Obama eligibility lawsuit update...
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari is scheduled for conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit challenges Obama's eligibility to serve as president because he is not a natural born citizen.
If four of the nine Justices (four, not five) agree to hear the case it will be scheduled for a full hearing. The Court will then rule on the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" as defined in the U.S. Constitution and related historical documents. (Historically, "natural born citizen" means born on U.S. soil to two U.S.-citizen parents - which makes Obama ineligible for the presidency even if he was born in Hawaii, because his father was a British citizen. The term "natural born" is not equivalent to "native born," which merely means born on U.S. soil. If James Madison had meant "native born" he would have written "native born." He did not. He wrote "natural born." That Americans are not taught proper history in school and that the media is ignorant is irrelevant.)
If the Court agrees to hear the case, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan should recuse themselves from the decision because of their obvious conflict of interest. (If the ruling goes against Obama, their appointments to the Supreme Court are invalid and they lose their jobs.)
Note that the November 23 decision is not a ruling on the case itself - it is merely a decision as to whether to hear the case.
If the Court decides to hear the case, the media will no longer be able to avoid the issue of the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" - and Obama will be sweating it out for a few months. There is no dispute about his father's British citizenship. (When Obama was born in 1961, Kenya did not yet exist - it was a British protectorate.) The place of Obama's birth is irrelevant. Obama's attorneys can make any case they want about Hawaii, but it will be useless. The issue is simply, "What is the meaning of the term 'natural born citizen?'"
This is the kind of case Supreme Court Justices live for: a pure Constitutional issue, that is relevant, historical, and important. If they refuse to hear the case it will be out of fear - fear of nationwide riots if the eventual ruling goes against Obama. If the Court refuses to hear the case, we may as well forget the U.S. Constitution - as its words will no longer have any meaning at all.
The petition (which is brilliantly written, by the way) asks four questions:
1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.
2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.
3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a ‘natural born Citizen.’
4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the ‘natural born Citizen’ status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.” Plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. Commander USN (Retired), states, “…it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.”
I have been paying attention to all of the various Obama eligibility cases. Kerchner is by far the best-researched and best-developed case. Spread the word. Keep your fingers crossed that the Court will hear the case. Pray for Commander Kerchner and his attorney Mario Apuzzo.
Don Fredrick
Note: Do not listen to incorrect arguments that rely on the Fourteenth Amendment. That Amendment does not pertain to Obama's situation. The Fourteenth Amendment gave former slaves U.S. citizenship after the Civil War. It uses the term "citizen," never mentioning "natural born." Yes, the former slaves were made U.S. citizens - but they were not made "natural born citizens" under the law. And even if they were, Obama is not a former slave.
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.
If the Court merely finds standing, Obama will be gone; it won't have to get to the merits.
ReplyDeleteRE: "...finds Standing..."
ReplyDeleteStanding is only one excuse they use. They have dozens of other tools in their arsenal not to hear it on merit. One is the “political question.”
Also SCOTUS does not have to disclose why they don’t want to hear it – if the 4 votes are not there that is the end of it.
My guess is that continue to practice what Alen Keyes calls “dereliction of duty”.