Posted on 06/15/2010 10:48:31 AM PDT by rxsid
"Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia has notified me today by letter dated June 15, 2010 that there will not be any oral argument on the Kerchner appeal to that Court. The case will be submitted on the briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence is therefore not required.
The Court also informed me that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.
The court can call for oral argument when it has questions. As we know, the Federal District Court granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen" because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual and conflicting allegiances if he was born in the U.S. or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court or to the Court of Appeals contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court. Hence, the Court might not have any questions and so it did not see any need for oral argument.
Of course, it is our hope that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, we will then be filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word in any event.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/06/kerchner-et-al-v-obamacongress-et-al.html
Our Kenyan born King is exposed. He and his wife are royalty in his home country. Not here. He's just a disqualified fraud.
Regardless of what occurs over the next two years, there is no way this man can run again. He is not qualified.
WOW, the most die-hard “Obamanistas” (SPs) has been hard at working on this thread, as to increase their “commission”(?) checks from the W.H.!!!
“You cannot be both a NBC and a foreigner simultaneously. A man cannot serve two masters.”
Surely you are not suggesting Obama has any loyalty to the British government...Saudi, maybe, but that is a religious thing. Not the Brits.
If Russia (or the British, or anyone else) declared me a citizen, that would NOT give me divided loyalties. NBC has legal meanings that would have carried over from natural born subject, and the ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark discusses those:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
You do realize Ramsey had a personal interest in pushing his interpretation of NBC, and it was NOT shared by other drafters.
Can we head to SCOTUS then? I doubt they have the guts. Apuzzo/Kerchner case is probably the best constructed of all the cases. Mario covered a lot of things to avoid getting it tossed.
You don’t give a cite for your quote and then you quote some guy who wrote a treatise on “A System of the Law of the State of Connecticut”. State common law was NOT adopted by the federal government. You then say the term citizen dates back to around 1300 but offer no proof, but let me help you with that:
64BCE Cicero: members to the Roman body politic was based on the principle of jus naturale, of which the definition as laid down by Gajus, was : jus naturale est quod natura omnia animalia docuit. Within this definition was comprised man in his natural state; it was by man that the body politic was organized, and in entering the organization with his fellow men, man followed the exercise of his natural rights, and became an ingredient of the society of which he, with others, became members.
The organization formed or the state created as of man and by man, man was not so incorporated into the body politic that he could not depart; such a restriction was not placed by him on his nature, that he must forever remain a member of the society of which he became a member.
Cicero lays down the rule, “ that every man ought to be able to retain or renounce his rights of membership of a society,” and further adds, “ that this is the firmest foundation of liberty.”
Under this the Romans received all who came and forced none to remain with them.
After the downfall of Rome and its consequent loss of power, the principles of jus naturale as had been known throughout the empire, gave way to the principles of feudalism as introduced by the invaders.
” O glorious regulations!” says Cicero,1” “ originally established for us by our ancestors of Roman name ; that no one of us should be obliged to belong to more than one society, since a dissimilitude of societies must produce a proportioned variety of laws; that no one, contrary to his inclination, should be deprived of his right of citizenship ; and that no one, contrary to his inclinations, should be obliged to continue in that relation. The power of retaining and of renouncing our rights of citizenship, is the most stable foundation of our liberties.”
Then we have Locke(1632-1704; a leader in the parliamentary opposition to the Feudal King Charles II): Locke on this subject go much further. “ ‘Tis plain,” says he,« “ by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government. He is under his father’s tuition and authority, till he comes to the age of discretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under ; what body politick he will unite himself to.”
The feudal definition is not that of natural law that the founders adopted. As soon as the Romans were conquered, they no longer were free men, they became subjects and therefore, a definition of a feudal subject is not that of a free citizen. IOW, you are wrong and it just shows how little you have actually studied the history of England as well as the history of a citizen who is a free mean, not a subject to a ruler.
From the UK Telegraph:
Barack Obama’s top 10 insults against Britain
One of the first things he did was send the bust of Winston Churchill back to Britain.
From a senior US State Department official:
“There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”
And after his constant attacks on BP, the UK pensioners who depend on the health of BP stocks are none too happy with our "boot on their throat" President. Obama has made it clear, by his actions and words, that he has no allegiance to the crown. Quite the contrary.
Politically speaking, this divided loyalty argument is silly, and demonstrably false.
A study of Anglo-Saxon language & conversion to English (1818) Bosworth, London England
citizen/Freeman = a kinsman, a relation, an heir, (derived from ancient Roman customs & laws)
subject = inferior, under a ruler or king (derived from barbarian conquerers)
and do not confuse freedman to freeman, they are 2 very distinct persons, the former being a slave or a subject
Sorry, MrRogers, but the Supreme Court used a definition of native and natural born to be equivalent with Vattel’s definition of “native” and/or “indigenous.” They used his definition nearly verbatim. Native, in this case, means to be born in a country to citizen parents, specifically a citizen father. Of this there is no doubt. The 14th amendment did not resolve ANY doubt anyone being born to noncitizens being = to natural born.
There’s no question that Obama has loyalty to his home country. He’s been trying to get the Kenyan constitution changed to allow dual citizenship, presumably so he can legally be a U.S. citizen and not just a Kenyan.
My source for citizen was the dictionary. Sorry you don’t like the results.
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)...also see:
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
I also cited Blackstone.
Want the Supreme Court?
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, (1830)
““Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” from “A View of the Constitution of the United States” (1829) William Rawle
““Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” ‘
Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
So please knock off the nonsense that Vattel’s definition held sway until Obama. There is a lot of legal support for the idea that the original intent of the Constitutional phrase natural born citizen is found in English common law.
“the Supreme Court used a definition of native and natural born to be equivalent with Vattel’s definition of “native” and/or “indigenous.””
Bull. Read more. Study more. Post less drivel.
Deal with it. Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark both use Vattel’s definition and you know it.
One of us is.
origins, ancestry, a paternal kingdom/country
IOW, a child follows the condition of the father(faeder) under natural law, which was the original laws of England prior to the conquest. To be a citizen of that country/kingdom, one must have been born to a father who was a freeman/citizen of that kingdom/country. Children(faederen) belonged to the father
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
So you see they acknowledge that there was a legal dispute about the meaning, which there would NOT be if Vattel was the end all birthers claim.
WKA goes much further.
"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution."
[Note they specifically insist that common law defines the term, not Vattel!]
"II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."
As the dissent noted:
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
Please don't post about decisions you haven't bothered to read.
Dude - we are not Romans. The USA rejected the idea that parentage determines citizenship.
The meaning must be taken from the origins of natural law which was the law of England prior to the feudal conquest. English historians are very forth coming that the conquers were not able to shake every shred of natural law from the country. If it had been, Queen Anne would never have had the definition of law that extended birthright subjectship to children of subjects born abroad. She had to go back to the natural laws of ancient England when it was 1st formed.
Ignorance must be bliss and yes you are ignorant to think that the history of England which was ingrained into English children would have been cast aside when the founders wrote:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I challenge you to find me one shred of evidence that feudal law was based on natural law.
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.