Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: SAMSON123 on November 26, 2010, 09:08:51 PM

Title: U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility Is president a 'natural-born cit
Post by: SAMSON123 on November 26, 2010, 09:08:51 PM

While I think this is all silly...it seems this eligibility issue is still being raised. Clinton was wrung through the wringer and it did nothing toward getting him out of the Whitehouse over Monica Lewinski. By the time the courts go through the wrangling process and impeachment etc etc not only will Obama have finished his presidential term, he will also have done a second term before a judgment is handed down.

WND Exclusive 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


(http://view.picapp.com//Images/clear.gif)
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."

Title: Re: U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility Is president a 'natural-born cit
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 26, 2010, 09:47:07 PM

I believe he was born in hawaii but that the long frm bc has info they want kept hidden.

Title: Re: U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility Is president a 'natural-born cit
Post by: FarRightLooney on November 27, 2010, 12:14:03 PM

Unfortunately, I agree with SAMSON123 that even IF SCOTUS would take this beyond a conference, by the time it all played out, Obama would be out of office. However, it would still be beneficial in helping to undo the damage the commies have done to this country.

We know the so-called birth certificate Obama released is a fraud. By his own admission he was a dual citizen at birth. He is NOT a "natural born Citizen" as required by our Constitution. And, possibly, not a citizen of any type at all.

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/SmokingGun.htm (http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/SmokingGun.htm)

The Smoking Gun

Or just another nail in the coffin?

From "Dreams...," page 345:  
      
"What's so funny?"

"I [Obama] was just thinking about how life is so strange.  You know, as soon as the Old Man died, the lawyers contacted all those who might have a claim to the inheritance.  Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was.  So of all the Old Man’s kids, Mark’s claim is the only one that’s uncontested."
    
Now let this sink in.
    
"Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark’s father was."
    
Translation: "I (Obama) have no documents to prove my father was Barack Hussein Obama Sr."

Yet, we know the Dunhams, and by extension Anna, Obama's "Mum," did have Barack Obama's birth certificate.  
    
No wonder Obama is fighting the release of his birth certificate with every resource he has available.  

He tells us that has seen his birth certificate.  

Title: Re: U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility Is president a 'natural-born cit
Post by: FarRightLooney on November 29, 2010, 05:57:21 PM

 >:(

10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf (http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx (http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx)