PLEASE, PLEASE WRITE TO JUDGE SIMANDLE...TELL HIM TO GET OFF HIS ASS AND DO HIS JOB RE: KERCHNER MATTER...

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall Speaks to Us from the Grave, The Federal Courts are the Guardians of the Constitution Thanks ramjet767

Posted on October 12th, 2009 by Lynn Dartez

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.

To escape the operation of these comprehensive words, the counsel for the defendant has mentioned instances in which the Constitution might be violated without giving jurisdiction to this Court. These words, therefore, however universal in their expression, must, he contends, be limited and controlled in their construction by circumstances. One of these instances is the grant by a State of a patent of nobility. The Court, he says, cannot annul this grant.

This may be very true, but by no means justifies the inference drawn from it. The article does not extend the judicial power to every violation of the Constitution which may possibly take place, but to “a case in law or equity” in which a right under such law is asserted in a Court of justice. If the question cannot be brought into a Court, then there is no case in law or equity, and no jurisdiction is given by the words of the article. But if, in any controversy depending in a Court, the cause should depend on the validity of such a law, that would be a case arising under the Constitution, to which the judicial power of the United States would extend. The same observation applies to the other instances with which the counsel who opened the cause has illustrated this argument. Although they show that there may be violations of the Constitution of which the Courts can take no cognizance, they do not show that an interpretation more restrictive than the words themselves import ought to be given to this article. They do not show that there can be “a case in law or equity,” arising under the Constitution to which the judicial power does not extend.

Chief Justice John Marshall

As I read this from Justice Marshall so much came into focus, so much of what Justice Marshall wrote then, speaks to us today. In every answer to every lawsuit Obama defense was, “lets assume for the sake of argument Obama is not eligible to be President. What are you going to do about it?” What is a patent of nobility today we know then as Letters of Patent that are letters issued by the President appointing a person to an office that the President can fill. There is a 10 year term of imprisonment for anyone forging such an instrument 18 U.S.C. § 497. Without such a letter, no one can take his or her office. Nevertheless, what if all the Letters of Patent Obama signed are a forgery because he a forgery himself?

We need to end this, and we need to end it so the people either know with certainty that Obama is a usurper or our legitimate Commander in Chief. If he is, a usurper is there nothing the courts can or will do? Will the Supreme Court of the United States change 221 years of common law and decided that the son of subject of her majesty the Queen can be commander in chief? Don’t we deserve an answer? Can’t we have the facts put before the courts so we can make decisions on what to do with our lives?

The country needs a leader who is not only elected but who is “eligible” to be President under our Constitution. We need a leader who can negotiate for us with bit h our allies and those who are not our friends.

Please write, call and fax Judge Simandle in Camden and carefully tell him,

“Your honor, with all due respect to this honorable court; could his honor get off his honorable bench warming part of his anatomy and make a decision in Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al?”

I only wish it was that easy, but seriously, what this Judge needs to know is that you know the law and the precedent. It has nothing to do about racism, and everything to do with the law. The Supreme Court of the United States said there was doubt to Obama’s claim to natural born citizenship. This is important, because personas idioticas like “the national peanut farmer” want to say we are racists. How can we be racists when the Supreme Court of the United States says we have legitimate cause for doubting Obama claim to being a natural born citizen?

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)

Simply put we have a legitimate doubt, it has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the rule of law. This doubt is preserved for us by the Supreme Court.

But we have a candidate for Alzheimer’s running around pretending to be the 39^th President, wanting to start race wars. Nevertheless, the law is clear, Obama’s birth raises legitimate doubts that have nothing to do with race. It is time that we as a nation move forward and answer this question.

There is one single case that an answer this question with out prolonged and excruciating pain to our national psyche. It is the case that Mario Apuzzo put together for Charles Kerchner. We have no idea why Judge Simandle has not rendered a decision, even though a decision is nearly 2 months late. As can be seen from Justice Marshall’s opinion, delays that inspire cowardice by the judiciary, can border on treason to the Constitution.

Call, Write, or Fax or All 3 to Judge Simandle in Camden NJ

and Tell Him it is Time to Make His Decisions.

Reference:

Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al

Case 1:09-cv-00253

Honorable Judge Simandle

Mitchell H. Cohen Building

4th & Cooper Streets

Camden NJ 08101

Tel: 856-757-5021, 5023

Fax: 856-757-5370

I ask the American people to write letters to our Judges and Courts telling them that they must act to protect our Constitution and the Republic. They took an oath to do so.

It is their duty and Chief Justice Marshall tells them why.