Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Vattel: Law of Nations Vol. 1 Chapter III § 30.
Of the support of the constitution and obedience to the laws.

The Law of Nations, Vattel, pub. 1758, Vol. 1 Chapter III § 30 -- Of the support of the constitution and obedience to the laws.
. . . The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquility, the firmest support of political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigor and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires. It is very uncommon to see the laws and constitution of a state openly and boldly opposed: it is against silent and gradual attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard. Sudden revolutions strike the imaginations of men: they are detailed in history; their secret springs are developed. But we overlook the changes that insensibly happen by a long train of steps that are but slightly marked. It would be rendering nations an important service to show from history how many states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution. This would awaken the attention of mankind: — impressed thenceforward with this excellent maxim (no less essential in politics than in morals) principiis obsta, — they would no longer shut their eyes against innovations, which, though inconsiderable in themselves, may serve as steps to mount to higher and more pernicious enterprises.

Contributed by:
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].


Teo Bear said...

The American Constitution is unique in history because it was the first constitution that the people ratified before a government was formed. Unlike other countries constitutions that are only in place to give the window dressing of legitimacy to the current government, ours really did come from the people before there was a federal government.

If we allow our government to take powers not given to it by the Constitution, and this same government refuses to acknowledge both duties and limits that the Constitution places upon them we invite tyranny to flourish on the grave of liberty.

People it is time to awake and to demand that our government, all three branches conforms to the Constitution of the United States of America.

cfkerchner said...

JayJay said...
I imagine that Mario will soon post Doc. 29 from the case.
The judge has refused more non-party contact and orders the existing non-party transmittals removed from the docket.
Too bad, but not surprising and in line with typical court practice.

[Editor's note: I am sure that Atty Apuzzo will have some remarks on the court's decision later after he has had time to review it more fully.]

James said...

Uh Oh! Bad news from the judge:

Kerchner v. Obama: Non-Conforming Public Commentary To Be Stricken From Docket

I hope this isn't a bad omen.

James said...

Limbaugh: "I don't know" where Obama was born, "supposedly Hawaii"

jayjay said...

The Vattel entry - Law of Nations Vol. 1 Chapter III § 30 is right on the money and very perfectly describes what happened hundreds of years later in Nazi Germany.

The writings of Milton Mayer called "They Thought They Were Free" describes the pernicious effort as he lived it and in the part called "Then It Was Too Late" he says:

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."

Wake up America, the corn is getting very high, indeed!!!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Indeed, do not shut your eyes to the little things, for it is from all that is small that the big things come.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Sturgis said...

I employ 24 people and weatherproof buildings. I have owned my own business since 1988. I play by the rules. I managed some how to graduate high school in 1979. I do not claim to be a scholar.

My simple understanding of the constitution is that the Federal Government is to protect our liberty, not to take it away from us.

I hope the court can see that this is a simple case to hear, and that they have the courage settle this matter for the good of our country. The truth will be easy to determine with the verification of the requested documents. The U.S. Constitution is on the line.

Good luck with your court case.

I still believe that the good guys always win in the long run.

Anonymous said...

This new order by the judge is peculiar, since he previously cited the citizen letters directly from the court record, so he obviously knew they were there. Perhaps he only issued this new order because the DOJ complained? I guess we just don't know.

Anyway, notice how the order says that such letters won't be added to the record; it never says the judges refuse to even receive/read them off-record.

In any case, do what you need to do to be compliant with the order; we don't want to jeopardize the case on this matter of letters. By this new order alone, the judges know that the people are watching this case and demand that the Constitution be upheld; that alone may be enough to make an impact.

Anonymous said...

Hello Patriotic Constitutionalists,

The incrementalistic atack on church, culture, traditions, family, etc is CONSTANT.
I call this Erosionism and the people doing it Erosionists. There is a constant battle between Erosionists and Conservatism or Traditionalism, just like the waves constant attack on the shore.

It is time to TAKE A STAND against these LIE-beral Erosionists that destroy our, culture, morality, traditions, celebrations, family, etc. EVERY SINGLE DAY.

It is hard to notice most of it because it is gradual but if one looks back to the time of Woodstock and see the degredation and perversion it is alarming.

Time to Wake, RIse Up, Stand Up and take a stand before there is nothing or very little to stand for.

Time to VOTE out all the CONS in CONgress and other representation in the District of Criminals.

The BaWRECK Obamerica Continues and still uncertain eligibility.

BO Got BC? NBC? to see.
BO either STAND UP with Transparency or STEP DOWN.

PS Atty Apuzzo thanks for all your efforts.

Sturgis said...

I was looking over the Kerchner v Obama and Congress Doc 27-1 & 27-2 Defendants Motion & Brief to Dismiss this evening before dinner. The argument in the next paragraph used by Obama’s and Congress’s Attorneys, Marra and Pascal hit me hard. Like a punch in the gut. I asked my son to read it and I have typed his response below.

Even if these alleged injuries were particularized to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs are not asserting the invasion of a legally protected right against the Congressional Defendants. While the First Amendment guarantees the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” U.S. Const. amend. I, this right to petition does not include a corresponding right to a response. Indeed, individuals do not have a “constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views . . . . The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy.” Minnesota State Bd. for Cmty. Colls. v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 283 (1984). –

Case 1:09-cv-00253-JBS-JS Document 27-2 Filed 06/26/2009 Page 16 of 36

“So, let me get this straight. We, regular people, don’t have a right to be heard by our own government? Isn’t this what we started the revolutionary war over?” Ashby Sturgis, age 16, on 7-1-2009.

What are we looking for a birth certificate, a passport, and some school records or are we looking for government by the people and for the people?

Happy 4th of July to All,

Ken Sturgis

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

To Ashby Sturgis, age 16,

It is a great pleasure to see our young people showing an interest in how our government works. We need more young people like you to make our country as great as it can be. Keep your focus steady and straight and you will achieve great things.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

James said...

The dimissal motion is absolutely stunning and arrogant. The defense (Congress ET AL) is essentially saying they hold supreme power over everyone and everything (including the Constitution). They have the power to do whatever they please and no have duty and interest to listen to the People and are immune to any acts they do.

It is completely stunning and make absolutely no sense.

The defense is almost talking as an absolute dictatorship.

James said...

Federal Officials Receive Citizen Grand Jury Presentments
Obama has been officially indicted!






James said...


It there any credibility to this? Have you checked this out?

James said...

Mario I have another question. I know that you are hard at work writing you counter motion against dismissal. I pray that you motion slams home. However, is it possible to submit accompanying documentation along with your motion? Such documentation you might consider adding is the the following:

Amicis Briefs - Perhaps from Judge Roy Moore or Jay Sekelow.
Petitions from concerned citizens about Obama's eligiblity.
The Grand Jury Presentments.
Letter from Patriots who demand that our Constitution be protected and out voice be heard.

Good Luck and God Bless.

James said...

Looking at Sovereign immunity on Wiki.

It states the following:

In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party.

Perhaps you could use the Federal Torts Claims Act to waiver the immunity.

But it does state a key point:

"...may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit."

Haven't the defendents consented to the suit by accepting your suit serve? Further have they consented to your suit by hiring counsel to defend such a suit?

Hope this helps.