Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Daniel Webster Reveals that the Kerchner Petitioners Have Standing to Demand that Obama Show He Is A “Natural Born Citizen”

Daniel Webster Reveals that the Kerchner Petitioners Have Standing to Demand that Obama Show He Is A “Natural Born Citizen”

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Daniel Webster, known as the "Defender of the Constitution," was a famous orator and statesman. He argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, served as a U.S. Congressman, a U.S. Senator, and U.S. Secretary of State. In 1820, what later became known as the State of Maine separated from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This development caused the Commonwealth to seek to amend its constitution of 1780. The Commonwealth chose delegates to meet in convention for the purpose of amending its constitution. The town of Boston chose Mr. Webster as one of its delegates.

Mr. Webster served as chairman of the committee which was responsible for determining qualifications for those persons wanting to occupy public office. This committee recommended that “a simple oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth, together with the oath of office, should be taken by all persons chosen or appointed to office. . . . and that a profession of belief in the Christian religion no longer be required as a qualification for office.”

While his position related to retaining a profession of the belief in the Christian religion as a qualification for public office in Massachusetts, Mr. Webster’s statements go beyond just religion and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for they also apply to any qualification that the People may demand that a person meet in order to be eligible for any public office. Here are Mr. Webster’s words in convention as he comments on the committee’s report:


"Two questions naturally present themselves. In the first place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security of their government and its due administration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the people had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of the people. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure; and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what conditions they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than the notion that any man has a right to an office. This must depend on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opinions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for office. No man can be said to have a right to that which others may withhold from him at pleasure.

There are certain rights, no doubt, which the whole people, or the government as representing the whole people, owe to each individual in return for that obedience and personal service, and those proportionate contributions to the public burdens which each individual owes to the government. These rights are stated with sufficient accuracy, in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, in this constitution. " Each individual in society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to the standing laws." Here is no right of office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for office respecting age, property, residence, and taxation. But if office, merely as such, were a right which each individual under the social compact was entitled to claim, all these qualifications would be excluded. Acknowledged rights are not subject, and ought not to be subject to any such limitation. The right of being protected in life, liberty, and estate is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any, whatever be their age, property, or residence in the State.

These qualifications, then, can only be made requisite as conditions for office on the ground that office is not what any man can demand as matter of right but rests in the confidence and good-will of those who are to bestow it. In short, it seems to me too plain to be questioned that the right of office is a matter of discretion and option, and can never be claimed by any man on the ground of obligation. It would seem to follow, then, that those who confer office may annex any such conditions to it as they think proper. If they prefer one man to another, they may act on that preference. If they regard certain personal qualifications, they may act accordingly, and ground of complaint is given to nobody. . . .

Now, if the people may, without injustice, act upon this preference, and from a sole regard to this qualification, and refuse in any instance to depart from it, they have an equally clear right to prescribe this qualification beforehand as a rule for their future government. If they may do it, they may agree to do it. If they deem it necessary, they may so say beforehand. If the public will may require this qualification at every election as it occurs, the public will may declare itself beforehand and make such qualification a standing requisite. That cannot be an unjust rule, the compliance with which, in every case, would be right. This qualification has nothing to do with any man's conscience. If he dislike the condition, he may decline the office in like manner as if he dislike the salary, the rank, or any thing else which the law attaches to it. "


(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. III, pp. 3-7.), accessed at

Indeed, Webster expresses an opinion that, under a government characterized by popular and elective office, the People have a right to establish qualifications for their elected officials before they may occupy any such office, for such office is “the free gift of the people.” He explains that no man has a right to an office, for the office is granted at the pleasure of the People to those in whom they feel “confidence” and with whom they share a feeling of “good-will” because they believe that person to be both fit and qualified for that office. He adds that the same People can decide at their “discretion and option” to change those qualifications as they deem necessary for their own safety and security.

Mr. Webster then explains how each individual has a personal right to receive protection from his or her government. Mr. Webster explains that each individual in society has in accordance with a legal process a personal right to be protected by the whole People represented by his or her government in his or her life, liberty, and property in exchange for which the individual grants to the whole People and its representative government his or her obedience and personal service. He states that this right to protection “is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any” whatever their condition. He also explains that qualifications for office are for the safety and security of the individual and the nation as a whole. He believes that such qualifications should be retained in the constitution agreed upon by the People so as to provide to them the maximum protection.

This is the same argument that I have made before the U.S. Supreme Court to show that the Kerchner petitioners have standing to pursue their constitutional claims against Obama, Congress, Pelosi, and Cheney, claims in which they demand that Obama conclusively show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Petitioners have a right to demand that only a person who is a “natural born Citizen” occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. As Mr. Webster explains, it is the Kerchner petitioners personal right to demand it, for the Constitution has decreed it for the benefit of protecting the life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property of every individual making up the People. Indeed, Obama has no right to the Office of President and Commander in Chief. He can only occupy that office at the pleasure, discretion, and option of the People which includes the Kerchner petitioners. And the Kerchner petitioners, showing that both Congress and the Executive have failed to protect them and their individual rights guaranteed to them under the U.S. Constitution and in their effort to therefore protect themselves, have every right to take their claims to a court of law for the purpose of enforcing their personal and individual right to that protection.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 10, 2010


bdwilcox said...

With Obama involved, it literally is the Devil and Daniel Webster.

cfkerchner said...

Excellent find and essay Mario.

The Constitution protects the unalienable rights of the individual against the political power whims of the temporary political majority. Even if the unalienable rights of one single person has been violated and injured, the Constitution guarantees those unalienable rights to that person. It is the sworn duty of the federal courts to protect protect and defend the constitution and that individual person's right to protection thereunder against usurpation of the rights of the individual (or a small political minority group of Citizens) by the political majority of the moment. That was the promise of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. And that was the social contract put in place by We the People via the founders and framers in our U.S. Constitution in 1787, i.e., protection of the unalienable rights and freedom and liberty of the individual given to each and everyone of us by nature and nature's God and fought for in the Revolutionary War and promised in the Declaration of Independence. The U.S. Supreme Court has been presented with this argument in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari for the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit. The Supreme Court has been presented a Constitutional civil rights case, not a case about public policy or statutory law. Will the Supreme Court Justices live up to their oaths to the Constitution and do their sworn duty to support and defend the U.S. Constitution before the eyes of the nation and God? Or will they look the other way while our Constitution and the guarantee of protection thereunder of the rights of the individual to petition the courts for enforcement of those constitutional rights are further torn asunder and we move further and further from a Constitutional Republic and rule of law to rule by a pure democracy and the whims of the simple political majority at the moment, i.e., mob rule. I pray to God they do the right thing on the 23rd of November or the future or our nation and Constitution no longer has any legal protection in the courts not sanctioned by the temporary political winds or by the political majority of the moment and the main stream media. God save the Republic!

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al

P.S. And to all God's servants here on earth out there in this historic battle to protect our Constitution and nation from a George Soros led Socialist and Marxist usurpation of our Constitutional Republic form of government, if you can spare a small portion of your treasure to help us in the battle, please browse on by to the below website and make a donation. Large or small it all adds up. Synergy at Work! If we all do a little, together we will accomplish a lot! Thank you.

jayjay said...

A wonderful dissertation by both Daniel Webster AND Mario Apuzzo.

Let's hope you can slip it into some of the material that goes before te Court ... perhaps in Orals??

We'll soon not be wondering whether both of you are correct ... and it surely seems that you are, Flying Monkeys notwithstanding.

Kudos and huzzahs, sirrah!!mmm

bob strauss said...

Thought you might want to see this. Thanks for all you do. bob

jbjd, have you seen this memo? Talking points for answering constituents letters of concern.

bob strauss: Our elected representatives are not experts in all things and so, I am pleased to see they are seeking out information from our LoC. However, there is a glaring error in this memo. The ‘researcher’ purports to conclude Obama is a natural born citizen as those terms are expressed in the Naturalization Act of 1790 as long as he was born here. But that 1790 Act was replaced in 1795 so as to remove the words “natural born,” inasmuch as those are terms of art which are a Constitutional restriction on Presidential eligibility and not on a legislative structure for citizenship. (Thanks for sending this to the blog; the comments were disengaged on Scribd.) (bob (and Readers), please forward this corrected information to the named LoC researcher.) ADMINISTRATOR
P.S. bob, I want to further clarify my answer. See, the researcher in the LoC wrongly referenced in his memo to Congress, the definition of the phrase “natural born” as it appeared in the Naturalization Act of 1790. However, that law was repealed five years later and replaced with the Naturalization Act of 1795, taking out the words “natural born.” By so doing, the legislature was tacitly admitting, it had overstepped its lawful authority to define this restriction on Presidential eligibility. I proposed that people send this correct citation to the 1795 law, to that LoC researcher, letting him know, (we know) he made a mistake. Further, whoever sends such a note to this researcher could ask him to amend the incorrect answer he previously provided to members of Congress, who had asked for the research.

Dixhistory said...

I learn a lot from reading this web blog and the posts by Charles and Mario.

I have a ? that has been on my mind about the Constitution being a living thing, which I do not agree with. I hope some others can give their thoughts on this. Mine are below.

If it is a living contract, then why did the founders include a way to alter that contract with we the people?


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


The Framers were very knowledgeable individuals. Having studied history, they knew that societies evolve over time. Hence, the Constitution they gave us provides that it can be amended. See Constitution Article V. Because of the possibility of amendments, the Constitution must therefore be as alive as a human being who will receive a corrective surgery.

Society is always evolving and at special times we will need to adapt the Constitution to those changed circumstances. But to maintain the stability of the Constitution, the moments which society values enough to call for a constitutional amendment should be rare. Additionally, when society concludes that it is time to adapt the Constitution to some important circumstance, the adaptation is done through a formal constitutional amendment under Article V and not by way of political elections, the Executive, Congress, or the Judiciary.

The Constitution at Article III gives to the judicial branch of government the power to interpret and apply the Constitution. The huge problem with the Constitution and its amendment process is that it does not provide us with a standard which would indicate to us when the courts are only interpreting and applying the Constitution and when they are actually amending it without society having gone through the amendment process. Hence, the current battle between the “living constitution” and “originalism.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Ryan said...


If you have a moment, can you help answer this question about the role of the judiciary under the Constitution?

The question boils down to: what is their role?

I have been so confused by the acts of the judges in this country that I don't even really understand what their true powers are under the Constitution. If they are to "interpret" the law, then does that mean judges do not have the power to overturn laws? Does this assume that all laws passed by Congress are, in fact, acceptable under the Constitution and the judiciary is only meant to "interpret" and "apply" law to specific cases?

What happens when a law is legitimately illegal and not in line with "original" intent? Does the judiciary NOT have the ability to overturn the law?

I see rogue, unconstitutional judges "overturning" laws and, in effect, when they do this they make the contrary into law. But by what authority is the opposite of a law then legal just because a judge disagrees with a law as written? Shouldn't the law then just become null and void, but the opposite shouldn't then become law.

What we've lost in our government is the will for the Congress to impeach judges when they step out of their lawful authority. In my humble opinion, judges should be impeached on a much more consistent basis. Since this is not happening at all, I feel a Constitutional amendment should include the ability for the citizenry itself to recall judges by majority vote. There is too much vested power in the judiciary if they are allowed by the legislative branch to make laws without impeaching them on first offenses. The judiciary has then usurped the power of the legislature if they can simply rule a law into effect.

I know there is a lot there and I appreciate your insight.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

For those who may be interested in the Ruben Flores-Villar v. United States case that was just argued before the United States Supreme Court, the transcript of the oral argument may be found at:

This is the case in which the Government says that it can treat parent men differently than parent women when it comes to making the rules regarding whether a child born out of the United States should be allowed to inherit U.S citizenship from his or her U.S. citizen parent.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here you may find legal analysis of the oral arguments in Ruben Flores-Villar v. United States, provided by UC Davis law student Joanna Cuevas Ingram who summarizes the oral argument and provides important insights. See Download FloresVillar-JCI Analysis[1] "It looks like it will be a close decision, with only eight Justices participating (Justice Kagan has recused herself)."

MinutemanCDC_SC said...

This is no longer about the Constitution and law and lawsuits, if it ever was. All that matters to Mr. Obama is, "who's in charge." He is an omnipotent, supreme dictator in his own mind.

The JCS may be behind Lt. Col. Dr. Terry Lakin's call for verification of the chain of command. Unless the Joint Chiefs of Staff oust the putative POTUS (after Dec. 15th), the only deliverance is the Lord's.

Anonymous said...

I would like to ask everyone a favor that all of us and each of us acknowledge that God is making the decisions here. If the SC decides to accept this petition I suggest we give all credit to God and not to man.

Here is a truth of the way that God works.

"The Answer or solution will come at the last minute. That is how you will know that God is in charge."

I think we have arrived at this case being the last minute. So if the SC decides to hear this case then we can give thanks that God is helping us.

I believe that God is working through Mario and Charles. Just as the Constitution was inspired by God, I believe that Mario & Charles have been inspired. That this case is inspired. The writings are inspired.

I now try to turn my will and my life over to God and trust that he will interceed and have the SC hear this case. Sitting here in this place of Not Knowing is difficult even for me. It is sitting here that I learn to turn my life over to God for there is nothing else I can do except trust that he will come to our rescue now.

I do not know if this is the last minute or not. It could be that this slide will continue much longer. I don't know. Everyday I pray to see the end of this nightmare. That we all may awaken into the Light & Love of God.

A pen said...

The constitution is about to be put to the test. Well, the SC is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

It is reported at New Zeal that foreign nations are challenging Arizona on immigration and nationality. See Foreign Nations to Challenge Arizona Law? at

The notion that a nation cannot decide what foreigners to admit into and what foreigners can stay in its territory is contrary to the original law of nations under which the Founders and Framers drafted our Constitution. In today's context, we would have to examine the issue in light of international law which is not the same thing as the law of nations. I suspect that international law probably follows the same doctrine as that of the law of nations. Treaties can also have an impact on the answer to this question. Another issue is what does Arizona (only a state under our federalist system) do if the United States (the nation) allows these foreign nations to subvert its sovereignty and attempt to deny it the right to protect itself. Maybe Arizona should invoke its rights under Article IV, Section 4 which provides that the “The United States” is to guarantee to every state in the Union a “Republican Form of Government.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Anonymous said...

Above Puzo1 said re: the Ruben Flores-Villar v. United States case;

"Let me know what your thoughts are."

I found a number of statements by the Justices very disturbing but what struck me the most was the assertions that 'citizenship' on the whole was a 'municiple' and plenary concern of the Congress.

The TOTAL lack of mention in any reference or nuance of 'natural law' and / or the flow of jus sanguines and its relations with jus soli left me to wonder which constitution and body of laws they read from.

I read the statutes in question, the briefs, oral argument and analysis and considered the various 'approaches' to remedy they discussed but found all that to be irrelevant if they start from the premise that the Constitution did not provide for the 'guaranteed citizenship' of the original citizens posterity, or if it had, has since been usurped by the 14th Amendment 'Declaratory Born Clause'.

Of course it may be that they chose, as a gang of 9, not to wander from narrow questions within the 1400's of Title 8, nevertheless, I found it very disconcerting.

Chris Strunk said...

Webster was quite a speaker; thanks for finding that reference on Webster Mario! I thought I was all alone when I fired Soebarkah.

"Plaintiff is the only person in the USA to have duly fired fired fired BHO on January 23, 2009 by registered mail (rendering BHO the USURPER as Plaintiff is entitled to characterize BHO as) on the grounds that he had not proven himself eligible to be the administrator / trustee of Plaintiff’s private account at the U.S. Treasury as required by U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 with a pending Replevin matter in the District of Columbia; "