tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post83124830985178942..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of BirthMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-84842403329460696682015-03-31T02:38:50.651-04:002015-03-31T02:38:50.651-04:00Dr. Conspiracy, It says "Les Naturels,ou indi...Dr. Conspiracy, It says "Les Naturels,ou indigenes,sont ceux qui sont nes de le pays de parents citoyens" It does not say<br /> Les Naturels....sont nes de le pays de Un Pere Citoyen. Robert Laityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00286404529595762438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-56967239436850626202015-03-25T19:20:57.053-04:002015-03-25T19:20:57.053-04:00Your link to the following is broken (it's a T...Your link to the following is broken (it's a Thunderbird URL): <br /><br />Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 8 [1774]<br /><br />Here's a good link:<br />http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1385lgstarrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02752386918407342437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-68284120249368838622013-08-20T20:03:04.771-04:002013-08-20T20:03:04.771-04:00In your last three paragraphs, you suggest that Ob...In your last three paragraphs, you suggest that Obama is a U.S./British dual citizen at birth. I submit to you that this is patently incorrect - <b>Obama was British EXCLUSIVELY</b>. Since Obama does NOT meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment, Section 1, U.S. citizenship is DENIED to him.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07829855039802782194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-4572043845535080062013-05-06T04:52:32.364-04:002013-05-06T04:52:32.364-04:00Edwin Meese was an ignorant bonehead. Thirteen co...Edwin Meese was an ignorant bonehead. Thirteen colonies declared independence from royal dictatorship and became 13 new nations which formed a loose confederation. Each had its own government, constitution, congress, courts and laws; including naturalization laws. There was zero reliance on English common law when it came to the naturalization law of each state-nation. Their Law was the law, -not common law. The national government that later formed had no national citizenship law because that was under the authority of the States. National citizenship was via state citizenship. If you were not a state citizen then you were not an American either. Where you were born had nothing to do with national citizenship law because it did not exist. If the state in which you were born didn't care that you were born there since you were born of an alien father, then you were not a born citizen of that state. Nor of the nation. But even a state that granted such children citizenship did not consider them as natural citizens but as alien-born citizens. Fathered by and raised by a foreigner, with unknown allegiance and views about government. Possibly a royal loyalist to the core.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-40780095829294195282012-02-08T17:32:23.754-05:002012-02-08T17:32:23.754-05:00Mario,
An atty-sounding troll has deluged my blog ...Mario,<br />An atty-sounding troll has deluged my blog to refute my argument that Americna Common Law defined NBC, not English Common Law. Here is the most recent comment. What's your take:<br /><br />My comment: "You're dead wrong about NBC being determined by English Common Law."<br /><br />Anonymous: "NBC status was determined by English common law, in which Natural Born is mentioned. It was not determined by Vattel, whose works were not translated to include the words "Natural Born" until ten years AFTER the US Constitution. There are NO examples of the writers of the US Constitution using Natural Born to refer to parents, but there are several in which they use it the way that it was used in the English common law.<br /><br />'Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President....'---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]<br /><br />Meese is right, and you are wrong."Jim Delaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07576655724153561887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18113171379635553802011-04-26T01:05:20.715-04:002011-04-26T01:05:20.715-04:00New animated video shows Obama explaining how he d...New animated video shows Obama explaining how he deceived the American electorate:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0_LNLA9GY" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0_LNLA9GY</a><br /><br />CDR Kerchner (Ret)<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>puzo1moderatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14344806874980130928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-55543254011349644582010-03-20T14:31:02.323-04:002010-03-20T14:31:02.323-04:00Thank you, Patriotic Marine, for your research, an...Thank you, Patriotic Marine, for your research, and concern over this question. As to your conclusion:<br /><br />"I guess my next question is:<br />How was Obama allowed to run and what do we do now since he is in?"<br /><br />(1) it seems clear that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton knew there was some question about his eligibility, since Nancy signed off on his ballot authorizations with a change in the wording (thus signifying awareness of the matter), and they acted in concert to have Obama accepted by acclamation at the convention in a way that gave them a card to play, if need be, later, since they didn't allow for a 'nay' vote to be heard. Thus it was a procedural tactic, in case things blew up, or in case they helped things blow up, in the future. That time is now. Because:<br /><br />(2) The sentiment is present in the country to call for his impeachment. On a number of grounds; foremost, that he has failed to address serious questions regarding his eligibility, by providing his various records, like an innocent person would have. If he has nothing to hide, etc. A potential legal hitch in this action is a Catch-22: If he has occupied the position illegally, then he can't be impeached, since he isn't really the president. But I doubt that his loyal followers will try to play THAT card...<br /><br />The basic answer is that the military must be persuaded to call for clarity on this matter, before they will continue to follow his orders, as Commander in Chief in question. Perhaps more servicepeople need to go to court, refusing his orders. But I would think that a mass presence of such persons, current and retired, in front of either the Capitol or the Supreme Court Building would do the job. Both agencies know how to read such a response.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13685583498340286004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-25930708587107058952010-03-19T18:28:13.167-04:002010-03-19T18:28:13.167-04:00Awesome series of Articles. I also have done some ...Awesome series of Articles. I also have done some research on this subject. Here is some of what I found:<br /><br />[u][b]Letter from John Jay to George Washington[/b][/u] John Jay - December 12, 1745 – May 17, 1829<br /><br />Was an American politician, [b][u]legal scholar[/u][/b], statesman, revolutionary, diplomat, [u][b]a Founding Father of the United States,[/b][/u] President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, [u][b]from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States[/b][/u].<br /><br />In a letter from John Jay to George Washington:<br /><br />New York 25 July 1787<br />Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.<br /><br />The above letter from John Jay to George Washington went on to become Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of our US Constitution. <br /><br />[u][b]John Armor Bingham[/b][/u] - January 21, 1815 – March 19, 1900 – [b]Principle framer of the 14th Amendment (which deals with citizenship in the United States)[/b]<br /><br />John Bingham confirms the understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:"<br /><br />[b][I] find no fault with the introductory clause[/b] [S 61 Bill], [b]which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,[/b] that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States [b]of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is[/b], in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . .<br /><br />- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))<br /><br />[u][b]Senator Charles Pinckney[/b][/u], (October 26, 1757–October 12, 1824) was an American politician who debated and [u][b]was a signer of the United States Constitution[/b][/u], Governor of South Carolina, a Senator and a member of the House of Representatives. <br /><br />They well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. [b]This therefore they have guarded against[/b], and [u][b]to insure experience and attachment to the country,[/b][/u] they [u]have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen[/u], or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible.- Senator Charles Pinckney, (March 28, 1800). Link: Records Federal Convention 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387<br /><br />A little info on the US Constitution:<br /><br />- some 54 or 57 delegates from the thirteen colonies debated the US Constitution.<br />- 39 were present on the day of the signing.<br />- There was only four (4) pages for the Constitution, 1 page for Letter of Tranmittal , and 1 page for the Bill of Rights.<br />- It took almost 4 months for these 54 delegates to debate 6 pages.<br /><br />I guess my next question is:<br /><br />How was Obama allowed to run and what do we do now since he is in?PatrioticMarinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618509792165700917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77622098019808736362010-02-21T01:58:51.382-05:002010-02-21T01:58:51.382-05:00http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2455977/p...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2455977/posts<br /><br />WOW~Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-26388205963163453582010-01-20T02:46:13.531-05:002010-01-20T02:46:13.531-05:00Wow, you are one helluva blogger! I have a lot of...Wow, you are one helluva blogger! I have a lot of reading ahead of me now. :)melhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14764267458113050611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-66009819831047741872010-01-15T07:43:20.003-05:002010-01-15T07:43:20.003-05:00i have often times wondered my self what the defin...i have often times wondered my self what the definition of natural born citizen is as applied by law. it is clear to me , from this election one needs to only have one parent or both be citizens, if both are the child is natural born regardless of place of birth. if one is and born on us soil the child is natural born simple. The presidential elections in 2008 where both contenders to the office saw to that. Any debate as to the legitimacy of Obama's presidency is a waste of time!Bala Lugujahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12710212401810476159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-6075194994528591732009-12-26T11:32:08.079-05:002009-12-26T11:32:08.079-05:00Excellent article and discussion here.
Faystarr r...Excellent article and discussion here.<br /><br />Faystarr re "legalities of the aftermath": Yes, it's a dog's breakfast. The whole election was tainted by the failure of the Democratic Party authorities to properly investigate & sign off on Obama's eligibility. So the thing is up in the air. What to do.<br /><br />The basic point: Obama, as a usurper, must go. Congress can (constitutionally) declare "what Officer shall then act as President" ("and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected"), but Congress is tainted, too, for not exercising proper oversight and 'standing' in this issue (thus allowing laws to be passed that might well end up null and void; more chaos). And in any event, the Congress only "may" do this, is all. My take on the matter (and I'm happy for a discussion on this, Mr. Apuzzo, from a good, solid, legalistic & patriotic point of view): New elections are needed; but for both the executive and the legislative, en masse. A clean sweep, for legitimacy to have a proper space for expression. And the Supreme Court has no legitimate jurisdiction in the matter, because it has proven itself to be "treasonous" in this matter, in not allowing itself to entertain the various motions for redress brought to it. Justice deferred is not justice. So a little out-of-the-box thinking here: A nonpartisan caretaker executive be put in place, with the backing of the military, who have sworn allegiance to the Constitution of the United States - not the person in the office of POTUS at any given time - and should back such a move for a return to the rule of (constitutional) law. The caretaker to call for elections within, say, 6 months, and announcing a strong mandate for a clean-sweep cleaning out of the Augean stables of national government. A clean sweep, that the people can trust, for its being instituted and accomplished in their name, of government of, by, and for The People.<br /><br />And then we will see progress - true progress. Otherwise it's just business as usual. <br /><br />It's time for a change, all right. Real change. <br /><br />And then we go from there, into a new era.<br /><br />But first things first.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13685583498340286004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-9658183925072164492009-12-21T01:58:08.710-05:002009-12-21T01:58:08.710-05:00Roger,
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark only found Wong a &q...Roger, <br /><br />U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark only found Wong a "citizen of the United States" under the English common law that prevailed in the colonies. English common law does not define who the Framers sought to make eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Rather, they relied on natural law and the law of nations which became American common law. <br /><br />The English common law is relevant on state issues such as contracts, inheritance, property, criminal procedure, torts, etc. The Framers did not rely upon it in constituting the new nation, including defining new national citizenship. <br /><br />Vattel's treatise was very influential for the Founders. Many Framers and Founders were fluent in French, along with many other languages. The Framers knew what Vattel meant when he wrote in 1758 "naturels, ou indigenes." The first English translations of Vattel's treatise came in 1759 and 1760. The first English translations of Vattel's treatise used the words "natives, or indigenes." Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) also used the same words, "natives, or indigenes" and gave the same exact definition to those words as is given to "natural born citizen" in later editions of Vattel's treatise. "Natives, or indigenes" was later translated to "natives, or natural born citizen" by our United States Supreme Court in the cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (which also took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68(1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-19855573638704297172009-12-21T01:07:55.706-05:002009-12-21T01:07:55.706-05:00What a bunch of poo.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark contain...What a bunch of poo.<br /><br />U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark contains an extensive discussion of the meaning of "natural born" in English common law, "the language of the Constitution". Vattel is clearly irrelevant, since the first English translation using the term "natural born Citizen" came 10 years <i>after</i> the Constitution, and its use of the term was, therefore, most likely influenced <i>by</i> the Constitution, rather than <i>influencing</i> the Constitution.<br /><br />Despite your convoluted logic, the Constitution means what it says, in terms of the legal language of the times, not what you want it to say.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04800601001584451736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-60366447560700558852009-12-11T08:28:13.835-05:002009-12-11T08:28:13.835-05:00What changes would you expect could ensue should O...What changes would you expect could ensue should Obama be found not eligible to be our President? Obviously,Joe Biden would not take his place since the whole Obama campaign would be deemed fraudulent. Who would take office in the interium especially if Pelosi is also removed as Speaker of the House. Wouldn't it be like a domino effect? It would follow logic that the whole campaign would be null and void and since the public voted overwhelmingly Democratic the Presidency would go to Hillary Clinton? Really would like to ponder any legalities of the aftermath.Lafaymehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11292770044157416125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-63186680917389917162009-10-12T15:48:14.862-04:002009-10-12T15:48:14.862-04:00The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the C...The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/federal-courts-are-committing-treason.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/federal-courts-are-committing-treason.html</a><br /><br />The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.<br /><br />It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):<br /><br /><i>"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."</i><br /><br />Link to the treason quote in case context:<br /><a href="http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg</a><br /><br /><br />Link to Case Summary:<br /><a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0" rel="nofollow">http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0</a><br /><br />Link to Full Case:<br /><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264" rel="nofollow">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264</a><br /><br />The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.<br /><br />Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.<br />CDR USNR (Ret)<br />Lead Plaintiff<br />Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/</a><br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-88588575189000658302009-09-24T23:22:39.189-04:002009-09-24T23:22:39.189-04:00Nickeldoor5,
Your daughter was not born in the U...Nickeldoor5, <br /><br />Your daughter was not born in the U.S. to parents who were its citizens which is the formula for an Article II "natural born Citizen." Your daughter is also not a 14th Amendment citizen because she was not born in the United States. Being born in a foreign country to a citizen father who was serving "in the armies of the state" but to a non-citizen mother, she is a U.S. citizen by Congressional statute, provided all statutory requirements were met. As a statutory U.S. citizen, she has all the same rights as other U.S. citizens, except she cannot be eligible for the Presidency or Vice Presidency. But that is the only thing that sets her apart from "natural born citizens."Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31680296710323798582009-09-24T21:46:06.992-04:002009-09-24T21:46:06.992-04:00Hi Nickeldoor,
While your daughter was a full cit...Hi Nickeldoor,<br /><br />While your daughter was a full citizen of the USA at birth per statutory laws of the USA, she would not a be a natural born citizen per the laws of nature since that requires both parents to be citizen of the same country when their child is born. Since you were not a citizen when your child was born it does not matter where your child was born, the special legal term and status of "natural born citizen" cannot be granted to your child. And it was not granted via the certificate you mention. It granted citizenship at birth in the USA, not "natural born citizenship". They are not synonymous.<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html</a><br /><br />The special legal term of "natural born citizen" only applies to the office of the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the USA under our Constitution as to who can serve in those offices. Dual citizens are not eligible to serve in the singular offices of President and Commander-in-Chief of the military. That is what this lawsuit with Obama is all about, amongst other legal issues like Congress ignoring the grievances of the People and not calling for the Objections from each and every state as the roll of votes was counted at the Joint Session. There are different types of American citizenship which are obtained via different means at birth or otherwise. Five types are mentioned in the Constitution. If you became a naturalized citizen, you will see your classification in this chart too. See this chart which may be of help to you.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same</a><br /><br />This article on logical analysis of the various types of citizenship may help too.<br /><br /><a href="http://thebirthers.org/misc/logic.htm" rel="nofollow">http://thebirthers.org/misc/logic.htm</a><br /><br />Others may wish to comment on this too.<br /><br />Charlescfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-3252504811683477502009-09-24T21:22:58.136-04:002009-09-24T21:22:58.136-04:00The statement "natural born citizen
Of Our U....The statement "natural born citizen<br />Of Our U.S. Constitution required both parent's be U.S. citizens at the time for birth" is not true it only requires one parent to have citizenship. My daughter was born outside the U.S. while her father was in the military. We were given a birth abroad certificate. Which stated that she would have American citizenship automatically because her father was an American citizen serving his country. The base was considered American owned. At the time I did not have American citizenship I was also told that I need to check my country to find out if she would also have citizenship in my country. She did have dual citizennickeldoor5https://www.blogger.com/profile/15542723797594455589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-17901712388894344892009-09-19T01:28:38.485-04:002009-09-19T01:28:38.485-04:00chrisd,
The grandfather clause of Article II wou...chrisd, <br /><br />The grandfather clause of Article II would allow Jefferson to be President.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-12533425789149403692009-09-19T00:41:11.965-04:002009-09-19T00:41:11.965-04:00All questions of French grammar aside, isn't t...All questions of French grammar aside, isn't there a bit of a problem with Thomas Jefferson? His mother was born near London and died in March, 1776, so she couldn't possibly have been an American citizen. And since most of the authors of the Constitution were still alive in 1800, wouldn't they have pointed out that he was ineligible?chrisdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10494573891618930891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37522478023542803282009-09-11T19:00:21.570-04:002009-09-11T19:00:21.570-04:00It's part of our lawsuit. See pages 19 & 2...It's part of our lawsuit. See pages 19 & 20 and in particular, paragraphs 89-91 in the 2nd Amended Complaint. Pelosi is personally named in the lawsuit. It may be a good time for all to re-read the outstanding complaint and set of 12 charges and counts that Mario put together. Read the 12 counts starting on page 37 and the Prayers for Relief starting on page 69.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-filed-at-250-am-20Jan2009-2nd-Amendment-filed-09Feb2009" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-filed-at-250-am-20Jan2009-2nd-Amendment-filed-09Feb2009</a><br /><br /><br />We are all waiting for the Judge in this case to rule on the motions before him which were due for a decision in early August.<br /><br />Believe me, when the Usurper is removed, many, many more heads are going to roll in the leadership of both national political parties and Congress. We the People should throw everyone out in 2010 that we can and then the rest in 2012 and 2014. Get a whole new batch of people who are responsive to the Constitution and We the People down there in DC!<br /><br />Charlescfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-64414582079145959552009-09-11T17:32:56.789-04:002009-09-11T17:32:56.789-04:00http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583...http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583<br />The Democratic National Committee, the Chair of the Party convention, the Secretary of the Party, Party offices in each of fifty states, and maybe many, many more, have knowingly and wantonly defrauded the American election system and more than 300 million American citizens.Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-10488033654951487462009-09-11T07:24:57.442-04:002009-09-11T07:24:57.442-04:00Mario -- Again another excellent dissertation on c...Mario -- Again another excellent dissertation on contitutional law, merits, and research. If anyone reading this blog does not understand NBC by now there is little hope for them. If you are not teaching constitutional law at some law school it is their loss. I find your article informative, and compelling. Good Job!Chiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003144956528844211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-24617413204040417222009-09-10T18:01:32.519-04:002009-09-10T18:01:32.519-04:00Shouldn’t the DOJ be the ones prosecuting Obama in...Shouldn’t the DOJ be the ones prosecuting Obama in our Constitutional defense, instead of defending him from scrutiny as to his Constitutional infringements?Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.com