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
You are lazy & ignorant and you are becoming annoying to think that English law began in the mid 1600’s when feudal law was forced upon the people after the conquest. You think the founders only knew history from the conquest forward. You are wholly WRONG!
“the founders adopted natural law”
The Supreme Court disagrees, at least in determining the meaning of NBC.
correction: You are lazy & ignorant and you are becoming annoying to think that English law began in the mid 1000’s aka after 1066.
The Supreme Court hasn’t referenced Roman law for determining the meaning of NBC, or for ANY citizenship determinations.
Somewhere in your studying, you should have found out we are not Romans...
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution (1789)
Thea slight majority that didn't include the chief justice(who wrote a scathing dissent) of the Supreme Court disagrees, at least in determining the meaning of NBC
Supreme Court rulings are not ipso facto "laws of the nation" as they are always subject to being overturned. They can merely be used as precedent in future cases. One who is stuck on WKA = One who is stuck on Stupid.
give me a link to that cite
“Dude, I’m NOT a dude and the founders adopted natural law.”
No, they used positive law. That’s what the Constitution is, although it is unique in that world for referencing the universe of God’s Law that lies beyond the world of men, namely with the 9th amendment.
“’The natural born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents’
‘Alexander Porter Morse of Washington DC probably forgot more about citizenship in one nights sleep than what you completely know.’”
Ironic that you asked Mr. Rogers if he can read. That excerpt demolishes the standard Birther argument. One thing we know for certain is that in the contemporary U.S. “native” citizens (the imaginary seperate category that Birthers dreamed up to distinguish between born citizens and natural born citizens) don’t have to be born of citizen parents.
“NBC is a constitutional provision, as written and never amended”
The phrase was never amended, but it doesn’t have to be for its application to change, which ought to be a lot more obvious to everyone involved in this debate. Natural born citizen means citizen from birth, which at the time of the Constitution’s adoption may very well have been restricted to children born of two citizen parents. Fine, but after the 14th amendment it’s absolutely irrelevant, because now “jus soli” rules and children born in U.S. territory are citizens from birth.
Let’s assume the Framer’s intended to restrict the presidency to people with two citizen parents. The mechanism by which they sought to secure it was to allow eligibility only to born citizens. Over time, the category of born citizens expanded, and hence the import of the clause changed without being directly amended. Easy-peasy, Japanesey.
“Is an ‘anchor baby’ considered a ‘natural born’ citizen?”
Of course.
“Get over it. What’s your agenda???”
I am motivated always and perpetually by the desire to avoid meaningless controversy.
What he leaves out is that the discussion pertained to citizen, not NBC & he further went on to say that “Mr. Smith founds his claims upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, ... if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.”
Smith was making his claim that he was a citizen by mere fact of birthright, however Madison goes on to dispel that claim. He however explains that Smith being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence; Smith's citizenship came through his father(ties of nature). The act of Smith's father taking an oath automatically gave consent for his children by becoming himself a member of the new society himself. As usual, DrConspiracy parses & edits to fit his argument and completely takes out of context Madison's words.
IOW, according to Madison, birth on soil did NOT automatically make one a citizen, the parents must have been citizens for the child to become one.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=211
Read the entire archive, not just what someone else parsed. That phrase is taken completely out of ocntext which is what drones, trolls & those who cling to subjectship do.
NO, positive law is the law of nature written & adopted by governments for the use in a civilized society.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ky-TxmjrU0YC&printsec=toc#v=onepage&q&f=false
So far your previous postings has done NOTHING but creating YOUR controversy and questionable agendas!!!
“NO, positive law is the law of nature written & adopted by governments for the use in a civilized society.”
Is it your position that every law passed by man-made institutions is an enactment of natural law? The Supreme Soviet, for instance, adopted the law of nature for use in its society? Or is there a fundamental distinction between the two, as basically everyone who ever took natural law seriously, from Aristotle on down, maintains?
He argues based on allegiance, and where does that allegiance come from? From birth, and minors still owe allegiance to the country of their birth.
“Mr. Smith being, then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with respect to the question of independence and change of Government; and if afterwards he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that Government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.
If it be said that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must, therefore, pay a proper attention to this principle. But I think it can hardly be expected by gentlemen that the principle will operate dangerously. Those who left their country to take part with Britain, were of two descriptions— minors or persons of mature age. With respect to the latter, nothing can be inferred, with respect to them, from the decision of the present case ; because they had the power of making an option between the contending parties ; whether this was a matter of right or not, is a question which need not be agitated in order to settle the case before us. Then, with respect to those natives who were minors at the revolution, and whose case is analogous to Mr. Smith’s, if we are bound by the precedent of such a decision as we are about to make, and it is declared that they owe a primary allegiance to this country, I still think we are not likely to be inundated with such characters; so far as any of them took part against us, they violated their allegiance, and opposed our laws...”
It takes a powerful leap of imagination to suggest Obama Jr owed allegiance to the UK or Kenya as a member of their society, assuming he was born in the USA with an American mother who then raised him with no help from the father.
“So far your previous postings has done NOTHING but creating YOUR controversy and questionable agendas!!!”
I’m not the one creating countless threads and filling them with hundreds of posts. I’m not the one clinging to year-old nonstories and crafting elaborate conspiracy theories around them. They started it.
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.