The Constitution says one must be a "natural born citizen" to be eligible for that office.
What do you think the Framers intended by using the phrase "natural born citizen?"
Do you have proper Tea Party attire?:
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
Excellent news! Great first post too by the way!
The faster this moves through the lower courts the better.
This is good. At this point it is better if our side loses every battle. If the other side loses they control the timetable better on Appeal. This way Apuzzo controls it. It has to make its way through this process. Its almost better to lose each round. It has nothing to do with setting precedent, its about getting it to SCOTUS which is the only place it can be decided.
SCOTUS will I Pray make the correct decision and throw that F’ing usurper out on his ASS forthwith.
Every court is going to punt on this automatically. It’s all about getting it to the court that can decide it. No lower court is going to affirm that Barry is an usurper. No one wants that. It has to get to SCOTUS for the truth to be decided.
“What had the Chief Justice of the United States so shook up that he couldn’t remember the oath that any schoolboy could say by heart?? Could it be . . .”
...absolutely meaningless? Yes.
“After that the very intelligent and astute Chief Justice could NOT even perform a correct swearing in Oath, but was stammering through it looking in the Devils’ evil eyes???”
He gave the correct oath to him later. Get over it.
“The point is that the federal judiciary is very afraid.”
Not that I can discern.
“Of what?”
Nothing.
SCOTUS will deny cert. without dissent the same way they did in the first seven Obama eligibility cases to reach them.
“Remember how Judge Carter suddenly lost his nerve?”
No. Did the MIB visit him?
Fireworks before the fourth of July!?!
The Constitution says one must be a "natural born citizen" to be eligible for that office.
What do you think the Framers intended by using the phrase "natural born citizen?"
Do you have proper Tea Party attire?:
Nope, it isn’t. Our government doesn’t even recognize dual citizenship. They could care less.
--------------------------------------------
Absolute nonsense.
from the link in post #1: Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!
"US State Department Services Dual Nationality
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
...
The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. "
So you see there, the U.S. DOES recognize dual nationality...however, it is discouraged for the variety of reasons cited.
And to believe that the framers intended for the Commander in Chief to be allowed to be born with allegiance owed to a foreign country is beyond absurd.
That event always unnerves me.
“What do you think the Framers intended by using the phrase ‘natural born citizen?’”
The one and only definition there’s ever been: people born citizens.
Amazing, isn’t it?
That some blockheaded dreamers actually believe
that our brave Founders, after having suffered,
bled, pledged, and in many cases, did lose lives,
families and fortunes .. and in some cases .. lost
ALL .. in fighting the greedy foreigners from Great
Britain for so many years .. would’ve so nonchalantly
excluded such a vital issue as allegiance to country
and national loyalty when considering the qualifications
for the office of chief executive of the country ?
Some people .....
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.
