CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. v Barack Obama January 20, 2009, Obama not natural born citizen, 1 US citizen parent, No proof of US birth, Obama British citizen, Litigation fails due to lack of standing, No congress vetting

KenyanBornbarackbama08usafrica

CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. v Barack Obama January 20, 2009, Obama not natural born citizen, 1 US citizen parent, No proof of US birth, Obama British citizen, Litigation fails due to lack of standing, No congress vetting

 

CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. filed a lawsuit on January 20, 2009  challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president as a natural born citizen.

From the lawsuit:

“Not an Article II “Natural Born Citizen”

28. Obama has not proven he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
29. Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Not Born In the U.S.A.
30. Obama has not met his burden or otherwise adequately shown that he is an
Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
31. Obama has not met his burden or otherwise adequately shown that he was
born in the Unites States.”
“Obama’s Father Not a U.S. Citizen

44. Presumably Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.
45. Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of Obama’s birth was a British
subject/citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, and would have handed
down British citizenship to his son, Obama. Endnote 8.
46. Obama publicly admits his father was not a U.S. citizen and was a British
subject and then a Kenyan citizen when Kenya became an independent country.
47. Hence, at the time of his birth on August 4, 1961, Obama was born to a U.S.
citizen mother but not a U.S. citizen father.
48. Under the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama therefore
cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Endnote 9.”

“Vetting Through Litigation on Behalf of the Plaintiffs and the People

79. There is a long list of legal cases challenging Obama’s eligibility to be
President. Endnote 13.
80. Many of those cases have been denied by both state and federal courts due to
the court’s finding, among other things, that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the law
suits.
81. Several of those cases have already reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
82. Over 60,128 letters from the public were sent to the U.S. Supreme Court
asking the Court to accept the pending cases and decide them on the merits. The most
recent campaign generated 12,096 messages.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86325;
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86252.
83. Justices have so far declined to give any of the cases full hearings on their
merits. Endnote 14.
84. Legal challenges to date have mostly been turned aside due to lack of
standing and other procedural issues.
85. It appears that the courts have to date refused to decide the merits of the
eligibility challenges because they likely considered the question to be a “political issue”
and that Obama should have been vetted through the political process.
86. But the political process this election cycle has failed to observe and uphold
the Constitution, even with the questions being asked by many people, to properly vet
this candidate’s exact citizenship status.

“Vetting by Congress on Behalf of the Plaintiffs and the People

90. The Congress of the U.S. has never passed a resolution declaring that Obama
is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the U.S. similar to the one the Senate passed with
Senate Resolution 511 in April, 2008, for John McCain.
91. Obama never went to Congress to clarify the flaws in his citizenship status to
serve as President and Commander in Chief.
92. So Congress has not ruled on this issue to date on behalf of Obama as it did
for McCain.
93. Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, provides that Congress must fully qualify
the candidate “elected” by the Electoral College Electors.
94. Section 3 provides in pertinent part: “If a President shall not have been
chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall
have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a
President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then
act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such
person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
95. Hence, the Constitution itself foresees the possibility that the nation could
have a President elect who fails to qualify.”

“ENDNOTES”
“9. The origins of the term “natural born Citizen’ and inclusion in the Constitution can be
traced to a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington. This specifically speaks
about the reason for requiring the President to be a “natural born Citizen.” It was
believed that there would be less of a chance to have foreign influences put upon the
President and Commander in Chief of our Army (military forces) if the person serving as
the President is a “natural born citizen”, i.e., being born on U.S. soil and being second
generation via both his parents also being U.S. citizens. There thus would be no claim on
the President from any foreign power and he would have no relatively recent allegiance
and influence via family to a foreign power or from family living in a foreign country.
Being a “natural born citizen” dramatically reduces the likelihood of such foreign
influence. That is why John Jay, who was a major writer in The Federalist Papers which
were critical in the ratification process of getting the Constitution approved, requested
that the term be inserted into our Constitution. He was one of the founders who was very
concerned about foreign influences being exerted on our new nation, especially on the
President and Commander in Chief of the Army. He was not concerned about the
loyalties of existing “original citizens” of the new country because they had openly
fought for independence. And that is why the Article II grandfather clause is in there for
them. But John Jay was very concerned about foreign influences on future Presidents
and Commander in Chiefs. Thus he wrote the letter to General Washington. Washington
agreed and had the clause put in the Constitution and the delegates agreed and approved
it and the “We the People” of those days voted for it and ratified it. And it can only be
changed now by a new amendment by today’s “We the People.” Jay would have
obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times,
The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This work was
read not only by the Founding Fathers but was also well-known throughout the colonies
among the general population. Jay frequently cited this treatise in his writings.
Additionally, the term “Law of Nations” is mentioned in the Constitution itself in Article
I, Section 8 (defining piracy). There are also many references to The Law of Nations in
The Federalist Papers, for the writers relied upon authors such as Vattel, among others.
The Journal of Legal History, Volume 23, Issue 2, August 2002, pages 107 – 128.”

From attorney Mario Apuzzo July 31, 2009.

“What to tell the Birthers Bashers”

“You are poorly informed on the constitutional issue involved with Obama’s eligibility to be President. The primary issue is whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” not whether he was born in the U.S. When drafting the eligibility requirements for the President, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 and in Articles I, III, and IV of the Constitution. Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” after 1789 the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder have sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

The distinction between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, a “citizen” is simply a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. Neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts, nor any case law has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Congressional Acts and case law, like the 14th Amendment, have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. It is this definition of “natural born Citizen” which gives the Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. I call this state of having all other means of acquiring other citizenships or allegiances cut off unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth.

Obama’s father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. When he came to America, he was probably here on a student visa and he never became a legal resident of the U.S. or an immigrant. He had no attachment to the U.S. other than to study in its prestigious educational institutions which he did for the sole purpose of returning to Kenya and applying his learning there for the best interests of that nation. In fact, when he completed his studies, he did return to Kenya and worked for its government.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, at best, he is a U.S. “citizen” under the 14th Amendment and federal statute. But he is not a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution, for at the time of his birth under the British Nationality Act 1948 his father was a British subject and Obama himself through descent was also a British subject. Obama has himself admitted to the controlling effect of the British Nationality Act 1948 on his birth. Additionally, in 1963, both his father and Obama also became Kenyan citizens when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain.

Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). Obama also obtained Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by his step-father in Indonesia at age 6. The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military. We the People have too many “natural born Citizens” in our country, the largest group of citizens by far, from whom to pick to risk jeopardizing the best interests of the United States by allowing a person born with conflicting allegiances and loyalties to be President and Commander in Chief of our Military. There simply is no sound reason for risking America’s national security, welfare, and ultimate preservation by allowing a non-“natural born Citizen” to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. To permit it is a violation of Article II of our Constitution, the supreme law of our land.”

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-to-tell-birthers-bashers.html

 

 






Related News

  • Schippers Exposes Impeachment Debacle, David Schippers interview by Insight Magazine December 8, 2000, Democrat Schippers book Sellout
  • Obama’s Intelligence Adviser Involved in Security Breach, John Brennan Analysis Corp. employee cauterized Obama file, Newsmax January 12, 2009
  • Video shows Hillary shunning homeless man, Clintons’ 1992 presidential campaign, “My name is Hillary Clinton. You going to vote in the primary?”, He asks Clinton staffer for a dollar. Instead female aide gives homeless man a voter registration card and urges him to vote, Newsmax December 7, 1999
  • Starr says Clinton ‘chose deception’, Clinton lied under oath obstructed justice and attempted to thwart not just Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit but Starr’s grand jury probe as well, House Judiciary Committee, CNN November 18, 1998
  • Paula Corbin Jones Plaintiff, v. William Jefferson Clinton and Danny Ferguson Defendants, For the deprivation and conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her federally protected rights, Clinton lowered his trousers and underwear exposing his erect penis and asked Jones to “kiss it.”
  • Accused of rape why won’t president Clinton scream his innocence?, Juanita Broaddrick of Arkansas accused him of raping her in 1978, Why isn’t President Clinton behaving like an innocent man?, Uses his legal wordsmiths as human shields, Newsmax March 2, 1999
  • Kathleen Willey Schwicker vs. William J. Clinton et al, Hillary co defendant, Violation of the 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), Obstructing justice; intimidating party witness or juror, Threats made by jogger, Hillary as guilty as Bill, Newsmax September 21, 2000
  • L.D. Brown testifies about White House intimidation, Seeks attorney with “Intestinal Fortitude” to go against Clinton, Information on possible White House witness tampering, Concerned about my personal safety and for that of my family, Washington Weekly October 6, 1997
  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked as *

    *