Sunday, November 21, 2010

Washington Times - Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari at U.S. Supreme Court Conference on Tuesday 23 Nov 2010

Washington Times - Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari at U.S. Supreme Court Conference on Tuesday 23 Nov 2010

Update: No Decision Released Until Monday 29 Nov 2010
per SCOTUSblog

Supreme Court Orders Will be Posted Here at 10 a.m.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx

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

We are living through history in the making. Please read or re-read this historic Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to support and defend the Constitution ... in particular Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the presidential constitutional eligibility clause. Read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. Then meditate on the words in both and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. See the ad linked to below and via the image at the left for an overview of the Petition and the issues.

Washington Times -- Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 22 Nov 2010 issue, page 5: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43541103/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-on-Tues-Nov-23-2010-WTNW-pg-5


QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446
1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.
2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.
3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”
4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Further comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.

Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin

James Shields [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Again, please take the time to read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. The questions and the main brief are only 36 succinctly written and easy to read pages. Then meditate on the words therein and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. May God help us save our liberty and republic and protect us in the days ahead.

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/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

81 comments:

Ted said...

May God be with you.

Benaiah said...

The United States Supreme Court, November 23, 2010: A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

Jet said...

Good luck on the petition. I hope the USSC does not dismiss it. However, with two appointees to the USSC by Obama, the odds are stacked against you.

cfkerchner said...

Jet,

In our petition we request that the two appointees to the court made by Obama must recuse themselves since they have way beyond an appearance of a conflict of interest (the normal standard threshold for recusing for conflict of interest) but in fact have a direct financial interest in the outcome of this case, their very jobs, salaries, and life time appointment are in jeopardy once it is shown that Obama is ineligible. For them to participate in conference on this petition would be totally unethical. See page 36 of the petition.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

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

jayjay said...

Right on the money, troopers!!!

We'll see if the esteemed justices can read and comprehend - certainly they should be able to!!

Godspeed!!

Chief said...

This has been an exhausting journey for all, but much more for Charles and Mario since they are the ones who have presevered in this quest for the truth. Will the court rule in their, (our) favor? It really is all about our constitution, and the principles of governing therein; if the sitting justices are truly constitutionalist then yes; if they are progressive constitutionalist, no. We will see what we really have sitting in those seats; and if they prove to be progressives regardless of party affiliations then we the people, through our representatives in congress need to look at impeaching those who are not consitutional conservatives since the court is not about making laws, only rendering decisions before it based on our constitutional and the republic for which it stands. God speed!

Puzo1 said...

The gravest act of intellectual dishonesty committed by the Obots is that they, like so many others of their ilk, selectively read and report on history. They ridicule and scoff at those who say that Emer de Vattel is "in" our Constitution. Too bad for the arrogance- and snobbishness-loving Obots that our United States Supreme Court and the historical record clearly show that Vattel, along with his and others' writings on natural law and the law of nations, are not only "in" the Constitution but they were a great catalyst for the Founders' and Framers' idea of revolution and republicanism. It is really telling of human nature and party spirit that the Obots would go to the extreme of re-writing our history to save one person's place in political office.

Benaiah said...

Regardless of how the US Supreme Court rules on the issue of "standing", We The People will know where we stand when they issue their ruling...

bdwilcox said...

Puzo1 said: It is really telling of human nature and party spirit that the Obots would go to the extreme of re-writing our history to save one person's place in political office.

History is littered with those who would happily sacrifice themselves for their false gods. These Obots lead their pseudo-intellectual bonzai raids knowing full well that their hollow emporer has no clothes. Is it not telling of the age when men so readily accept this false messiah? Is the stone not set for the Anti-Christ to come when men, so devoid of spirit and discernment, bow down to a charlatan whose tongue drips with poison?

Like cattle, they are lead by the rings in their noses, looking neither left nor right; coaxed along with false promises, they happily plod on toward their own destruction. They are a vile bunch who know neither truth nor civility, instead thrashing about like wild beasts. They happily invite in tyranny and servitude and fully deserve the fruits of their labor.

If they succeed, my only prayer is that I may live long enough to see them weeping in the chains of their own forging.

Robert said...

The Supreme Court can expect to be the "last word" in this fundamental Constitutional argument only if they act in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

The justices, although permitted by the people to sit in lofty and esteemed positions of authority, are not the only citizens capable of reading or understanding the Constitution. It was carefully and clearly written to be easily understood by all citizens.

This ease of understanding is one of the reasons that the people were willing to place their trust in our Constitutional Republic to begin with. The establishment of a Supreme Court that was expected to act impartially, and especially apolitically, was an important component that generated this trust.

We are a nation that respects law and despises tyranny so much that we have traveled the earth and spilled our blood to spread the blessings of liberty that our Constitution was written to protect and promote.

The people will know the truth of Mr. Obama. The case is a simple as 1+1+1=3 and Mr. Obama has only demonstrated 1+?+0. He does not have "3". He is not eligible. He knows he is not eligible. If we expect any citizen to have any respect for our Constitution or our laws, Mr. Obama's fraud can not be rewarded with our highest office.

The Court can be assured that it would be much more tolerable for this nation to remove an unqualified president, at best a temporary vanity, from office and bring all of his conspirators to justice rather than tear up our Constitution and break the trust of the people for all branches and members of government.

We will have a Court decision or a Jeffersonian decision. I pray that it is a court decision.

hokiedokie24 said...

Any news yet???

Thomas said...

Charles/Mario,

Given today's SCOTUS conference, do you have any time estimate for a decision?

I look forward to the NEWSWEEK issue proclaiming on the cover - WE ARE ALL BIRTHERS NOW

Thomas

cfkerchner said...

From this SCOTUSblog post it looks like nothing will be released on today's conference decisions until Monday, except two minor miscellaneous decisions.

UPDATE: Tuesday an opinion day : SCOTUSblog
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/11/orders-for-today/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scotusblog%2FpFXs+%28SCOTUSblog%29

Ted said...

Charles/Mario:--

The SCOTUS blog you cite states verbatim:

"On Monday at 10 a.m., the Court will release orders on cases considered at today’s private Conference."

What, if any, is the official status of that blog? If it's not official/Court/Govt source, can there be any other expected announcement or Court Notice between now and next Monday?

Do you expect that any "order on case" released next Monday, either way it goes (standing or no standing), will contain any discussion whatsoever and, if so, what are possibilities in your opinion? In other words, if it were to go bad, can the Court just say case dropped or, not considered, or "no standing" and that's it? (without any discussion?)

Many thanks.

Benaiah said...

Will next Monday be the "Silence" or "Cert" heard round the world???

US Supreme Court
2010 Term Court Orders

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx

The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders. Such an order will, for example, deny a petition for certiorari without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but "miscellaneous" orders may be issued in individual cases at any time. Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on the day of their issuance, while miscellaneous orders are posted on the day of issuance or the next day.

Carlyle said...

As a strict constitutionalist, I obviously applaud any effort to shine disinfectant on the evils and fraud of one Barry Soetoro. It is quite apparent to me that he is not a citizen at all, let alone a NBC!

But similarly, I take extreme issue with statements like this, from above:


The Court can be assured that it would be much more tolerable for this nation to remove an unqualified president, at best a temporary vanity, from office and bring all of his conspirators to justice rather than tear up our Constitution and break the trust of the people for all branches and members of government.


Considering the repeated and disgusting rape of the constitution since at least the mid 1850s, it is hardly the case that the pitiful example of Barry Soetoro will "tear up our constitution". It is pretty much in tatters already.

Further, I think the trust of the people for government is pretty much at an all-time low and will not change very much one way or another.

Ousting the usurper is certainly a positive step, but will not single-handedly "fix the problem".

Ted said...

Carlyle, with all due respect you are wrong because this constitutional infringement is exponentially more severe to the complete structure of our Constitutional Republic than any case since the founding.

Kerchner v Obama and Congress et al IS the most significant case before the Supreme Court since Marbury v Madison. The hour, 10:00AM on Monday, November 29, 2010, will tell the fate of our nation, that is, whether we continue as a Constitutional Republic or the same has been replaced by coup d'etat. The reason I say this is that because the decision on STANDING IS EVERYTHING.

The Stacker said...

Honest question from an honest person:

What has changed to make any of you think SCOTUS will now reconsider and take the case on?

Benaiah said...

If only we lived in Iran...

Assembly Pushes to Oust Iran President

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703904804575631093531990342.html

[...]

"The president and his cabinet must be held accountable in front of the parliament," the report stated. "A lack of transparency and the accumulation of legal violations by the government is harming the regime."

The Stacker said...

Another interesting question is:

Do any of you guys think SCOTUS knows the details of the birth / vital records?

It's another reason that might hold them back. Basically we have, in summary, these possibilities:

1) SCOTUS knows that he was minimally born in the U.S. and is waiting the term out because he was elected by the people

2)SCOTUS knows that his birth record is borderline or very shady and is withholding judgment = conspiracy

3) SCOTUS knows nothing except that he has been elected, and given the historical factors as well as no definitive NBC criterion to oust Obama, won't take the case anyway

or finally, as I asked before

4) If things change, SCOTUS will take the case because he's falling out of favor and it is less risky for them to do (although even this is questionable given that his approval is bad --- it's still not 10%)

Ted said...

Stacker, I'm sure Mario & the Commander can express better than me, but this case is the first against Congressmen for violating the constitutional rights of plaintiffs, which, if the Supreme Court rejects for standing, there's no way to enforce the constitution, which would be rendered effectively a nullity, subject to the whims of politicians.

Ted said...

Stacker, the where's and records of Obama's birth need not even be addressed. Moreover, the needed facts are not even in dispute since Obama admits his dad was British citizen on BHO's birth. It's purely a legal question which the court can decide without seeking any more facts. And, more than that, the Court need not even have to look at the ultimate legal merits because Obama is doomed the moment the Court finds standing -- Obama would never submit to discovery, so he'd be gonzo (conceivably the MOMENT the Court grants Cert on standing).

Carlyle said...

Oh, I don't know -- the aftermath of the War of Northern Aggression, and the fourteenth amendment, and most especially the 'activist' interpretation of same -- that seems even a more severe blow to the constitution than the Soetoro situation.

And what about FDR and the creation of the Federal Nanny State? All of this resulted in the complete inversion of the very foundation and concept of a Republic. The Federal government became supreme.

And what about all the illegal and unconstitutional agencies? Some of them do more harm (practically day to day, and constitutionally) than Soetoro.

As much as I want to get rid of Soetoro, if I had to trade, I would keep him and get rid of the EPA. In terms of impact and pure tyranny, that would be a no brainer. But constitutionally it is equally strong. There is no way that the constitution allows creating an agency of government with the tyrannical and unstoppable power of the EPA.

The constitution was BROKEN far before 2008.

Carlyle said...

DO YOU THINK THE USSC THINKS LIKE THIS?

Suppose the Supreme Court surmises that, if they hear the case, there will be civil/race war? Or at least unprecedented violence and destruction in the inner cities - Thousands killed, a million or more injured, 10s or 100s billions$ of damage in these uncertain economic conditions.

So, they decide to not hear the case. They just let the ambiguity hang over everything. Just wait a couple more years and he will be voted out, and it will all be moot.

Or, maybe it is deeper than that. There is no way that Barry Soetoro is ineligible unless numerous IMPORTANT people signed off on it, or at least knew about it and should have (pursuant to their constitutional oaths) done something about it?

Would the CRIME them be "too big to prosecute"? Would it decapitate our government? Therefore an unthinkable and untenable domestic risk and national security issue?

YOU MAKE THE CALL:
Is this OK?
Is this wise and reasonable?
Is this just being mature and practical?
Is this negotiating with terrorists?
Does this demonstrate a national security flaw?
An exploitable weakness to our foreign enemies and allies?
Are we agreeable to a crime too big to solve?
Who can make such a decision?

Finally, if Barry Soetoro is really and actually illegal and a usurper - we must clearlyforce him to stand down. But what of all the laws and appointments he signed and made so far? Can we just "undo" Barry Soetoro?

And, let's take it a step further! Beyond the direct things he touched. What about all the elected officials that were swept in on his coattails? Clearly more people turned out to vote - and a different mix of people - then had he not been in the race. At a minimum, the Governor and Congressional races would have turned out different if he had not been on the ticket. What do we do about that?

Does all that mean we cannot fix the problem?

cfkerchner said...

World Net Daily interviewed Mario today regarding the Supreme Court Conference held today on our Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Here is the article.

U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility | by Brian Fitzpatrick | @ wnd.com
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=232073

Bravo Zulu Mario!

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
###

A pen said...

"Granting cert means Obama is gonzo" Well, there lies the real issue. Will the court bow to the fear that there may be rioting? If they do there will be worse than that. The difference will merely be time and even greater bloodshed. No one should take lightly the fact America is armed to the teeth and is on high alert for any who may challenge civil order. It's as if half the nation were shaking hands with their local LEO's and passing along their support. That is the America of our founders and the court had better take a hard look at that.

cfkerchner said...

Lame Cherry writes a tribute to Mario Apuzzo - An American Hero.

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2010/11/american-hero.html

Bravo Zulu Mario!

Robert said...

When facing "insurmountable" problems it helps to remember the following sayings:

"If you have to swallow a frog, don't stare at it too long."

"If you have to swallow more than one, swallow the biggest one first."

The Obama fraud is the biggest problem facing our country today. However, as large as it seems, it can be broken down into smaller parts.

Obama and all of the things he touched directly must be nullified. The laws in place prior to his taking office would simply be in force as opposed to Obama's illegal actions.

Much of what Obama affected indirectly has already been corrected by the last election with more correction expected in 2012. If we take care of him and the things he directly touched, the rest will take care of itself.

Provisions for replacing empty seats including both elected and appointed positions are already in place. Even if large numbers of highly placed people signed off on Obama's fraud, they are not hard to replace and they can be handled individually or State by State very quickly. There's really not that many of them - probably less than a thousand. Their removal and replacement could be accomplished very quickly with no threat to our national security.

Assumptions of mass riots, loss of life and destruction of property are only that - assumptions. The better assumption is that we can tell the people the truth and they will be angry and disappointed with Obama. People are fair minded when they are treated honestly and with respect.

Obama has known he was ineligible at least since he was in college. He's supposedly a Harvard-trained Constitutional scholar. Even if a number of other people are parties to the crime, responsibility for his fraud lies squarely on his shoulders. No one forced him to run for office.

We can reconcile our government with our Constitution. Just think of what we had before we had a constitution. Now we at least have a document. We just need to take it one step at a time, just like we got away from it.

If it is possible to have a crime too big to solve, this isn't it.

Neither is our nation to big to fail.

We can't let this go. We can not expect to live free and allow ourselves to be controlled by fear.

vrajavala said...

Have any of the Justices recused themselves?

vrajavala said...

I think that the court martial of Lt. col. Terry Lakin is enough evidence for "standing".
If you follow any of the "insider" comments, you will also appreciate that Pelosi must have the goods on Obama , since she has retained her political position. However, that being said, the fact that he was born a British subject is convincing. I'm sure Pelosi has the files on Obama, but I'm not sure that they are entirely necessary.
Also, the fact that he appointed two Justices, I believe, means that they necessarily have to recuse.
No one has heard about any of this either, which leads me to believe that the TSA revolt is a red flag.

bdwilcox said...

Carlyle,

Do you think the Supremes would prefer a nationwide Civil War to maybe a few inner-city riots that could be easily contained?

The last time I looked, the Civil War took 600,000 lives while the LA riots took 51. With today's technology and armaments, I would conservatively multiply that Civil War casualty rate by 10 to give us 6 million dead. Now, which do you think is the more attractive option?

I've been predicting Civil War since the Kelo decision and Obama is more or less the spark that lights the fuse. To deny this writ is to endanger the peace, not preserve it.

Ted said...

What Lame Cherry says is not hyperbole. (I hopefully can foresee a day when public buildings and schools will be named after "Mario Apuzzo" -- or should be, and, I assure you, there are Americans who will make that effort)

Ted said...

Frankly, it will be much much more difficult (and they’d be subject to harsh rebuke) for the Supreme Court to justify NOT finding a case with standing than FINDING standing — so I am cautiously optimistic — but then again, maybe corruption (and/or intimidation) has overwhelmed all levels of all branches of Govt.

Sallyal said...

I think people need to consider that yes OB was "elected by the people" but as Apuzzo points out, that does not automatically amend the Constitution. Under this logic, if Osama Bin Ladin came to the US, married an American woman and had a child, this child would then be "eligible" to be POTUS. This is why it is absolutely critical that SCOTUS finally define natural born citizen. It is also going to come up again if Jindal, Rubio or that crazy woman, Granholm from Michigan (former Governor, dual citizenship with Canada) decides to run for president.

And to Carlyle, just because our Constitution has been trampled on for years, does not mean that we should just sit back and do nothing. Eventually we have to get back on the right track. And what better way to do that than get rid of this usurper? Then we can get on the road to recovery and restore the right and correct order of our country.

Greg Goss said...

I am somewhat concerned that some of think that the SCOTUS might not hear the case based on the premise that there would be race riots in the streets. Not sure how that opinion would be written....but I for one do not think that there would be riots. Everyone understands the rules. If the receiver has one foot out of bounds when he catches the ball it is not a touchdown. Unrest would depend on the media and how it is reported. If the media explains the "rules", what the term NBC means, then it is simple.

But to get back to the SCOTUS. If they decide not to hear the case based on standing then I think we have a bigger problem than race riots.....our right to redress is effectively taken away, and that is huge.

The Stacker said...

Ted,

You said:

"Moreover, the needed facts are not even in dispute since Obama admits his dad was British citizen on BHO's birth ... And, more than that, the Court need not even have to look at the ultimate legal merits because Obama is doomed the moment the Court finds standing -- Obama would never submit to discovery, so he'd be gonzo"

This is a typical thing that I've seen written over the last 2 YEARS. I would be called a "birther" by most, but I am a REALIST above all. The facts aren't in dispute? When are people going to be honest and admit, at least regarding the current (non)definition of NBC, them majority opinion is NOT that you can't have a foreign national father. I agree with you, Ted, it SHOULD HAVE BEEN obvious and codified discretely, but THAT IS NOT THE CASE. If it were the case, he'd clearly be gone. Reality check, please.

Point 2 - Do you KNOW something I/we don't? I don't think he would ever comply to discovery or challenges that would make him produce real details of the birth, but I don't KNOW. Unless you aren't telling us something, you don't either?

The only thing that I know for certain was that he was NOT born at Kapi'olani, and that makes a large portion of his narrative a fabrication.

Add all the rest of the horribly non-transparent facade and bad decisions he's made, let alone his penchant for gov't takeover of sectors, and OF COURSE I want the man gone.

But you need to realize and address my points. Seriously.

bdwilcox said...

Ted,

I think separate buildings and schools will need to be named after Mario Apuzzo, CDR Kerchner and the other plaintiffs in this case. Though I read Lame Cherry's article with interest and pride for what Mr. Apuzzo has accomplished, I'm disappointed that he failed to mention the well-deserved hero status of CDR Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand and Donald H. Nelsen Jr. who have all risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor for this righteous endeavor.

This is not mentioned to in any way diminish Mr. Apuzzo's profound research, brilliant presentation, and immense effort (which I've recently learned has all been done pro-bono) but to also recognize the dedicated and unrelenting work of CDR Kerchner as well as the risks and labors the other plaintiffs have undertaken.

A hearty thanks to Mr. Apuzzo, CDR Kerchner and the other plaintiffs for standing up for our beloved Constitution, liberty and the rule of law. Our founding fathers would be proud of you!

Ted said...

Stacker,

(1) The interpretation of "natural born citizen" is an issue of law, NOT an issue of fact.

(2) Congress can NOT codify the meaning of "natural born citizen" at variance with the Constitution; that would require Const. Amendment.

(3) "Natural Born Citizen" issue would impact eligibility even if it were stipulated that BHO was born in the Lincoln Bedroom of the Whitehouse.

(4) Discovery would lead to the political, if not legal, destruction of BHO. Rush Limgaugh even noted today, joking about Obama's "pardoning" the Thanksgiving Turkey should really be a matter of "pardoning" Obama.

Ted said...

bdwilcos, I agree, there are a host of "heroes" here, including attorneys Leo Donofrio, Orly Taitz, and others -- and in a sense, current "heroes" stand on the shoulders of these others, helping to pave the way. For instance, I penned the following back in December 2008:

* * *

" ROADMAP TO ADDRESS THE LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS:

Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.

Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.

Finally, if 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” — dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO’s birth — albeit he MAY be a 14th Amendment “citizen”) with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will — rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence — endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat. (SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.)"

* * *
see comment 2 under:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2008/12/27/the-rights-of-citizens-and-the-powers-of-the-state/

In any case, all patriotic Americans are more than especially indebted to Mr. Apuzzo and his clear thinking and writing, and his careful and calm persistence, as well as Commander Kerchner's tireless persistence and dedication. These two great Americans are making history -- and I, for one, am gonna make an effort that America always remembers them.

THEY'RE getting the job done!!!

Carlyle said...

The Scotus, Congresspeople, etc. worry about civil unrest far more than you know. They also know that if they do nothing, there will be no civil unrest. The only people who care (e.g. like us) are too civilized to 'riot'.

It is the uncivilized Obots who would riot. And if it happened in multiple big cities simultaneously, there would be an incomprehensibly huge bloodshed. More than all the Afghan and Iraq casualties combined. And certainly far more than 911.

So, yes, I agree that Soetoro should be run out of town, but in light of the above, I don't see it happening.

I also agree with the poster above who says that just because the constitution has been trampled before - you gotta begin somewhere. But that was not my earlier point.

In my earlier post I was complaining against the people who believe that somehow the Soetoro situation is 'special' and that his staying in power would somehow invalidate the constitution. That is clearly not the case - he is just one more example of a long line of constitutional rape.

PS - The Scotus does not have to explain themselves or write an opinion. They can just stamp the file denied. Period. End of discussion.

The Stacker said...

Ted,

1 - I agree. US Code does not overwhelmingly agree with us, unfortunately. Do you get this point yet? If it did, it would have forced Obama's hand LONG AGO.

2 - Again, I agree (and never brought this up). The McCain Senate 19-0 vote is downright crazy, manipulative and is very telling.

3 - Again, I agree.

Which leads us to (4):

I have my guesses, but how would it lead to political destruction? This was my original query. Obviously the legal destruction would involve vital stats showing he really wasn't born in Hawai'i ...

Best regards. I await your reply.

Stacker

The Stacker said...

Even with our lack of confidence in the powers that be, let us still give thanks to God for all the gifts we have, including our families, communities, and nation.

My best to all tomorrow on Thanksgiving.

Make gratitude your attitude.

Best,

Stacker

Toyin O. said...

Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

Ted said...

Stacker, the point is US Code has further defined citizenship, but there is nothing, nor can there be anything, in the code which alters "Natural Born Citizen" without first amending the Constitution. As for Obama's "political destruction" in the event of discovery -- clearly what would be revealed would result EITHER in a legal inelligibility, or if not that, would reveal a narrative which would completely undermine the Obama political and/or historical narrative, as evidenced by his spending upwards of $2 million to fight revealing ANYTHING.

Squeeky said...

Mr. Apuzzo:

I just saw on a link from gretawire to Caaflog where all the Obots are teasing you. This makes me sooo mad!!!

You have done a good job fighting this in court, and have gotten it all the way to the Supreme Court, so don't let these idiots get you down!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Texoma said...

Sallyal said:

"This is why it is absolutely critical that SCOTUS finally define natural born citizen. It is also going to come up again if Jindal, Rubio or that crazy woman, Granholm from Michigan (former Governor, dual citizenship with Canada) decides to run for president."

Regarding Rubio, do we know when his parents became naturalized US citizens? They arrived as exiles from Cuba in 1959. Marco Rubio was born in 1971.

If they were not yet US citizens at the time of Rubio's birth, here is an interesting question: Would Rubio still be a natural born citizen if his parents, as exiles, had lost or revoked their Cuban citizenship? If his parents were not citizens of another country when Rubio was born, then Rubio would not have been born subject to a foreign power -- which is the same characteristic of a natural born citizen.

js said...

new info out; congressional research confirms 'bama was never legally or formally vetted...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIHhhgulww&feature=player_embedded#!

talk about fraud next..all those tax contributions to his election campain...if he KNEW he was ineligible...its criminal...its treason to accept the office of POTUS...if he knew he was ineligible...lots of language in this video...the whole house of cards would come falling down...but would the current AG prosecute it...thats whats really up...the same people that have protected 'bama up to now would be in charge of his prosecutions...(ya, plural)...and if ya think about how they handled the New Black Panthers deal...its a travesty...

js said...

talkin on SCOTUS...worrying about civil unrest...how far can they take it...before they toss out the baby with the bath water...when the constitution gets in the way...just ignore it?...even after they swore an oath to uphold and defend it?...

it comes down to one thing...are we above the law then...that our oaths can be so spuriously ignored...from the least of us to the most powerful...instead of standing up for the constitution of these great states...and for what is right, and honorable...and just...to submit to public emotions...about obama...

thats not the path of honor...and i wont be a part of it...for me...i chose the truth...because its the easiest one to defend...

terminu said...

Stacker:
In the 58 years existence of US Code 1401, never has there been mention of the term "Natural Born Citizen" within it. Why? Because those are all statutory citizens, and no Natural Born Citizen is ever a statutory citizen, and vice versa, which is the holding of Minor v. Happersett.
It's interesting to note that among all of the permutations under "Born Citizen" in US Code 1401 is omitted 2 US citizen parents child born in-country. Now why do you suppose, that in 58 years, nobody objected to the most obvious born-citizen being omitted from the statutory listings of born citizens? It is because again, NBCs are never statutory citizens, even though they are born-citizens.

It's a glaring obvious omission, and meaningful as it correlates with perfection to Minor which holds no 14th amendment citizen (US Code 1401 was written as a result of the 14th amendment) can be a natural born citizen.

terminu said...

I am on a hunger strike until SCOTUS defines NBC.

Cindy said...

On this Thanksgiving Day, I thank God for heroes like Mario Apuzzo & Charles Kerchner. God bless you & yours.

The Stacker said...

Happy Thanksgiving to all. Glory to God for all things.

May the day be fruitful and contemplative for you all, but most of all, safe and joyous.

Texoma:

"If his parents were not citizens of another country when Rubio was born, then Rubio would not have been born subject to a foreign power -- which is the same characteristic of a natural born citizen."

Really cool thought.

Ted,

We need NBC defined. I'm with you. Well said.

Carlyle said...

js said...
November 24, 2010 8:43 PM

==========================

I agree with you. That is what I want also. But neither of us is on the USSC. The only thing that matters is what the USSC thinks and wants.

As far as constitutional oaths - my continued discussion of decades long rape of the constitution is meant to address this issue. i.e. Such oaths have been violated for so long, they are no longer meaningful. They are just empty words.

My sense is that the Power Elites just do whatever they want. 99% of them don't even know what the constitution says. They certainly do not carry the C around with them and look things up. Is there a congressional watchdog for the Constitution like there is for ethics? Why not? Does any congressperson have a staff member whose job it is to ensure constitutional compliance? (My 'guess' is ZERO, not a single one). Why not?

Simple: THEY DON'T CARE

Carlyle said...

Rather than just whining - here is the crux of the matter - here is what we MUST do:

Stop electing congress people on either number of trinkets promised, party, issues, or ideology. Let's start vetting them with tough constitutional questions.

1. Do you support the constitution TOTALLY?

2. Do you agree to THOROUGHLY check all proposed legislation and actions for constitutionality?

3. Do you agree to vet ALL appointments and officials against constitutional eligibility - and only appoint staff with proper respect for the constitution.

4. Do you understand that the States and the People are the ultimate authority on the constitution, not the USSC?

5. Do you agree that ALL questions of constitutionality must be heard and addressed immediately? Not languishing in courts or backrooms for months and years?

etc.

js said...

i think the whole thing centers around fiduciary duty...of those members Carlyle...that hold this power...to uphold and defend the constitution...and the failure of congress to do its fiduciary duty as well...in both the vetting of obama...and protecting the laws of the land from the judicial process when they go far above and beyond the reasonable and constitutional standards as we see in todays society... ie...abortion, drug laws..and a whole host of civil rights granted by the USSC that go well beyond any person or groups natural rights...
there really should be a route to initiate impeachment through a public option like a recall election...that would hold authority over both houses and the judicial branch in cases of extreme negligence (the sort that allowed the situation we are all hinged on today waiting on this noble suit)

Ted said...

js and Carlyle:--

I'd put it this way -- and the Kerchner case captures it: each and every member of Congress is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.

The Stacker said...

Terminu,

Great answer/response.

I am skeptical about the SCOTUS. I still think he can be nailed/defamed still, however, with acquisitional research. I hope it happens.

Best to all.

Carlyle said...

Ted -

I hope/wish you were right. As things stand RIGHT NOW, we seem to have no way to hold officials accountable to the constitution and their oaths.

There needs to be some way other than voting. Otherwise we are just all hostage to mob rule and any election becomes a means to override or sidestep the constitution.

It is presumed that a congressperson would represent their constituents and try to get a disproportionate share of goodies for them. This is OK as long as they are forced to work within the confines (and checks and balances) of the constitution.

But if they are allowed to "free wheel", then the entire country is held hostage to the most creative and unscrupulous congresspeople (e.g. Nancy Pelosi).

This is wrong.

Robert said...

An insight we might consider.

True, the Constitution does not define "natural born Citizen" but neither does it define "citizen" that is until 1866 with the 14th Amendment. It was then that Representative John Bingham, the key sponsor, said, "Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen." (Ref. Congressional Record for March 9, 1866)

(Please note, however, the State Department says that citizens by statue are not 14th Amendment citizens, hence the 14th Amendment does NOT define “citizenship” in the broader sense.)

The Stacker said...

Robert, what reference do you have for your statement:

"... the State Department says that citizens by statue are not 14th Amendment citizens, hence the 14th Amendment does NOT define “citizenship” in the broader sense."

Thanks in advance.

Robert said...

The Stacker,

Unfortunately I do not have a specific reference re the State Department's view on citizenship vis a' vis the 14th Amendment. I will say, however, that it came to me from a highly knowledged and deeply engaged lawyer on the topic of citizenship, especially as it relates to natural born Citizen. I came across it last night from an email exchange we had back in August 2009.

I am not at liberty to give his identity. Perhaps others on this site can provide the specifics.

Puzo1 said...

I just posted this comment at the blog of Dr. Conspiracy:

"Dr. Conspiracy,

Referring to the complaint/petition that I filed in the Kerchner case, you say in this post, "While the natural born citizen argument was little more than a footnote in the original complaint, it has become central to Kerchner’s publicity campaign."

For you now to imply that we only lately resorted to the "natural born Citizen" issue for the sake of a "publicity campaign" is highly dishonest and also not unexpected of you. You know very well that since at least December 20, 2008, when I wrote my first essay on my blog entitled, The Two Constitutional Obstacles Obama Has to Overcome to be President,
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html, I have always argued the two eligibility issues of place of birth and the original meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." The two issues have been argued by me in every one of my briefs to the New Jersey Federal District Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I have also included both issues in the recent Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court which I filed on September 30, 2010. Additionally, Commander Kerchner and I have written numerous essays on my blog and given numerous radio interviews in which we discussed both issues.

Given the existence of all this well-documented information showing that I have raised both issues since December 2008, I must concluded that you did not make a simple mistake in making your factually incorrect statement. On the contrary, I know why you would make such a false statement on your blog. What you are really doing is trying to re-write history, like you and your supporters here and elsewhere are good at doing or at least attempting to do. And you do know that I am referring to the fact that you and other like-thinking individuals have, for the sake of saving Obama from his correct historical fate, attempted to write natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel out of our constitutional history. But now you are also re-writing history for another purpose. This whole blog is about conspiracy theories related to Obama's eligibility to be President. So clearly this blog, "Obamaconspiracy.org," and your whole cyberspace persona, "Dr. Conspiracy," are not relevant to the question of what is a "natural born Citizen," for their is nothing conspiratorial about determining what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the "natural born Citizen" clause in the Constitution. In fact, the meaning of what is a citizen has been studied by scholars since time immemorial. There are countless volumes and articles written by great scholars devoted to the study. The meaning of citizenship has been addressed by our courts since the beginning of our republic. The meaning of the "natural born Citizen" clause has been debated by scholars for quite a number of years, concerning candidates such as Barry Goldwater, Lowell Weicker, George Romney, Christian D. Herr, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and recently John McCain. How interesting that those who engaged in that scholarship were not labeled "birthers" or conspiracy nuts. So clearly Obama, whom you have decided to blindly defend at the expense of our Constitution, must make the difference for you and so many who have followed your ill-fated path.

What I suggest that you do is create a new blog with a new name, also give yourself a new name, and engage in real scholarship on the legitimate and important question of whether Obama, born a British citizen to a British citizen father, is an Article II "natural born Citizen" as intended by the Founders and Framers.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 27, 2010"

The Stacker said...

Robert,

Your response not only sounds conspiratorial, it is meaningless. So what if a "high up" thinks this-that and this? --- it obviously hasn't meant jack up to this point.

I am not trying to offend here, but re-read what you wrote and realize that it does no one any good. At all. It obviously isn't that convincing, either.

Nothing has changed. Who cares about your emails from a year ago that have obviously rendered nothing?

I find it weird you would even post that, acting like it is meaningful. These sorts of charades only hurt our cause.

The Stacker said...

Bravo, Mario, Bravo.

I have tried to argue with the bad Dr. himself before, but it was all for naught. He was reasonable on a few issues, but seemingly just to trap you or give a false sense of rational expectation.

The reality is that they ARE blind followers that are emotionally involved in a sided battle likely bestowed upon them in a religious manner by their parents or by authority figures in their formative years. It's really quite sad.

WHEN we find that he wasn't born at Kapio'lani, that his whole narrative was a facade, that his father is not who he has said it was ... they still will try to explain it away.

And we'll sit on the side, just incredulous that our own countryment are willingly so blind.

It's really quite disgusting.

bdwilcox said...

Dr. Conspiracy's new blog should be called 'The Memory Hole' (Paging Dr. Conspiracy, paging Dr. Conspiracy. www.thememoryhole.com is available!) Orwell would be so proud.

terminu said...

Robert: That doesn't even make sense. I call "bunk" until there's a reference.


The 14th amendment was added in 1868. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was reenacted in 1870. Minor v. Happersett ruling was in 1874. USCode 1401 was written in 1952. So MvH is saying NBC is not defined by 14th amendment, since the 14th was already "IN" the constitution by 1874. The 14th amendment indeed defines "citizens" of the United States, and does not ever mention natural born citizens, as MvH affirms:
--------
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "

------
Then MvH says:
"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 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."

Michael said...

Here's something that should be shock horror for the Obots & Dr. Conspiracy

The English Common Law (See Calvin's Case of the postnati)requires that to be an English 'natural born subject', the father must first be an English 'natural subject' and is considered a 'naturalsubject' (albeit alien born)

Basically English Common Law says that to be a 'natural born subject' one must be born jus sanguinis AND jus soli.

i.e. born to an English subject AND in the dominion(s) of England.

Read it for yourself
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27

Michael said...

With reference to my prior post.

The Obots have cherry-picked the 'alien' part from the Common Law to make their case, but have failed to acknowledge the fact that it is the 'alien born' father that is FIRST a 'subject' to be able to produce a 'natural born subject'.

Michael said...

The dicta of the Wong court was erroneous to suggest that if a child of an alien, born in England, is an English 'natural born subject', then the a child of an alien, born in USA, is a 'natural born citizen'.

The Horace Grey court got it all wrong in Wong with this notion, the 'guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark' is faulty.

English Common Law (See The English Common Law (Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati. 1 - Sir Edward Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I [1600])
states that to be an English 'natural born subject', the father must FIRST be an English 'natural subject' and is considered a 'subject' (albeit the alien born)

Ergo: the 'alien' father was a 'subject' FIRST to issue a 'natural born subject'.

Basically English Common Law says that to be a 'natural born subject' one must be born jus sanguinis AND jus soli.

i.e. born to an English subject and in the dominion(s) of England.

USC Article II requires the same as does English Common Law, but the father in US must first be or become a ('subject') citizen per 14th Amendment.

Problem is, US doesn't automate citizenship of aliens as did the English its subjects.

Therefore a child born of an alien in US is (consistent with the principles of English Common Law & USC 14th Amendment) merely a 'citizen' and not a 'natural born Citizen'

Read it for yourself
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27

Robert said...

The Stacker,

You are correct; I should not have referred to the State Dept. vs. the 14th Amendment for three reasons: 1) It is irrelevant and undocumented; 2) The 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of NBC; and 3) It distracted from the main point I wanted to make. Please permit me to elaborate.

The whole struggle these past two years has been to document we DO understand what Our Founders knew NBC to mean. In my posting that the word “citizen” was also not defined in the Constitution, I believe it directly supports our efforts to bring clarity to the meaning of NBC as viewed by the Founders.

As we know, many opponents continue to assert we cannot possibly know the meaning of NBC, because it is not defined in the Constitution. We know this is true, however, for the Constitution does not define words, and among these are the word "citizen" at least not in the original 1787 document. The word “citizen” was not defined until 1866 via the 14th Amendment.

Given "citizen" was not defined in 1787 why should we permit the "Obama defenders" to vociferously complain that since "natural born Citizen" is not defined it now means whatever they say it means. Rather, the patriotic duty and great responsibility we have is to probe the writings of Our Founders to come to understand what they knew to be the definition of “natural born Citizen.” This is the crucial work of Mario Apuzzo, supported by countless others, that is now coming to a head at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thank you for permitting me to clarify what I believe is an important insight.

terminu said...

Chicago Tribute
"Because a Constitutional crisis is just what this nation needs right now "


http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/11/vattel.html?cid=6a00d83451b4ba69e20134898e51eb970c

terminu said...

"The latest, greatest hope of the Obama haters is the "Vattel Theory"--

---which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by Swiss (in earlier drafts, the article had "French") writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.

And since one must be a "natural-born citizen" to be president and Barack Obama's father was not, as everyone acknowledges, a U.S. citizen, the whackjobs who have been unsuccessful in their "he was born in Kenya!" effort, are now hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will help in their cause to declare him ineligible to hold office."

Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune

Ted said...

I've been walking this around in my head for some time:

Clearly (1) the Kerchner case is of more than substantial national importance, (2) the political process -- Congress counting/certifying Electoral votes -- has been completed making the case ripe (and now not a political question), and (3) constitutional infringements of Plaintiffs have been alleged; therefore, ON WHAT BASIS CAN THE SUPREME COURT NOT FIND STANDING?

I realize that the Court is not required to issue an opinion should it deny certiorari, but I'd be curious WHAT argument(s) COULD be made for denying cert?

I'd be more than curious to see any -- because, if cert were denied (and I pray it is granted for the sake of the Republic), it will be the subject of more than long-lasting debate and analysis.

Ted said...

and please go to this link:--

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/courage-and-the-constitution/

terminu said...

I just noticed that Eric Zorn had the same "sound bite" as Dr. Conspiracy!
Mario Apuzzo, Kerchner, Donofrio, etc. have ALL ALONG argued about Vattel and now these obots are saying it's a "last ditch effort"???
That the BC failed? Well our esteemed Constitutional scholars always saw the BC as a misdirection all along!
How dare they? Or should I bother asking that? What unmitigated gall! Oh well, that's an obot for you.

Ted said...

IMHO, the "birth certificate" issue was a "red herring" launched by Team Obama from day one.

The REAL issue has always been and remains "natural born citizen" inelligiblity by reason of Obama's British dad.

The Stacker said...

Robert,

Thank you for clarifying. A wonderful response. Cheers.

Ted,

Great thoughts.

I do think that the birth certificate/story of birth/documentation IS of at least some (if not major) importance because HE IS SO CLEARLY HIDING WHO/WHAT HE IS.

It's not necessarily a red herring; you could be right, it might be one entirely ...

But NOT ONE OF US KNOWS that for sure.

Best,

Stacker

cfkerchner said...

Let us pray to God that the Supreme Court Justices made the correct decision which is to support and defend the Constitution per their oath and to pursue the search for the truth about the exact citizenship status of Obama and grant us an Order of Certiorari and take up the case or Order the Lower Court to take up the case or at least issue an Order to the DOJ ordering them to respond to the Petition which would indicate that the necessary number of Justices are considering granting Cert but just wish to give the Obama side and the DOJ another crack at them to say why they should not grant us Cert. We'll know shortly after 10 a.m. tomorrow. We'll know then if we still are a nation of laws of which the U.S. Constitution is the fundamental and foundational written law of our land. Pray they voted to defend the Constitution and grant Cert.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
###

Carlyle said...

Ted -

It seems (based on the nickname and the content of the questions) that you have been poking around over at Citizen Wells and have encountered Leo Haffey / Leo the Lawyer / Free Speech.

Give it up. He is a self-righteous egomaniac. He will not ever answer any direct or substantive questions. Many many people have left over there because of his ranting and personal attacks on people.

Many of us supported him and actually sent money when he once seems to have been falsely imprisoned by some Tennessee Law Officials. But have regretted it since.

I used to post over there all the time, but since I was right when he was wrong, he understandably took a dislike to me. He filled the blog with rants and attacks. CW refused to fumigate the place, so I left.

Too bad - CW used to be a great place - now, not so much. I now post one or two announcement type things over there per week for my old friends. But I never get engaged in discussions anymore and they are missing some of my best stuff.

Best not to complain - CW can run his site however he wishes. But don't get tangled with Leo Haffey. He is a disrupter and no benefit to anybody.

Michael said...

Here's hoping the SCOTUS judges hold the fate of the republic of US as the paramount concern in their deliberation.

My Welcome said...

I call it the Human Factor. Does everyone remember Jan 28th 2010 when Obama blasted the Supreme Court publicly, at no less, The State of the Union? Justice Alito was livid and could be seen wording "not true" "not true". Two judges will have to recuse themselves. There are 4 conservative Judges (relatively speaking).

Today could be payback time for Justice Alito. I call it the Human Factor.