The central argument used by Obama’s legal defense to prevent questions of his eligibility from reaching the discovery phase revolves around whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring a question before the court, and if the court has the jurisdiction to hear the case. Whether the court has jurisdiction to take a question depends in part upon whether the plaintiffs have presented specific evidence that the injury claimed is ‘concrete and particularized’.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
This is the first question presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari submitted by Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Commander Kerchner, which has been distributed to the Justices for conference on November 23:
Continue reading ‘Standing and the Constitution’







An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.