More lawsuits filed about Obama's birthplace
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: More lawsuits filed about Obama's birthplace

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    Exclamation More lawsuits filed about Obama's birthplace

    BORN IN THE USA?
    Appeals briefs scheduled in Obama eligibility challenge
    'We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case'
    Posted: November 29, 2009
    9:17 pm Eastern
    Appeals briefs scheduled in Obama eligibility challenge
    By Bob Unruh
    2009 WorldNetDaily

    A briefing schedule has been announced by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case alleging Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president, according to an attorney handling the challenge.

    WND previously reported on the lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Congress.

    Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President **** Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

    The case asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same."

    The Constitution also provides, the lawsuit says, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

    See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

    "There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified," the case explained.

    Now the attorney has posted an online statement 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 very important constitutional case along the legal pathway to the ultimate decision maker for this historic and precedence setting lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court."

    He continued. "They will determine the answer to the pressing legal question of what is a 'natural born citizen' of the USA per Article II constitutional standards and did Obama and the U.S. Congress violate the Constitution and statutory laws and my constitutional rights during the 2008 election cycle."

    "I say Obama does not meet the founders and framers intent for the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is a deceiver and a usurper," he wrote today.

    Apuzzo earlier argued in his notice of appeal that the district court judge "avoided" a conclusion on the merits of the case.

    "We allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allege that he is not an Article II 'natural born Citizen' because when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same," he wrote.

    The lawyer said it 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 because of a jurisdiction issue.

    "By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American people unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II 'natural born Citizen' and therefore constitutionally eligible to be president and commander in chief," the attorney said.

    "A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications," he continued. "The court's opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II 'natural born citizen.'

    "The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in 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 when Kerchner publicly argued the courts have an obligation to make a decision on Obama's eligibility.

    He wrote, "The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama."

    He said his basis for such a statement is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in an 1821 case, Cohens vs. Virginia:

    "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."

    WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

    Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

    Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

    Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

    Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

    The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

    WND has reported on another case that was dismissed by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. It also now is heading to the appeals level.

    WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

    Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"


    "Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

    The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 480,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

    The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

    Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  2.   
  3. #2
    Fair Question I'd say...

    Semper Fi

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by ricbak View Post
    Fair Question I'd say...

    LOL!!! right on!
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  5. #4
    Do we Really want Joe Biden to be president either? Looks like a lot of 'guests" at the party without invitation.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bonneau & Goose Creek, SC
    Posts
    444
    I don't understand why they keep bring this up...Not that I care for President Obama but this is a distraction to the US public.
    We need to focus on 2010 and especially 2012 elections.

    Constitution states - No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    There are 3 ways to become a US Citizen: Blood Right, Birthplace and Naturalization.

    Only Blood Right and Birthplace are Natural Born.

    The founding fathers established natural born via blood right (Jus Sanguinis) as well as all those at the time that the U.S.A. was established are natural born citizens; they fought and bleed for the country so they and their progeny will all be natural born citizens. The third option was Naturalization.

    Birthplace was established by the 14th Amendment declaring all persons born on US soils to be natural born citizens.

    Obama's mother was and is a U.S. Citizens therefore via jus sanguinis, he too inherited the right of Natural Born U.S. Citizen.

    Congress only has the ability to define Naturalization process as defined by the Constitution.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by melloyello View Post
    I don't understand why they keep bring this up...Not that I care for President Obama but this is a distraction to the US public.
    We need to focus on 2010 and especially 2012 elections.

    Constitution states - No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    There are 3 ways to become a US Citizen: Blood Right, Birthplace and Naturalization.

    Only Blood Right and Birthplace are Natural Born.

    The founding fathers established natural born via blood right (Jus Sanguinis) as well as all those at the time that the U.S.A. was established are natural born citizens; they fought and bleed for the country so they and their progeny will all be natural born citizens. The third option was Naturalization.

    Birthplace was established by the 14th Amendment declaring all persons born on US soils to be natural born citizens.

    Obama's mother was and is a U.S. Citizens therefore via jus sanguinis, he too inherited the right of Natural Born U.S. Citizen.

    Congress only has the ability to define Naturalization process as defined by the Constitution.
    Well, then . . . what's the problem with laying it all out in the open?
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bonneau & Goose Creek, SC
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    Well, then . . . what's the problem with laying it all out in the open?
    It is a moot point, his mother is a U.S. Citizen, he automatically inherits U.S. Citizenship superseding birthplace.

    Repeatedly asking the same question and expecting different answers......
    Where have I heard a phrase like that before?..

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    Exclamation It is not that simple...

    Quote Originally Posted by melloyello View Post
    It is a moot point, his mother is a U.S. Citizen, he automatically inherits U.S. Citizenship superseding birthplace.

    Repeatedly asking the same question and expecting different answers......
    Where have I heard a phrase like that before?..
    His mother was not 25 years of age and had not lived for at least 5 years over the age of 18 in the USA. The law is actually very clear for the time frame in question. Also the fact that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth further complicates things with the question of dual citizenship. The original founding fathers did not want any dual citizens in a position of authority and wrote the original law as such.

    Little Barry's adoption by Mr. Soetero of Indonesia when he was just a tyke means his mother gave up his birthright and he at that time was officially listed as an Indonesian Citizen in order to attend school. Here is where it can get sort of interesting...When his mother divorced Mr. Soetero, and brought little Barry back to the USA, he is now legally considered a naturalized US citizen (thanks to mom and her string of bad choices citizenry wise).

    Now here is the kicker...Who performed the vetting process? The President of the DNC? The Vice president? The attorney General of the United States? All were derelict in there duties and should be the source of a massive investigation of the dept of justice, the Senate, the Congress and WE THE PEOPLE.

    Folks I believe we have been hoodwinked and the media gave it a pass because the Communist agenda must destroy the rule of law in order to become something more desirable to replace the current system of government. This conspiracy has been a long time in the making with the plant of socialist professors in universities in the 60's to poison the minds of America's brightest youth. Progressively moving to an out right socialist system conducting OVERT operations within the borders of our own country by the posturing and positioning of bosses and Czars without congressional oversight and senate approval.

    Let me ask you all the following questions

    1. Since when does the president have the authority to authorize the buyout and then fire heads of private businesses?
    2. Since when is America "no longer a Christian Nation?"
    3. Since when is freedom of speech under attack by the Government in the form of attempting to shut down a regulate Talk Radio
    4. Since when do we allow politicians to tell us what is best for the people when the people clearly do not want it?
    5. Since when do unions such as the SEIU and social reform entities such as ACORN, and power hungry thugs like the Black Panthers have the power to influence elections by means of deception and intimidation without the Government taking action?
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    His mother was not 25 years of age and had not lived for at least 5 years over the age of 18 in the USA. The law is actually very clear for the time frame in question. Also the fact that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth further complicates things with the question of dual citizenship. The original founding fathers did not want any dual citizens in a position of authority and wrote the original law as such.

    Little Barry's adoption by Mr. Soetero of Indonesia when he was just a tyke means his mother gave up his birthright and he at that time was officially listed as an Indonesian Citizen in order to attend school. Here is where it can get sort of interesting...When his mother divorced Mr. Soetero, and brought little Barry back to the USA, he is now legally considered a naturalized US citizen (thanks to mom and her string of bad choices citizenry wise).

    Now here is the kicker...Who performed the vetting process? The President of the DNC? The Vice president? The attorney General of the United States? All were derelict in there duties and should be the source of a massive investigation of the dept of justice, the Senate, the Congress and WE THE PEOPLE.

    Folks I believe we have been hoodwinked and the media gave it a pass because the Communist agenda must destroy the rule of law in order to become something more desirable to replace the current system of government. This conspiracy has been a long time in the making with the plant of socialist professors in universities in the 60's to poison the minds of America's brightest youth. Progressively moving to an out right socialist system conducting OVERT operations within the borders of our own country by the posturing and positioning of bosses and Czars without congressional oversight and senate approval.

    Let me ask you all the following questions

    1. Since when does the president have the authority to authorize the buyout and then fire heads of private businesses?
    2. Since when is America "no longer a Christian Nation?"
    3. Since when is freedom of speech under attack by the Government in the form of attempting to shut down a regulate Talk Radio
    4. Since when do we allow politicians to tell us what is best for the people when the people clearly do not want it?
    5. Since when do unions such as the SEIU and social reform entities such as ACORN, and power hungry thugs like the Black Panthers have the power to influence elections by means of deception and intimidation without the Government taking action?
    festus. you speak words of wisdom.
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  11. #10
    1. Since when does the president have the authority to authorize the buyout and then fire heads of private businesses?
    2. Since when is America "no longer a Christian Nation?"
    3. Since when is freedom of speech under attack by the Government in the form of attempting to shut down a regulate Talk Radio
    4. Since when do we allow politicians to tell us what is best for the people when the people clearly do not want it?
    5. Since when do unions such as the SEIU and social reform entities such as ACORN, and power hungry thugs like the Black Panthers have the power to influence elections by means of deception and intimidation without the Government taking action?

    Since the sheeple elected a Marxist/fashest would be usurper.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast