripts of debates from Britain's House of Commons.

William said...

I wonder……?

Last Friday I had a phone interview for a job I have been pursuing we over a month now. During this last interview, it was explained to me that if selected for the next and final selection round I would need to produce and show documentation for verification on my College records, Passport, Driving record and of course a complete criminal background check.

If I refuse (just for the sake of argument) wouldn’t it be nice to claim privacy rights and lack of standing? Using the grounds Obama has in the courts on privacy alone should be enough to set precedence. Should my response to the company be: “If it’s good enough not to show for the job of President of the United States, then is good enough for me”, and “It’s none of your business” …

I wonder if I would be selected for the job or if denied have a right to sue?

medical said...

A brilliant attorney who is renowned throughout this land for his credibility, skills, and tenacity and who has a long established, strong, and amicable working relationship with the major press outlets, needs to take all the available information and employ the proper tools to build a new case that is clear cut and undeniable. He will understand precisely what type plaintiff(s) cannot be denied a hearing on the facts and a "certain person" could seek out just such plaintiff(s) (can the timing of the finding of Washington's overdue copy of "Law of Nations" and the words spoken in the Parliament of Kenya be anything less than divine providence?). The attorney may consult with and/or work with calm, unemotional, and highly intelligent attorneys who already have experience with various cases against the Usurper. I know just such an attorney, but I don't know whether or not he will be willing to accept the task. A "Google" of his name and occupation returns over 4,000,000 results. I have personally witnessed district's attorneys quit several murder cases this attorney was defending, one case involved fourteen eyewitnesses called by the state. Insurance companies dispatch a representative with a checkbook to his office, rather than face him in court. I plan to visit and consult him on the Usurper issue as soon as (and if) he will grant me an appointment. Please pray he will say "yes". The battle for truth must continue until victory is ours. Thank you very kindly.

cfkerchner said...

What George Washington was doing with the book Law of Nations in New York in 1789. An account from the times.

There was a news account recently that President George Washington 'borrowed' the legal reference book "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" and never returned it to the library in New York and now owes a huge past due fine on that book. This new current events story ties into the importance of that book to George Washington and the other founders. Attached is an image and an the account what the new President was doing with the book in 1789 in New York. The new President was found consulting that book by visitors to his office on his first day in office after the inauguration of him in New York in 1789.

http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-nations-book-1st-day-in-office.jpg

New York was then the capital of the USA. See attached highlighted section of the history book, This Was New York, The Nation's Capital in 1789, by Monaghan & Lowenthal, published by Books for Libraries Press of Freeport NY. I have a copy of this rare book. But it can also be viewed online at Google's book site.

The Law of Nations by Vattel is a very important legal treatise and was very important to the founding of our nation. It was first published in 1758. The Law of Nations is mentioned in our Constitution. The "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" which is its full name was the preeminent legal treatise of the last half of the 1700s and was depended on heavily by the Revolutionary Patriots in the founding of our nation. Benjamin Franklin cited that it was being heavily used during the Constitutional Conventions when he received three new copies of the newest circa 1775 edition from the editor Dumas in Europe. And John Jay the 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court cited it often. This legal book was cited many times by the various U.S. Supreme Courts in the 1800s and much of it became the common law of our land via Supreme Court decisions citing the wisdom conveyed in this book. And it is this legal treatise by Vattel which defines who the "naturel" citizens are, i.e., the "natural born Citizens" of a country, i.e., a person born in the country to two citizen parents of that country. This was the law of nature and Vattel codified it in his book Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. This book was the source of the wisdom which prompted John Jay to write to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, and request that the requirement of "natural born Citizenship" be put into the new Constitution as an eligibility standard for the office of the President and commander of the military, for future holders of that office after the original generation past, to minimize any chances of foreign influences on that singular most powerful office in our new nation. The founders and framers in their wisdom anticipated the day would come when a citizen of the world funded by foreign money would attempt to take over America. That day has come. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA. He was born a subject of Great Britain. He is not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military for exactly the reasons John Jay stated to George Washington in the summer of 1787. Obama is a Usurper in the Oval Office.

CDR Charles Kerchner
Pennsylvania
www.protectourliberty.org
####

James said...

BREAKING NEWS:

LTC Lakin and his attorney to be on Gordon Liddy show tomorrow morning



Please be sure to listen tomorrow morning, April 20, 2010, to the G. Gordon Liddy radio program. Lt. Col. Lakin and his civilian lawyer will give their first ever live interview to G Gordon Liddy, who is spending the entire first hour of his nationally syndicated program (from 10-11 am Eastern Time, 7-8 am Pacific)



The show is syndicated nationwide, and station list is copied below so you can find your local station. This may be the ONLY time that LTC Lakin is free to speak to the news media, so be sure to listen!



As always check back regularly to our website, www.safeguardourconstitution.com, for updates on LTC Lakin's case.



As always, thanks for your support of LTC Lakin and his legal defense fund.



American Patriot Foundation, Inc.

All contributions are tax deductible

The Stacker said...

Amazing story about our man George Washington and kudos to you guys. What news! It shows you just how great your arguments are, Mario.

Things are picking back up. It's rather exciting.

I must say that it might take the National Enquirer to do the dirty digging. Remember how embarrassed the media was shown to be when the NE broke the John Edwards story? They were called kooks and loons and then they get nominated for a Pulitzer.

That my friends, is proof that the 4th Estate (as you put it, Charles) is broken and corrupt.

You received the email, did you not, Mario?

Joe said...

Oh for pete's sake. Mario just write all these Kenyan officials and ask them for the bc to prove their statements.

This is unbelievable. Anybody else want to state where he was born?

Joe said...

Somebody plz record the Gordon Liddy show tomorrow. I don't know if it will be available in his archives.

TU

cfkerchner said...

Another Kenyan Minister on 14 April 2010 makes a statement about Obama's origins and say that Obama should repatriate himself to Kenya.

Kenyan Minister Khalwale Asks When Obama Will Repatriate Himself | @ Jefferson's Rebels

http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/04/kenyan-minister-khalwale-asks-when.html

Pile the above statement on top of another Kenyan minister's statement on 25 March 2010 that Obama "was born in Kenya" and is "not a native American" and the facts are obvious as is explained in this essay by Atty Mario Apuzzo. Obama was born in Kenya and not in Hawaii. Any birth registrations filed for Obama in Hawaii by a family member in Hawaii back in 1961 was filed with false birth location data, probably using the a simple mail-in form then available, for the plain and simple purpose of illegally getting the new born child U.S. citizenship, a coveted and highly desired status then and now. Birth registration fraud occurs now and it occurred then. And in Hawaii in 1961 it was easy to do by just filling in the mail-in form form saying the child was born at home with no witnesses.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/current-minister-of-kenyan-government.html

When is the U.S. main stream media going to cover what is being said in Kenya and stop schilling and covering up for Obama. Obama is not even a native born American, let alone a "natural born Citizen" as is required for the office he usurps.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/newspaper-birth-announcement-ads-in.html

It is time for the 4th Estate of our Constitutional Republic the free press and media and/or the Republican Party to wake up and speak the truth to the fraud of Obama and call for congressional hearings to determine Obama's true legal identity to constitutional standards and then take appropriate action. This disgrace to our nation cannot be allowed to continue.

CDR Charles Kerchner
Pennsylvania
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

medical said...

@ The Stacker : In October, 1990, a band called "The New Kids on the Block" put on a cruise and concert from Port Canaveral to Nassau. The National Enquirer paid for two suites next to a band member ("Donnie Wahlberg") so I could take my family along and covertly collect info. I wasn't aware the other boat held another "pro snoop" and his family. When we arrived back at Port Canaveral, I called in my final report and they said "the investigator on the other boat told us exactly the same story, this is going to press". If they ever decide to seriously challenge the Usurper's lack of eligibility, he's finished, they'll spare absolutely no expense, they are very patient, and they demand complete silence until after the info is published - better the subject should have a pack of mute pit bulls stalking him. Their weekly readership exceeds 9,000,000 and I'm sure they would love to increase it.

William said...

Republican Rep. Judy Burges amendment to Senate Bill 1024 today would require the Arizona secretary of state to verify a presidential candidate's birth certificate before the candidate's name is allowed on a ballot in Arizona.

The AP then throws in this statement: “A presidential candidate already is required to prove that he or she is a naturally born citizen before they can run for that office.”.....

Really? That statement qualifies as stupid, moronic and highly misleading. I guess the AP (associated press) forgot that Obama used the 1st Amendment prior to winning the Presidential candidate seat for the Democrats claiming he has a right to run without showing any proof until he actually wins. Turns out, after winning the nomination he refused to show his documentations in question at that time as well.

The AP also fails to mention that several S.O.S. were taken to court for failing to request Obama show documentation of qualifications, whereby the Courts held it is not the job of the S.O.S. to request documentation for any candidate on the ballot.

The AP also fails to mention the specific law to support their statement that a legal requirement to prove a person is a natural born citizen prior to running for the office of the President of the United States.

The AP also fails to mention what legal documents Obama turned over to prove he is a natural born citizen, as they claim.

The AP also fails to mention the nearly 2 million dollars spent by Obama to “Prevent” the documents from being turned over to the courts to verify whether or not he meets the qualifications through proper investigations.

The AP also fails to mention that Obama has never claimed he is a “Natural Born Citizen”, rather he has only claimed he is a “Native Citizen”.

The AP also fails to mention that the only paper signed and given to each state was Obama’s statement that he meets the qualifications. He promises or swears that he is, end of that one.

I wish the AP would send me the documentations they claim was shown by proof, as they say, “Prior” to any person being put on a ballot.

I can swear and sign a paper claiming I am the King of Siam, doesn’t mean it’s so.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/politics/state_politics/house-oks-birther-bill-4-19-2010

William said...

JayJay,

What is a "Flying Monkey"?

Dixhistory said...

This lady didn't think to much of dual citizenship issue. My comment was I hope they are not a wolf in sheep clothes.

No BC in 1776 and all a BC can do is show how deep our stupidity runs.

Of course he needs to pony up all his records to make sure he in in this country legally.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/19/spokesperson-for-army-doctor-challenging-obamas-eligibility-speaks-with-the-post-email/

HIGHLY-DECORATED FLIGHT SURGEON HAS REFUSED ALL ORDERS UNTIL OBAMA PROVES HIS
ELIGIBILITY
by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 19, 2010) — Margaret Calhoun Hemenway, spokeswoman for Lt. Col. Terrence
Lakin, an Army medical doctor who has challenged Obama's eligibility to serve as
Commander-in-Chief, very generously gave her time to The Post & Email last
Friday to discuss Lt. Col. [...]


http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/obama.htm

William said...

Hope you don't mind.....

I sent the information for contact of Mario to Gordon Liddy. If Gordon wishes to further support the education to the public it is my hope that he will contact Mario.

medical said...

@ William - For God's sake, contact the office of AP where that story originated and demand it be corrected - NOW. Include verified supporting evidence or the bureau chief will just toss your complaint. CRUSH THEIR LIES!

medical said...

Washington has become arrogant, useless, worthless, hopelessly corrupt, and it is openly mocking and enslaving us. How can voting for a president now be considered important? ALL candidates are hand picked in secret by a small group of persons and not even one candidate represents the Citizens! When will the majority of We the People finally reach the tipping point? The sooner, the better!

United Natural Born Citizens said...

A question for Puzo1;

How would your case be affected if the SCOTUS was to hear the questions, (1) "Is the 'idiom' of natural born citizen' a specific description of the circumstances by which a 'citizen' acquired citizenship.

(2) What are those specific circumstances which confers the 'citizenship' of 'natural born citizen' upon such an individual.

It is my ARDENT belief that SCOTUS, when asked the questions absent the attached Political entanglements of a collateral attack on a sitting POTUS and being asked only to determine if a private individual has the right to know and be determined to be one, will be open to pursue the original meaning and intent which can be no other than that which WE know it to be.

If a 'definition' is posited in a SCOTUS Opinion on the 'questions' only would your case be adversely affected?

jayjay said...

William:

There are actually several that appear in this video which I think will give you a pretty good idea of what they are and what they look like.

Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

Also in that video is a quotation the is quite apt from a famous Senator (of course he was Roman and spoke in 42 BC but the message is still meaningful today).

And so that people know that "words mean things" there is also this bit of fun:

Three Little Words

Puzo1 said...

United Natural Born Citizen,

Your Question: How would your case be affected if the SCOTUS was to hear the questions:

1) "Is the 'idiom' of natural born citizen' a specific description of the circumstances by which a 'citizen' acquired citizenship.

My Response: Yes.

Your Question: 2) What are those specific circumstances which confers the 'citizenship' of 'natural born citizen' upon such an individual.

My Response: There are specific birth circumstances that create a "natural born Citizen." It is not sufficient to be a citizen at birth to be a "natural born Citizen," for such a status is determined not only by when the status is bestowed upon the child but also under what circumstances. If just being born a citizen was sufficient, the Framers would have written "born citizen." But they wanted more so they wrote "natural born Citizen." That more is birth in the country to a citizen mother and father.

The Supreme Court should decide the meaning of the "natural born Citizen" by analyzing the Framers' original intent and meaning. There is no constitutional amendment changing the meaning. There also is no U.S. Supreme Court case that ever changed the original meaning of the clause.

Any decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the meaning of the "natural born Citizen" clause would probably be binding on any other pending cases concerning the same issue.

medical said...

"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are people who want crops without plowing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

Protonius said...

Me 2 Blogger.Com (via GOOGLE sign-in) re Obama Eligibility (04-22-2010)
https://www.blogger.com/comment.do

1. If the O-eligibility issue reaches the US Supreme Court and that Court, which now contains one and soon may contain two Obama-appointees, what would be the legal implications of that Court either refusing to hear the case or ruling on the case?

2. If such a case come before the US Supreme Court, what legality would any hearing or any ruling on that case have if Obama's appointees on the Court choose to NOT recuse themselves from those hearings or rulings?

3. If such a case is heard by the US Supreme Court, AND if that Court then rules that Obama is indeed lacking in proof that he is a "natural born citizen", might they, with legitimacy, be able to interpret the law in such a way as to "construct" or "recognize" "alternate forms of proof" or so as to reinterpret, in his favor, the meaning of the "natural born citizen" clause?

4. George W. Bush, as President, was successful in getting the Congress to approve legislation -- which he then signed into law -- giving the Telecomms RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY (and, in effect, his Administration) for their reportedly hitherto-illegal participation in that wiretapping process (even though the Constitution forbids the creation of Ex Post facto laws). Thus, might there be any possibility that Congress would craft and approve a piece of legislation that would RETROACTIVELY IMMUNIZE (or in some other way protect) Obama from these eligibility-suits or that might RETROACTIVELY RE-DEFINE those eligibility-requirements in his favor? And what legitimacy would attach to HIS SIGNING of such a document into law, if, even up to the instant of signing, his eligibility EVEN TO SIGN would still be subject to the legal interpretation of the law as it exists PRIOR TO his signing?

5. If the US Supreme Court chooses to review the Obama-eligibility issue, and even if that review might take months or years to be resolved, would it be legitimate for Obama to continue, during that time, to BE and ACT AS President, pending the Court's ultimate decision on the case?

6. If the Supreme Court rules that Obama does NOT meet eligibility standards, what would happen to ALL the laws, ALL the Executive Orders, that he has signed, ALL the official decisions and actions that he has made as President, and, consequently, to all the decisions and actions that OTHERS -– in this and in other Governments and agencies -- took as a consequence of anything Obama had said or done as President?

Would everything have to be "turned back”? Or would whomever is left in power -- whether in our nation or in others -- find that the most expedient route would be to RETROACTIVELY APPROVE all decisions and rulings that had occurred as a consequence of the Obama Presidency?

7. If, hypothetically, Obama is stripped of the Presidency, who then would become President or Acting President?

Would it be Joe Biden, considering that, in such an instance, an ineligible Presidential candidate chose Biden to be that candidate's running-mate, and also considering that if Biden had run on a ticket with someone other than Obama, the question is open as to whether that ticket would have won or lost the election? If Obama's Presidency -- and Presidential candidacy -- is determined to be illegitimate, might Biden's legitimacy to serve as replacement-President, or even as Vice President, also be open to question?

8. If Obama DOES release what is claimed to be his actual Birth Certificate, what agency or agencies would be empowered to determine its authenticity or its lack thereof?

9. As to the Dual Citizenship issue, could Congress pass a resolution -- or a bill that Obama would sign into law -- that would declare RETROACTIVE U.S. CITIZENSHIP on Obama's father? If so, might that avenue be a way for Obama to get around the Dual Citizenship issue?

Greg Goss said...

Hollister files en banc hearing petition. http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/hollister-v-soetoro-petition-for-en-banc-hearing/

Doublee said...

William:

I just looked up your reference on the Phoenix Fox News website.

The following statement is not from the AP, but from Representative Kyrsten Sinema.

A presidential candidate already is required to prove that he or she is a naturally born citizen before they can run for that office.

Even though I am not a resident of her district I did send her an e-mail asking her to cite the law that justifies her statement.

I have not had very good luck getting responses from emails to elected officials. I will certainly let you know if I do get a response from Rep. Sinema.

United Natural Born Citizens said...

Protonius said...
Me 2 Blogger.Com (via GOOGLE sign-in) re Obama Eligibility (04-22-2010)
https://www.blogger.com/comment.do

Another way of looking at the issue in response to your questions;

1] I posit the proposition that the Courts WILL NOT hear a ‘POTUS Eligibility’ case in re: a ‘Sitting POTUS’, in that it would be an undeniable ‘Political Question’ that would be an obvious encroachment of the ‘Separation of Powers’.

However, should a case be presented that asks, on behalf of a private citizen, whether the Government MUST acknowledge that individuals status as a NBC by virtue of that persons birth circumstances, insofar as citizenship is concerned, then, if Affirmed in the positive, as Puzo1 concurs, related cases asking the ‘political questions’ could proceed on the precedent of the Affirmation of the existence of the specific nature of NBC’s.


2] ‘Recusals’ would be appropriately requested in certain instances of questions presented to the Courts in which any of the several Justices may have conflict of prior personal interest.

3] See #1

4] GWB acted as CIC in the aftermath of an attack on US soil by unknown persons/countries and as CIC was executing his 1st duty to the Nation and as such immunity is implicit.

5] See #1

6] See #s 1 & 7

7] Hypothetically, Once the rioting in the streets is quelled it will be obvious that the deceit and deception of the Socialist usurpation was organized ‘as if’ a Coup with both ‘domestic and foreign’ participants, and with the ENTIRE DemoRat Party being ‘suspect’ along with a large portion of the “Rino’s”, unions and community organizer groups, the Congress will be forced to ‘SELECT’ an ‘Acting POTUS & V-POTUS’ and move for a ‘Special Election’ as quickly as feasible.

Conservative ‘leadership’, with grassroots support’, will move for ‘emergency legislation’ to review and rescind a great deal of the damage the ‘0s’ Regime has done.

8] There is NO controlling legal authority available to answer THIS ‘Political Question’ outside of the Ballot Box.


9] That would be open and flagrantly Un Constitutional in that an Article of the Constitution can ONLY be Amended by a specific process.

But technically, that very act would only further remove the ‘0’ from the circumstances required to have been BORN an NBC.

Dixhistory said...

Charges filed against officer who challenged Obama’s eligibility.

They've had enough time to create all the records they need to show him born in the US.

What they can't do is show that Obama Sr. was an American citizen thus making Obama II a dual citizen at best.

That said I still think it obama's duty to pony up all his records since it was obama that doubled down on stupid and won.


http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/obama.htm

Incredulous said...

Mr. Apuzzo: If Obama ekes through one term, does that give precedent to any foreigner being president? Is this why Clarence Thomas said they are deliberately "EVADING" the issue (as in outright deceit)??

Puzo1 said...

Incredulous,

Obama has not been tested by any legal authority. His term is no precedent.

medical said...

I just want to remind everyone of exactly which childish group of whiny little senate HYPOCRITES first challenged and investigated the "natural born Citizen" status of a candidate prior to the last presidential election, yet THEIR candidate has yet to be properly investigated by the Congress and/or the Senate - after all, Washington pretends the Usurper can walk on water and raise the dead. As they say in the deep south, "bit dog barks first". (Now, precisely whom are you delusional Obots daring to refer to as "birthers"? Surely you speak of yourselves! The evidence against you Obots is 100% irrefutable and it has been permanently recorded for posterity.) : "Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen."
"IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES"
"April 10, 2008"

"Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, **Mr. OBAMA**, Mr. COBURN, **Mrs. CLINTON**, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary." 10APRIL2008 - The ignorant Obots figuratively grasped a venomous serpent (as seen on the Gadsden revolutionary war "Don’t Tread on Me" flag) too far behind the head and he is now preparing to turn and strike. Point proven, 'nuff said.

medical said...

Well, Georgia is about to have another Obama lover waiting in line for unemployment benefits. The Attorney General for the State of Georgia (an extreme far left and very arrogant Usurper worshiper), recently mysteriously decided to run for the U.S. Senate seat of Johnny Isakson, which made no sense to me, so on a hunch, I dug through state documents until I located the following pending legislation. Now it's obvious why he's searching for a cushy seat in Washington for his tender little behind. No successful law firm will touch him, he's tainted. He refused to follow the governor's lawful order to challenge the legality of Obama's "healthcare" program. Baker's political career has lost it's wings and taken a permanent nose dive. He's another incompetent "attorney", who, in my opinion, should have been disbarred long ago for his unbelievable arrogance and stupidity. Serves him right, his removal is long overdue. ("We'll drop the impeachment charges if you'll agree to resign.") http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hr1866.htm

Incredulous said...

SR511 Obama concurs as cosponsor that BOTH parents must be US Citizens.

Dixhistory said...

Medical, Isakson is my congress person and I'm not at all pleased with him. I asked him more than once to raise a point of order about obama being a NBC and he failed to do so.

See one of my letters here: http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/ofile/bushletter.jpg


I just wish we had someone that would uphold their oath to our US Constitution to run aganist the RINO.

I also agree with every word you said about our state AG.

Dixhistory said...

Might as well give you Johnny's reply to us. BTW...I never said a word in that letter that he makes this reply about a BC.

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/ofile/000areplyofsorts.ineveraskedaboutbirthcertficate.jpg

Puzo1 said...

Incredulous,

Regarding SR511, many commentators make the same error regarding its application to Obama. We cannot use citizenship rules that apply to out-of-country births to control citizenship for in-country births. They are two different animals and the rules for one cannot and do not control the rules for the other. In other words, conditions that may be necessary to establish citizenship for someone born out the United States do not necessarily apply to establishing citizenship for someone born in the United States.

The rationale for this concept is understandable. For someone who may be born out of the country, we as a nation may want more connection with U.S. citizen parents. Hence, we have the two-citizen-parent requirement (or even one parent) for out of country births. On the other hand, being born in the country, we as a nation may accept that one or even no parent connection is necessary.

All this helps understand but does not change the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." The Framers were concerned about making sure the President and Commander in Chief of the Military would have the maximum loyalty and allegiance to the nation and the Constitution. Human experience and history have shown that that maximum degree of attachment to a people is provided by the natural elements of birth in the country to citizen parents (both mother and father).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

medical said...

@ Dixhistory - Neither Senator Johnny Isakson, nor Senator Saxby Chambliss represent the Citizens of Georgia, they only represent the interests of their major corporate benefactors and "big money". If you enjoy receiving form letters, just waste your time writing either of them, they keep plenty of form letters on hand and ready to post, all they have to do is address them and stuff them into envelopes. Don't bother going to their offices, their staff members have memorized scripts to reply to almost any question raised about the Usurper, plus, when you raise "eligibility" questions, the staff members instantly become very curt and rude. I visited both the senators' local offices with a "chip recorder" in my shirt pocket. At both offices, the answers to my inquiries were nearly identical and both contained the same key words and phrases - sooo obvious. I have no idea who is writing and distributing the scripted answers for all the senatorial and congressional offices, but it needs to be stopped.