27
Nov
10

Obama Eligibility: Will the SCOTUS have the Testicular Fortitude to see this out?

I doubt the SCOTUS will allow this case to go through, but we will see.

Original here.

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.

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 Swiss 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.”

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Obama Eligibility: Will the SCOTUS have the Testicular Fortitude to see this out?”


  1. 1 Daniel
    28 November 2010 at 17:33

    Birthers are a never ending source of amusement.

    I wonder what Aputzo’s excuses are gong to be when the SCOTUS denies his delusional challenge, just like every other court has?

    Birhters are 0 for 71 so far. You’d think they’d take the hint and start to consider the option that they just might be wrong? Naw, the stupid are nothing if not tenacious.

  2. 28 November 2010 at 19:21

    @Daniel: I think the only people that are delusional are the people who don’t want to have hard lawful facts presented to them. And the only “stupid” people who spend millions to seal up documents that can clear their name and end debate.

  3. 3 Daniel
    28 November 2010 at 21:19

    WEll thank you for a good example of the problem with dealing with delusional people Konfusing…

    The problem is that you have been presented with hard, “lawful” facts that firmly establish Obama’s eligibility, you just refuse to ackn owledge them, which makes your statement ironic in the extreme.

    There is no debate, except among the fringe minority who will never accept a black man as President. Obama has not sealed any of his records. If you think you have the “right” to contravene state and federal privacy laws to obtain documents that are none of your business, then it is you who are sadly mistaken.

    Obama’s eligibility has been verified by the only authority empowered by the Constitution of the United States to do so, Congress. Now I know you don ‘t like that, but too bad. You don’t have the right to strike down the Constitution just because you’re a sore loser, and you can’t stand the idea of having a Blackl man as President. Life is hard, get over it.

    And it’s already been establsihed that Obama has not spent millions defending himself against all the ridiculous and frivolous ( as stated by the judges many times) lawsuits brought on the birthers. Even if He had, so what. It’s part of the judicial system in this country that any moron can bring a suit against anyone for anything. If a moron does, then you have to defend yourself. If the lawsuit is frivolous, like the birthers ones are, they get tossed out quiockly before any reasl expenses are incurred. Plus birthers have been assessed for the costs of some of these actions, and fined for others as well. In all the cost for Obamam to defend the constitution against the Birthers desire to tear it down, has been minimal. The fallacy that it has cost millions is promoted by the Birhter redneck blog, masquerading as a news source, World Nut Daily, and stems from their lack of knowledge of campaign finances and their inability to do basic math.

    I’m just giddy to find out how the birthers are going to be dripping and moaning onece the SCOTUS tosses out APutzo’s application for Writ tomorrow. Seems like all of Birtherdom is hanging their hopes on that piece of failure in typewritten form.

    Of course losing… how many of the last 71 legal challenges?… Oh yeah, ALL of them, still havn’t stopped the birthers from striving to prove just how delusional they are.

  4. 28 November 2010 at 23:10

    @Daniel:

    The problem is that you have been presented with hard, “lawful” facts that firmly establish Obama’s eligibility, you just refuse to ackn owledge them, which makes your statement ironic in the extreme.

    And what exact and undeniable facts have we been provided with?

    There is no debate, except among the fringe minority who will never accept a black man as President.

    Oh so this is a racist issue? I was unaware. Where is your proof of this?

    Obama has not sealed any of his records.

    Please examine Executive Order 13489.

    If you think you have the “right” to contravene state and federal privacy laws to obtain documents that are none of your business, then it is you who are sadly mistaken.

    If a law is broken, then the relevant facts cannot be sealed out of existence. Furthermore, Obama is a public servant whos position is possible by the people through the Constitution. If he does not meet the requirements of this document, of the People, then the People have the right to know it – don’t you think?

    Obama’s eligibility has been verified by the only authority empowered by the Constitution of the United States to do so, Congress.

    They had a public hearing and investigation on this? Please link.

    Now I know you don ‘t like that, but too bad. You don’t have the right to strike down the Constitution just because you’re a sore loser, and you can’t stand the idea of having a Blackl man as President. Life is hard, get over it.

    Again, I did not know this is a racist issue. Please cite your proof that this is a racist issue.

    And it’s already been establsihed that Obama has not spent millions defending himself against all the ridiculous and frivolous ( as stated by the judges many times) lawsuits brought on the birthers. Even if He had, so what.

    According to the Federal Election Comission Obama has paid $688,316.42 to the law offices of Perkins Coie (link).

    So what? Well, for starters, that was a year ago (10/5/2009). Secondly, it shows that you are OK with disregarding facts.

    It’s part of the judicial system in this country that any moron can bring a suit against anyone for anything. If a moron does, then you have to defend yourself. If the lawsuit is frivolous, like the birthers ones are, they get tossed out quiockly before any reasl expenses are incurred.

    $688k is far from having a lawyer on retainer for lawsuits that are all being thrown out.

    In all the cost for Obamam to defend the constitution against the Birthers desire to tear it down, has been minimal.

    This makes no sense at all. How in the world is Obama defending the Constitution (BTW: that word is capitalized) when he is being accused of violating the Constitution?

    The fallacy that it has cost millions is promoted by the Birhter redneck blog, masquerading as a news source, World Nut Daily, and stems from their lack of knowledge of campaign finances and their inability to do basic math.

    Again, I’ve pulled information on the dollar issue for you to review that has nothing to do with “World Nut Daily.” Are those valid enough sources for you?

    Of course losing… how many of the last 71 legal challenges?… Oh yeah, ALL of them, still havn’t stopped the birthers from striving to prove just how delusional they are.

    As I’ve discussed elsewhere I fully understand why these cases have been thrown out. For one to file a complaint one must show that they are directly affected/harmed. It is rather hard to provide a case, backed by law, in this case to say that Obama has harmed the petitioners. Therefore, they are indeed frivolous.

    What I think is different about this one is that the petitioners are challenging the idea of what is and what is not a “natural born” citizen. They are taking the definition, not of today which has been used but rather the definition used at the time the Constitution was written – the Vettel definition.

    So with that said, it seems that the challenge is to prove that the Constitution itself has been violated, not a specific person as attempted before. This is clearly a federal issue of a specific definition. The plantiff must show the Federal court that the definition of “natural born” isn’t the one that is being used today of “one citizen parent” but rather of “two citizen parents.”

    So the question to you is… if the Constitution was originally written to mean the latter definition, would you be willing to concede that Obama does not meet that defintion?

  5. 5 Granite
    29 November 2010 at 10:45

    Re: “Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?’

    Answer: NO because it was thrown out today. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/29/scotus.birther.appeal/

  6. 30 November 2010 at 20:37

    I heard this. What is interesting is that they dismissed it and didn’t say why. Why not? It is further interesting that they may not consult the Justice Department.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: