Constitutional Emergency

OBAMA THE FRAUD, USURPER - Will The US Supreme Court Act On The Merits?

BORN IN THE USA?

U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility

Is president a 'natural-born citizen' as Constitution requires?


Posted: November 23, 2010
9:45 pm Eastern

By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

U.S. President Barack Obama listens to remarks by Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev during their meeting at the APEC Summit in Yokohama, November 14, 2010. REUTERS/Jim Young (JAPAN - Tags: POLITICS)

WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."

If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ of certiorari," it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court's decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.

If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.

"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it's a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else," Apuzzo told WND.


Mario Apuzzo

Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject.

A hearing on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We might not even get to the question of defining 'natural-born citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."

Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama's presidency.

"If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don't spend that kind of money unless there's something to hide, and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not born in the United States."

"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."

"They're taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens," Berg noted.

Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by 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.

According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.

"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."

Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.

Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.

Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.

"To me that's false," said Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to 'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's constitutionality, that would be ridiculous."

"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."

Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.

"They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.

"They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen."

Views: 196

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Democrates truely think that Laws & Rules only apply to them when it benifits them. They and only they have the right to bend these rules as needed. You'll find this to be true as his old yes man runs for Mayor of Chicago. Sad thing is that nothing will be done about this until the time comes that it will no longer matter. The contempt aspect will never see a court room.
This is what it has all come down to... Will the SC do its duty or not?
For the past 2+ years the answer has been not just no but HELL no. The only men of character and constitution have been those willing to wage this war with our completely corrupt judicial system. To date the score is judiciary 200, Patriots 0. So this begs the question.., what makes you think they have any more interest in doing the right thing now, than say, 2 years ago? The answer lay in the power structure of DC and it filters all the way down to your local politicians. They have the power and will NEVER willingly relinquish it since their livelihoods depend on maitaining the status quo.
When I asked (GA Rep.) Tom Price, on two different occasions, when can I expect him to deal with this issue, he answered truthfully.., WHEN YOU MAKE ME.
You may think the ballot box is the answer but this has gone way past our ability to find and elect honest, trustworthy politicians. Subverting the election process has become an art form for DC Elitist and will only change when we do as Mr. Price advised.
Like you, I hope the SC will do the right thing but I have zero faith in their ability or desire to do this. So, when they reveal their decision, in the coming days, if it's a win for the good guys, GREAT but if, as I suspect, it is yet another win for the criminals then I must ask the question all have been afraid to utter... What now.
Until and unless all of get together and surround them (more of us than them) and literally make them FEEL IT, (pitchforks and torches) we can look forward to ever increasing tyranny and by our inaction curse the children of the future to a fate worse than any horror film we've ever watched.
Have you made up your minds yet on what course of action to take should this decision go against (as I expect) us?
It's a long shot to believe that the Supreme Court will show fidelity to the intent of the Constitution as they've been modifying that document to suit one or another agenda for many years now. The proper thing to do would be to subscribe to the understanding the Founding Fathers had when they embraced the meaning inherent in the Vatel doctrine. That is, that in order for an aspirant to the office of President to qualify as a "natural-born citizen", both of that aspirants parents must be citizens themselves. It's apparent, to any thinking individual, what decision should be reached if the court's only desire is to accurately, and without distortion, endorse the doctrine understood by the Founders and written into the Constitution. It's a pity to have to say it, but it's not so obvious that the members of our high court will perform their duty as the Founders obviously intended.
Well said Debra......thanks.
You make good points Edward........miracles do happen......I'll wait and see if the SCOTUS takes action.
Another point this will look at is the validity of the so called anchor babies whose parents are in the US during the child's birth but then return to their home country. Neither of their parents are citizens but they ostensibly are. Could they run for president? Or has one already taken the position by guile.
14th Amendment Citizens are the same as Naturalized Citizens and are not eligible to be President.
That being said, BO seems to have changed that.
Also, strict adherence to the 14th means if they (anchor babies) are removed from the United States to another country, they are no longer 'subject to the jurisdiction' and therefore NOT citizens. (Oh, the arguments will start.)
CC may not set anything right. It may do the exact opposite.
Also it would take 2-3 years to come to fruition.
The problem with CC, is that the Senate may delete anthing and everything and completely re write it befor passing it!! They do not have to abide by the CC when deliberating on it's passage!! Congres is for the most part against the Constitution, as is the Pentagon...I wouldn't trust them to do the right thing!!!
Well said!
I believe he's hiding everything because he was born illegitimate.
The court said Obummer is valid!!! even though it by passes the Constitution...but...The validy of the Constitution is also being considered by the court!!! Our rights to guns won by only 1 vote...they now have a new liberal there!! Members of the court said, "well, if they want to change it"! Do they not understand ,"it shall not be abridged"?? besides just because you hate guns, doesn't allow you to change it!! it takes 2/3 votes of the States!!! If they find against it's validity, many people are going to die!!! They would welcome a riot!!! so they could show their strength! Many judges througout the country are making unconstitutional rulings, the reason for the suit to find out if it's still valid!!!

RSS

About

Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11



HOW TO JOIN YOUR STATE GROUP

1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts


How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live"...........it shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......

Events

© 2019   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service