Posted on 03/16/2010 5:43:10 AM PDT by opentalk
The appalling game-playing by Obama’s lawyers in the Kerchner vs. Obama and Congress appeal, including the Justice Department, is the kind of behavior that should draw disbarment and criminal penalties. It already makes a mockery of justice and of the Constitution we know that. But the case that Obama is ‘fighting’ is not the legal case that’s been brought against him.
Too cool to prove himself, Obama has created and is shadowboxing a straw man eligibility case–one that doesn’t exist.
Straw man. A fallacy in which an opponent’s argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be attacked or refuted.
An alert and astute poster named Fool Me Once, in a post sent to Commander Charles Kerchner, pointed out that Obama’s legal team is creating the illusion of refuting Kerchner’s argument by misstating it and then knocking down the fake case…
In this case, the government and Obama absolutely ignored the facts presented in Kerchner’s brief. Indeed, instead of addressing any of the factual claims, the government ‘makes up’ that there is an issue of standing and jurisdiction, the Constitutional issues presented be damned.
What Kerchner Presented
The basic case against Obama is actually quite straight forward:
Obama has not proven conclusively yet that he was born in the United States No state, or federal law enforcement agency, the media, or Congress vetted Obama to assure that he met the Constitutional qualifications for office
--Notwithstanding where he was born, Obama is not an Article II Natural Born Citizen because the British Nationality Act covered his birth and he therefore is British and his adoption by an Indonesian national would have required his naturalization upon return to the United States. Obama is at best a dual citizen;
--Support for the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ as contained in the Constitution is found historical development, sources and authorities on the Constitution, and that neither the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court, acts of Congress, nor any case law has modified this essential definition. The Supreme Court has never applied the term ‘natural born citizen’ to anyone who was not “born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
--Defendants violated plaintiffs’ right to petition for redress under the First Amendment; deprived the plaintiffs of a liberty interest without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment; deprived plaintiffs of equal protection; and violated plaintiff’s Constitutional rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
......The Significance of Timing
The initial filing in this case was filed at 2:50 am on January 20, 2009, after Congress had confirmed the electoral college vote of Obama but just before he became bound to the Constitution through his oath of office. This brilliant move provides numerous opportunities to crack the usurper’s charade, and frustrates the defense of Obama. It is also the most significant difference between the Kerchner case and all other cases filed on this subject.
First, the filing date and time occurred after the process had completed its course but before he took the oath of office and became bound to the Constitution. This process includes the election, the vote of the electoral college, and Congress’ action on January 8, 2009. The significant point here is that Obama as a private citizen, and as the President-elect, still had an affirmative obligation to prove himself constitutionally eligible for the office.
What this timing does is to eliminate Obama and the government’s argument that Obama cannot be touched because he is the ‘de facto office holder’, and therefore ‘presumed eligible’. It also eliminates Congress’ and Dick Cheney’s excuse of not being responsible as they too were under affirmative obligation, under the 20th Amendment, to ensure that Obama met the Constitutional requirements of office.
...The Government Misstates the Case
...Obama’s defense personalizes the case, and claims a set of issues and facts never stated in the original Kerchner complaint nor in the appeals brief. The government makes this case about standing and jurisdiction, wholly ignoring the Constitutional issue raised.
...This is an obtuse and arrogant response to Kerchner’s appeal. The government doesn’t argue the merits of the case–no information on the 14th amendment, no argument about the case law or supreme court decisions, no argument whatsoever.
Do they know that they can’t win if they take on the facts, and, do they know that we know they can’t?
Instead, the government argues that whatever the facts, the plaintiffs have no standing, no right to bring this action before the court, primarily because they haven’t proven a particularized injury that is different than all Americans. Thus the court does not have jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiffs have no standing, and well, the claim is ‘alleged’.
§ 4. Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
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.