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 stated that birth on soil automatically grants citizenship, it does NOT. That is why it is addressed to you.”
It does, per the 14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
“Any court worth its weight would be bound by Minor’s interpretation of natural-born citizen, the same as was the case in Wong Kim Ark.”
There is no real NBC interpretation in either case. They spoke around the issue, not deciding either way as it was immaterial.
“No kidding. Pardon me for assuming you read my earlier posts which specifically referenced the 14th amendment. Sorry to have overvalued your comprehension skills.”
I wonder if you’re familiar with the rhetoric of debate. I could care less if you’ve previously demonstrated that you are aware of the 14th amendment’s existence. I was making the argument that it fulfills your requirement for a clarifying amendment. You can agree or disagree, but obviously questioning my comprehension is off the mark. Be more comfortable with the fact that people don’t always respond as you’d expect, since they don’t always buy into the assumptions you do.
“They didn’t have to make a ruling. They provided a definition for which there is no doubt.”
Talking in circles around a possible definition is a long, long, long, long way from ruling based on a definition. People should really stop pretending these were NBC cases.
“The one and only definition there’s ever been: people born citizens.”
Nope. Try again. Many people are born citizens and are not Natural Born Citizens. Deal with it.
“Any court worth its weight would be bound by Minor’s interpretation of natural-born citizen, the same as was the case in Wong Kim Ark.”
Oh, you mean the “interpretations” that don’t say what you think they did, and which weren’t part of the decisions anyway?
“Many people are born citizens and are not Natural Born Citizens. Deal with it.”
All persons born citizens are natural born citizens. Deal with it.
“Persons born with allegiance to another country is every bit a citizen as everyone else “
True. But, not a Natural Born Citizen. You know that. I’m sure you aren’t that stupid. Are you?
Nonsense. It's very straightforward, "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." Notice that in order to be a native, you must be born in a country of parents who are citizens.
I wonder if you’re familiar with the rhetoric of debate.
Very much so. For yourself, it appears not so much.
I could care less if you’ve previously demonstrated that you are aware of the 14th amendment’s existence.
Your feelings are irrelevant (a tip for anyone learning the rhetoric of debate). I wasn't demonstrating awareness of the 14th amendment. I was making a second refernce that you should have caught in context of reading this thread.
“the founding fathers, framers of the Constitution, the framers of the 14th, as well as the Supreme Court which held the 14th to be constitutional, ALL put emphasis on ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ and that it meant NOT owing allegiance to any foreign nation or sovereign”
That’s not what it meant. It meant people like diplomats, members of invading armies, and indians.
Also, the founding fathers and original framers never saw the phrase, so they couldn’t possibly have put emphasis on it.
The decisions they made were consistent with the definition as I stated. In WKA, for example, the plaintiff is found to be a Citizen of the United States, not a natural born citizen, the former which only qualifies one to run for Congress, not the presidency.
please translate subjects naturel.
They don’t have to be NBC cases. They still provide a clear legal definition as a guide, which was the case when WKA cited Minor’s definition of NBC.
DEAL WITH IT!
“dual citizens are not legally different from other citizens”
You have a problem understanding the difference between citizens and Natural Born Citizens. They are NOT the same.
Geez this is tiring.
Why?
“Notice that in order to be a native, you must be born in a country of parents who are citizens.”
Well, why the heck was Wong Kim Ark a U.S. citizen, then?
“I wasn’t demonstrating awareness of the 14th amendment.”
You were in whatever “earlier posts” in which you “specifically referenced the 14th amendment.” When you reference the 14th amendment’s existence, you demonstrate awareness of it, whether that’s all you’re intending to do or not. It can easily happen without you even noticing it, as when you are busy making other arguments.
“I was making a second refernce that you should have caught in context of reading this thread.”
The second reference you’re talking about is irrelevant, as I was referring to whatever original demonstration you made, which occasioned your snark about my ignorance of it, which was itself irrelevant, as you having previously demonstrated familiarity with the 14th amendment had no bearing on my argument.
“Your feelings are irrelevant”
Be that as it may, my feelings were based on the content of the argument, which is eminently relevant.
“To make it a fact of LAW and to formally announce tot he country & the world that the US does NOT recognize dual citizenship.”
I’m the one who’s been saying all along the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship. Look it up.
you say that but then you say that any person born without regard to the parents nationality is a citizen, when in fact they are not.
“You have a problem understanding the difference between citizens and Natural Born Citizens. They are NOT the same.”
Duh, but who’s arguing they are? Not me.
“Geez this is tiring.”
It is tiring to repeat oneself, mainly because people aren’t often convinced bald proclaimations.
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.