Posted on 03/25/2010 6:53:40 AM PDT by opentalk
Forget the dispute over the "natural born citizen" requirement of the U.S. Constitution for presidents, Barack Obama may not even be a "citizen," according to a new filing in a long-running legal challenge to his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
"Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born," says a new filing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Kerchner v. Obama.
"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii."
The submission comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the case. His brief argues against the earlier document from Obama's attorneys demanding that the case be dismissed.
WND reported earlier when the lawyer argued that the most common reason judges have used to dismiss cases against Obama – a lack of "standing" – is just wrong.
Obama's arguments in this case, in fact, rely almost exclusively on that issue to suggest the case by Apuzzo should be dismissed.
"How can you deny he's affecting me?" Apuzzo said recently during an interview with WND. "He wants to have terror trials in New York. He published the CIA interrogation techniques. On and on. He goes around bowing and doing all these different things. His statements we're not a Christian nation; we're one of the largest Muslim nations. It's all there."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
This doesn’t say anything about whether a court is considered to have competent jurisdiction or not. What you cited says a court (or judge) has to specifically sign off on a subpoena in order to force the release of nonconsensual reords, and that a prosecutor can’t do so on independently, which undercuts a claim you made earlier.
As for having competent jurisdiction, a local court in Indiana or New York or Arizona could potentially be deemed NOT to have such in a criminal case against the president, since Congress is the only body that can impeach a president. As far as an investigation by the justice department would be concerned, it would have to be ordered by the executive, most likely because of a Congressional request. But we know that won’t happen because we know who controls the justice department and Congress (at the moment).
I missed the "ejection" process in the Constitution.
Because of checks and balances -- which is about as fundamental as any constitutional principle can be -- no judge has the power to unilaterally remove the President from office. It takes both houses of Congress to do that, through impeachment.
it is not a pick & choose document. all or nothing.
The irony is just dripping off that comment. The Constitution is all or nothing; it's so sacrosanct that in order to preserve it, you would reject the clear and explicit process for removing a president from office and make one up on the spot -- also invalidating laws passed by both houses of Congress at a stroke through no recognizable constitutional process.
Next in line after Pelosi is President pro tempore of the Senate, Robert C. Byrd.
the ejection would be through impeachment by both the house and the senate, of course.
once ejected... then the recovery... which would include retracting any bills supposedly signed into law... but since the person that signed the bills into law was not eligible to perform the task, as only the president can do it, than the law would have to be retracted.
this would be the start of a Constitutional crisis
Thanks. That would be depressing, but it’s still better to uphold the Constitution and deal with the consequences as they fall.
obumpa
One can’t have a Constitutional case dismissed for lack of standing, as naturally everyone is affected by the Constitution.
Okay. Thanks for clarifying. A surprising number of people think that SCOTUS could simply declare BHO ineligible.
once ejected... then the recovery... which would include retracting any bills supposedly signed into law... but since the person that signed the bills into law was not eligible to perform the task, as only the president can do it, than the law would have to be retracted.
this would be the start of a Constitutional crisis
The only means in the Constitution to "retract" those laws is for Congress to repeal them and the new president to sign them. If SCOTUS declared all the laws passed in the last year + to be invalid, that would indeed create a constitutional crisis; but I don't see any conceivable way the court would take that step.
If it’s a civil lawsuit, then you have to show standing, meaning that you have to prove you were uniquely harmed by actions of the other person. When you say everyone is affected, then you’re admitting you don’t have standing. If everyone is affected, then you need a class-action suit that ‘everyone’ signs onto.
keep in mind, i see the role for the SCOTUS to be to declare him as ineligible... THEN the impeachment hearings would have to happen.
as for just re-signing the laws... considering the laws were pushed by a pretender, or worse, i’m not sure that would go as smoothly as just re-signing
no matter how it goes, it’d be a massive mess the likes of which the country has never seen... which might be one of their contingency plans.
An ineligible usurper can not be impeached. Only "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States". Nothing in the Constitution about ipeaching or removing ineligible squaters occupying the Office of President. They of course assumed that the electoral college would not pick an ineligible person.
Silly Dead White Men.
No he'd act as Presdient until a President could be picked.
if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified
XXth amendment.
Now how would a President be qualified?
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
XIIth amendment.
The process would not be lengthy. We'd have President McCain, since he is the only other person to have gotten electral votes for Presdient. Biden would remain VP, unless impeached for his part in the fraud/deception.
In that case, SCOTUS' opinion would be purely advisory -- and they don't do advisory opinions.
Leaving aside the issue of standing, courts often dismiss cases as "political questions" best left to the elected branches of government, or as "not justicable," meaning that no matter how the court finds, it can't do anything. For lower courts, either of those is a reason to dismiss. For SCOTUS, it's a reason never to take the case to begin with.
as for just re-signing the laws... considering the laws were pushed by a pretender, or worse, i’m not sure that would go as smoothly as just re-signing
You misunderstood me. There's no provision in the Constitution for the president merely re-signing the laws; there is no provision for undoing a presidential signature. They would stand as passed until and unless they are repealed.
point being, they would never have been signed by the president, if the current occupant were to be found ineligible... thus never truly the president
In Constitutional cases everyone has standing, otherwise no Constitutional case could be brought, and that is a denial of the checks and balances. If Congress and the Presidency conspire to abuse the Constitution, as they do, there must be a legal remedy.
Playing along... If Biden... or whomever were to ascend to the Presidency they would immediately begin to make their own mark. This would include appointing their own Cabinet and restructuring all political appointments to suit themselves.
Sorry, but I don’t think Biden will keep Obie’s playmates in the West Wing. He will appoint lefties, but perhaps they won’t be commies.
Nancy Pelosi should be tried for Treason against the people and the Constitution of the United States of America.
Most Constitutional cases I’m aware of involve claims of specific injury, such as a government organization infringing on an individual’s right to free speech. While the issue may arguably affect everyone in how it’s decided, such a case is brought to court based on harm to an individual and not a group of people.
I don't understand why she has so much power over the rest of the country. Why do grown adult congress follower her like sheep. Her constitutes shouldn't have more power than the rest of the country. Because she is extremely wealthy , her policies will not impact her family.
The validity of her DNC certification of Obama as being constitutionally eligible should be questioned.
Your post sums it up.
follower=follow
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.