Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Dr. Kate's Revolution Radio Show - Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 9:00 p.m. EST

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Dr. Kate's Revolution Radio Show - Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 9:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner were on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate to discuss the status of the Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al lawsuit for which a Writ of Certiorari is being prepared for submission to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Direct link to the Dr. Kate's Revolution Radio show at BlogTalkRadio.com where you can listen to it as a podcast: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2010/08/19/revolution-radio-constitutional-crisis

Dr. Kate's Blog:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/

Also, please cast your votes to Help the Cause to get the word out:
1st: Vote for Mario to be a guest on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch TV show: Please add your vote here (in addition to making a comment if desired) to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for Mario Apuzzo. Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too:
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-

2nd: Vote for the show topic to be "natural born Citizenship". Please add your vote (in addition to making a comment if desired) for this new TV Show topic suggested by JTX at the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show suggestion forum. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for the show topic to be "natural born Citizenship". Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/969299-natural-born-citizen-meaning-in-natural-law-s?ref=title

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

12 comments:

jayjay said...

Numbers on both the "Guest" and the "Topics" threads are getting higher and higher.

That's great to see.

jayjay said...

The show on drkate's tonight was very good and I think helped a number of the listeners grasp just where things stand.

There were some who are impatient for a resolution to the National Nightmare ... aren't we all>>>

jayjay said...

Mario is about to break into the #2 position on the Guest List and is already in the top 20 in the Subject List.

It's hard to understand how the Judge Nappy show can continue to ignore both.

Keep up the good work.

jayjay said...

alvarez1901:

Pointless to speculate on things for which there's no evidence since Obama Jr. himself has told us several times that Sr was Kenyan and governed by the BNA of 1948 which also governed Jr.

That made Jr. anything but a nbC ... it made him a Brit at birth.

cfkerchner said...

An Article II "natural born Citizen" means Unity of Citizenship at Birth. And essay by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

Puzo1 said...

alvarez1901,

First, Obama Jr.'s situation does not include a dual citizen father (U.S. and British as presented by your hypothetical). Rather, Obama Jr.'s father was strictly a British subject who passed his British subjectship to his son, Obama Jr., upon his birth wherever that may be. Hence, there is no real need to resolve your hypothetical question.

Second, and only for the sake of argument, if both Obama Jr.'s mother and father were citizens under the 14th Amendment [born or naturalized in the U.S] or under a Congressional "at birth" statute when he was born, then there would be no doubt that Obama Jr. would have been a "natural born Citizen." Assuming that Obama Sr. was a U.S. citizen and domiciled in the U.S., it matters not that he could have also been a subject of Great Britain (a dual citizen). To become a naturalized U.S. citizen, he would have had to swear sole allegiance to the United States. Under the law of nations and case law, his U.S. citizen status would be dominant and therefore sufficient to pass on to his son which when combined with his mother's U.S. citizen status, would produce a "natural born Citizen."

Third, if Obama were born in Hawaii to a British subject/citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother, he would be a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen of the United States but not an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Spaulding said...

It may be that the court will wait until devastation of the economy, anger from the citizenry, a sense of total collapse by those "too big to fail" are more to fear than race riots, union thugs or political indictments. Justice Thomas, seemingly innocently, let us know that the court was "evading the subject."

In mulling the a ploy used by Leahy McCaskill, which probably means by Tribe and Olson, the famous "that term is not defined in the Constitution" disclaimer, there is a concise comment by a justice which I cannot find again.
The comment explained that seven tenths of the Constitution's meaning was to be found in the common law, or common language. Otherwise the framework document would need to be regularly updated, causing unforseen differences in interpretaion.

I've dug into James Wilson, who spends chapters on 'common law.' But Wilson is not concise. Story seems likely. Perhaps one of you scholars has a suggestion?

cfkerchner said...

To Spaulding:

Not sure if this is the source you remember, but here is an early source on constitutional interpretation by Justice Joseph Story in 1833.

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_rules_of_constitutional_interpretation.htm

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Spaulding said...

Thanks Commander, Your citation was not the one I was looking for, but is the most thorough explaination of the function of constitutions I've seen. The sum of his words leads to the same conclusion. My tendancy is to notice numbers. Numbers are good for soundbites, and soundbites are the playing field for getting the attention of citizens. They will begin to look for any hint of reason in what for many is a world with arbitrary rules - rules not consistant with even casual assumptions about freedom.

To market our Constitution requires that we, your team,
learn some part of what you and Mario know. Success means our audience goes to your site, reads cases, and the writing of founders, framers, and scholars of original intent.

Too many from both parties are benefiting from the crisis. The statists are very clever. I still can't see the endgame - why they annointed an ineligible salesman? They are too bright not to know he would eventually be exposed, even if I now see how they accomplished the trick.

Bob said...

The link provided by Commander Kerchner here has an interesting concluding paragraph -- one of its sentences reads:

'Government is a practical thing made for the happiness of mankind, and not to furnish out a spectacle of uniformity to gratify the schemes of visionary politicians.'

Dixhistory said...

Charles,

Please look at this story at the below link and tell me why the Gov. of AZ and all the lawyers don't know this?

Will the same not be true in the health care suits being brought by the states?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

In Part" Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a “trial” is - you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants."

DixHistory

jayjay said...

Dixhistory:

Indeed, you're tight. AZ should have gone to SCOTUS on original jurisdiction as you point out.

I both sent an email AND an overnight letter to that effect to Gov. Brewer some weeks ago and the result was ...

crickets ... crickets ...

Perhaps they are just playing the old puiblicity-seeking game and don't really care about winning as the Gov. loudly proclaims.