Court told 'citizen' Obama actually may be alien

WND ^ | March 25, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[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."

[mountainlion]

He has planned a good retirement with 32 social security cards.

[kevkrom]

I believe that if Obama is found to be ineligible then his whole team would also be ineligible. They would lose by default, and McCain/Palin would be the winners. If that’s not the case it should be the case.

That belief is not based in law or the Constitution. The former doesn't speak at all to this issue, and the latter is maddeningly vague on this specific point.

The actual, legal realities are:

• The President and Vice-President are elected separately by the Electoral College
• Biden received the majority of Electoral College votes for Vice-President

Barring some actual reason to impeach and remove Biden, he is undoubtedly the legal Vice-President.

The problem is what to do if Obama is found to be ineligible. Becoming ineligible is simple enough -- the President is removed and the Vice-President takes over. I.e., President Biden, who would then nominate a new Vice-President, to be appointed with advice and consent of the Senate.

Of course, if Obama had been found to have been ineligible prior to Congress' ratification of the Electoral College vote, the matter would also have been simple (Constitutionally, though certainly not palatable to the Democrats), then no (valid) candidate would have achieved an Electoral College majority, and therefore the House of Representatives would have to select one of the top 5 (valid) people having received Electoral College Votes. But there was only one person who qualifies under that scenario: John McCain, who would be President with Joe Biden as his Vice-President.

The problem arises in that the Constitution makes no provision for when a sitting President becomes ineligible because it was shown that he never was eligible in the first place. In this case, it would likely be up to Congress to deal with the matter (as they are the judge of elections and nothing in the Constitution would restrain them, apart from the actual eligibility requirements). I would expect that they would do the most politically expedient thing: declare the office vacant, and then proceed as in the first scenario above with President Biden.

[WellyP]

Biden, at the very least, is not anti-American!

[opentalk]

--Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

--The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

[freedomlover]

“And this would help, how exactly? Dems would somehow stop pushing for the same agenda?”

---

It would F___ up the Dem agenda. That is enough for me.

[azishot]

Ping.

Where are 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”????

[butterdezillion]

I think that’s the key to getting the public on-board with this whole issue. Everybody knows the dems are making a mockery out of the rule of law. At this point so many laws have been broken to get Obama in as president it’s not even funny. The failure of our law enforcement, courts, administrative offices, etc to obey and enforce the rule of law is what the public needs to realize.

Right now, the AG’s who are fighting against Obamacare might want to call for impeachment of Nancy Pelosi for perjury - since she had to know that Obama wasn’t eligible. There was no birth certificate she could have seen that was able to be taken at face value; the only way she could have determined him to be a natural born US citizen is if she had a judge or administrative body or person make a determination based on a finding of facts, since his BC is amended and isn’t prima facie evidence. Pelosi, as a legislative “person or body”, does not have that authority.

She signed a different Certification of Nomination for Hawaii because Hawaii - who normally certified Constitutional eligibility and hand-delivered their forms independently of the DNC after the Dem Convention - broke with their normal protocol by refusing to certify Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. This forced the DNC to make a different certification for Hawaii and send the certifications from both the Hawaii Democratic Party and DNC together to the Hawaii Elections Office. Pelosi knew there was a different form for Hawaii, and she most certainly knew why Hawaii refused to say Obama is Constitutionally eligible.

The attorney who usually represented the HDP was William H Gilardy, Ann Dunham’s lawyer in the divorce from Soetoro. He may well have seen Obama’s birth certificate. Until Obama amended his BC in Hawaii sometime during his consideration of a presidential run in 2006, the only birth certificate that could have been printed out for Obama would have been his real one - the Kenyan one. Hawaii could not print out anything for Obama until his BC was completed in 2006.

[Man50D]

Take control back in Nov and impeach his sorry socialist ass!

Two things to consider for the mid term elections:

Soros Eyes Secretaries

Forget amnesty, look where Democrats now stoop for votes!

[BP2]

That’s why I’d rather see us focus on getting conservatives elected who can actually make changes than on the BC issue, from a pragmatic point of view.

Being pragmatic, we need conservatives who are also willing to take care of this when they swear in starting January 2011. We can't do much about this sticking issue until we have the Majority in Congress.

As A.W. Dicey, one of the chief references in the famed "US vs. Kim Wong Ark" case, states in "Conflict of Laws":

"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions."

This extends up to two generations, regardless of where the infant is born.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

[Oceander]

Oh he's an alien alright, of one variety or another.

[opentalk]

from article:

--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.

[opentalk]

He has planned a good retirement with 32 social security cards.

related link

[butterdezillion]

Here in Nebraska we don’t require any legal verification of eligibility. All we ask for is the certification by the DNC and RNC. But the charters of those organizations require that they only nominate eligible candidates. When the Certification of Nomination is signed by the certifying people from the DNC they are making a notarized oath that they know what they have said on the document to be true.

That is absolutely perjury on the part of Pelosi - not only because she didn’t know it to be true that Obama is Constitutionally eligible, but because she knew it was NOT TRUE.

The reasons for Congress saying that McCain was eligible was because both his parents were US citizens and (they said) he was born on a military base which would legally be considered US soil. Their facts may or may not have been accurate, but the criteria they used were clear. Obama doesn’t fit those criteria, even if he was born in Hawaii.

But the truth of the matter is, there is nothing that Hawaii has which qualifies as prima facie evidence that Obama was even born in Hawaii. And Pelosi would certainly have known that if she had even so much as TRIED to see his documentation.

The fact that she didn’t even TRY says that she knew she was perjuring herself when she swore on penalty of perjury that she knew Obama was Constitutionally eligible to be president.

There is no defense for her. You can’t swear to the truth of something you know you don’t know.

[DrC]

“I would expect that they would do the most politically expedient thing: declare the office vacant, and then proceed as in the first scenario above with President Biden.”

You may well be right. But if Obama held the office illegally, shouldn’t that invalidate every Executive Order and even some bills he has signed since Jan. 20, 2009? Admittedly, Joe Biden could sign all these bills/orders himself, but in some cases, these bills would have been considered “pocket-vetoed” since Congress recessed during the 10-day period that the Constitution gives the president to sign a bill. That would appear to apply to health care reform reconciliation, since Congress plans to recess for Easter etc.

[Non-Sequitur]

I believe that if Obama is found to be ineligible then his whole team would also be ineligible. They would lose by default, and McCain/Palin would be the winners. If that’s not the case it should be the case.

That's not the case. But you're entitled to keep hoping.

[Non-Sequitur]

President Biden, who would then nominate a new Vice-President, to be appointed with advice and consent of the Senate.

Both houses of Congress. Per the 25th Amendment.

[Seizethecarp]

“Right now, the AG’s who are fighting against Obamacare might want to call for impeachment of Nancy Pelosi for perjury - since she had to know that Obama wasn’t eligible.”

Yes and the AG’s can also demand discovery of Obama’s original HI BC and demand a legal ruling on NBC status.

See jbjd’s post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2479489/posts

I think your deductions as to the underlying fact pattern (Obama amended his HI BC to remove Kenya birth location) will prove to be correct, hopefully in time to cut short his usurpation.

[bjorn14]

“Joe Biden sworn in as President? (that would be a Big #$%@ing Deal!)”

Frankly, I’d rather have stupid than evil.

[kevkrom]

You may well be right. But if Obama held the office illegally, shouldn’t that invalidate every Executive Order and even some bills he has signed since Jan. 20, 2009? Admittedly, Joe Biden could sign all these bills/orders himself, but in some cases, these bills would have been considered “pocket-vetoed” since Congress recessed during the 10-day period that the Constitution gives the president to sign a bill. That would appear to apply to health care reform reconciliation, since Congress plans to recess for Easter etc.

In my opinion, the executive orders would be invalidated and whomever assumes the office would need to re-institute them (or not, at his discretion).

Legislation, on the other hand, needs to be explicitly vetoed in order to be halted. If the President simply fails to sign it, it becomes law in 10 days anyway. The question becomes how to handle the situation -- the simplest approach is to just say that the bills were unsigned but not vetoed, and are therefore valid law. But that does set a dangerous precedent that Congress can act without Executive branch oversight. It would certainly be ugly either way -- again I would expect expedience to be the main issue. If the new President states that he would have vetoed a particular piece of legislation, it may be an issue -- if he explicitly states that he wouldn't have vetoed anything, then it's just an academic exercise anyway.

[wideminded]

As A.W. Dicey, one of the chief references in the famed "US vs. Kim Wong Ark" case, states in "Conflict of Laws":

"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions."

If you are going to bring up US v. Wong Kim Ark, you should mention that the majority opinion actually implies that Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States (assuming he was born here):

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."