Lunes, 30 de noviembre de 2009
 

BORN IN THE USA?

Appealsbriefs scheduled in Obama eligibility challenge

'Welook forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutionalcase'


Posted: November 29, 2009
9:17 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A briefing schedule has been announcedby the 3rd U.S. Circuit

 Court of Appeals in a case alleging Congressfailed in its

constitutional duties by refusing to investigate theeligibility of

Barack Obama to be president, according to

an attorney handlingthe challenge.

WND previously reported on the lawsuit

filedby lead plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner Jr.

and others against Congress.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action

inJanuary on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T.

Patterson, Darrell JamesLenormand and

Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants

were BarackHussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate,

House ofRepresentatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney

along with HouseSpeaker Nancy Pelosi.


The case focuses on the alleged failure ofCongress to follow the

Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states,"provides that

Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' bythe Electoral

College Electors."


The case asserts "when Obama was born hisfather was a British

subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same."

The Constitution also provides, the lawsuitsays, "If the president-

elect shall have failed to qualify, then thevice president elect shall

act as president until a president shallhave qualified."

See the movie Obama does not want you to see:Own the DVD that

probes this unprecedented presidential eligibilitymystery!

"There existed significant public doubt andgrievances from

plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regardingObama's

eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn dutyto

protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under

the20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to

confirmwhether Obama, once the electors elected him, was

qualified," the caseexplained.

Now the attorney has posted an onlinestatement that the brief on

behalf of the appellants is due Jan. 4,2010.

In an e-mail announcing the schedule,Kerchner wrote, "We look

forward to moving ahead with this veryimportant constitutional

case along the legal pathway to the ultimatedecision maker for this
historic and precedence setting lawsuit, theU.S. Supreme Court."

He continued. "They will determine theanswer to the

pressing legal question ofwhat is a 'natural born citizen' of the

USA per Article IIconstitutional standards and did Obama and the

U.S. Congress violatethe Constitution and statutory laws and my

constitutional rights duringthe 2008 election cycle."

"I say Obama does not meet the founders andframers intent for

the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is adeceiver and a

usurper," he wrote today.

Apuzzo earlier argued in his notice of appealthat the district court

judge "avoided" a conclusion on the merits ofthe case.

"We allege that Obama has not conclusivelyproven that he was

born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allegethat he is not an

Article II 'natural born Citizen' because when Obamawas born his

father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself wasthe

same," he wrote.

The lawyer saidit is important that the court did not rule Obama

was born in Hawaii,nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous.

It simply said the case was dismissed becauseof a jurisdiction

issue.

"By the court finding that plaintiffs do nothave standing and that

their claims present a political question, thecourt was able to avoid
having to address the underlying merits of theKerchner case. With

such a decision, the American people unfortunatelystill do not

know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article

II'natural born Citizen' and therefore constitutionally eligible to

bepresident and commander in chief," the attorney said.

"A court cannot refuse to hear a case on themerits merely because
it prefers not to due to grave social orpolitical ramifications," he

continued. "The court's opinion dismissingthe Kerchner

complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner casebut

rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to

reachthe merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II

'naturalborn citizen.'

"The American people deserve to know whetherObama was in fact

born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is bornin Hawaii,

given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship,the

American people deserve to know whether he is an Article

II'natural born citizen' which would make him eligible to be

president,"the attorney said.

WND reported earlier whenKerchner publicly argued the courts

have an obligation to make adecision on Obama's eligibility.

He wrote, "The federal courts and judges arecommitting treason to
the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction andgetting to the merits

in the various cases before them regarding theArticle II eligibility

clause question for Obama."

He said his basis for such a statement is theopinion of U.S.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote inan 1821

case, Cohens vs. Virginia:

"It is most true that this court will nottake jurisdiction if it should

not: but it is equally true, that itmust take jurisdiction if it should.

The judiciary cannot, as thelegislature may, avoid a measure

because it approaches the confines ofthe constitution. We cannot

pass it by because it is doubtful. Withwhatever doubts, with

whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, wemust decide it, if

it be brought before us. We have no more right todecline the

exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp thatwhich is

not given. The one or the other would be treason to

theconstitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly

avoid; but wecannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our

best judgment, andconscientiously to perform our duty. In doing

this, on the presentoccasion, we find this tribunal invested with

appellate jurisdiction inall cases arising under the constitution and
laws of the United States.We find no exception to this grant, and

we cannot insert one."
WND has reported on dozens of legalchallenges to Obama's status

as a "natural born citizen." TheConstitution, Article 2, Section 1,

states, "No Person except a naturalborn Citizen, or a Citizen of the

United States, at the time of theAdoption of this Constitution, shall

be eligible to the Office ofPresident."

Some of the lawsuits question whetherhe was actually born in

Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out ofthe country, Obama's

American mother, the suits contend, was too youngat the time of

his birth toconfer American citizenship to her son under the law at

the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama'scitizenship through his

father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction ofthe United Kingdom

at the time of his birth, thus making him a dualcitizen. The cases

contend the framers of the Constitution excludeddual citizens from
qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question hiscitizenship by virtue of his attendance

in Indonesian schools duringhis childhood and question on what

passport did he travel toPakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistentrefusal to release

documents that could provide answers and theappointment – at a

cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – ofmyriad lawyers to

defend against all requests for his documentation.While his

supporters cite an online version of a "Certification ofLive Birth"

from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point outsuch

documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed todate: Is Obama a

natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn'tdocumentation been

provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does itmean to the

2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealedthat there has
been a violation?

WND has reported on another case thatwas dismissed by U.S.

District Judge David Carter in California. Italso now is heading to

the appeals level.

WND also has reported that among thedocumentation not yet

available forObama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou

school records,Occidental College records,

ColumbiaUniversity records,Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School

records, Harvard Law Reviewarticles, scholarly articles from the

University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his

years as an Illinoisstate senator, his Illinois

State Bar Association records,any baptism records and his

adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information aboutObama's eligibility,

WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaignto raise

contributions to post billboards asking a simple question:"Where's

the birth certificate?"

"Where'sThe Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resorton the Las Vegas Strip at the Mandalay Bay resorton the Las Vegas Strip

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than

480,000 signaturesdemanding proof of his eligibility, the

availability of yard signs raisingthe question and the production of

permanent, detachablemagnetic bumper stickers asking the

question.

The "certification of live birth" postedonline and widely touted as

"Obama's birth certificate" does not in anyway prove he was born

in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" documentis easily

obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true"long-form"

birth certificate – which includes information such as thename of

the birth hospital and attending physician – is the onlydocument

that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he hasnot

permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.


Oddly, though congressional hearings wereheld to determine

whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionallyeligible to be

president as a "natural born citizen," no controllinglegal authority

ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Your donation – from as little as $5 to asmuch as $1,000 – can be

made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donationsare not tax-

deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can

bearranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM.

If you wouldprefer to mail in your contributions, they should be

directed to WND,P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure

to specify the purposeof the donation by writing "billboard" on the
check. In addition,donations of billboard space will be accepted,

as will significantcontributions specifically targeted for geographic
locations.)

If you are a member of the media andwould like to interview

Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND

Tags: Obama eligibility

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:52
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Comentarios