Posted on 10/21/2009 9:02:35 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
United States District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle has dismissed the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit challenging President Barack H. Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss."
Judge Simandle's full opinion is at the link.
The criteria is not "be an American". Arnold is an American. It's to be a Natural Born Citizen of the US. But otherwise you are right, other than the admitted fact that his father was not a US Citizen, and that he himself was a British Citizen at birth, there is no evidence (except a possible Kenyan Birth certificate, several African newspaper stories calling him "Kenyan Born", and such as that) that he is not a Natural Born Citizen.
El Gato Gordo, who is tired of this "no evidence" mantra.
The evidence that he was born in Hawaii is as thin as that indicating he wasn't.
No he only has to prove that he got less votes than he otherwise would have. Victory is not everything, especially for third party or independent candidates.
Here's the text of the resolution:
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
?Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Now, this resolution was originated by Claire McCaskill, Democrat. Claire McCaskill also sponsored a bill, just a few months before, for Constitutional Amendment, S. 2678, that was co-sponsored by Barack Obama, Democrat, Hillary Clinton, Democrat, and Tom Coburn, Republican, that completely negates those passages of the resolution bolded above. This certainly piques my interest.
So, the Senate was arguing that the 1790 Act was evidence of Framers' intent, regardless of the Constitutionality of the Act.
It can be argued that the opposite was in fact the case. And, that's what I've been attempting to construct.
The 1790 Act contained no reference to the military at all, and so slipping that one in, wrapped in the flag as it was, really strikes a foul note, as does the statement that other Presidential candidates were known to have been born outside the United States and understood to be eligible.
That's why this one needs heavy scrutiny in terms of not just John McCain. Additionally, from the standpoint of judiciability, maintaining that both major party candidates were in fact ineligible creates the possibility of surmounting the problem of this being deemed a "political question."
Does this make some degree of sense now? It's taken me quite some time to arrive here myself. I kept banging my head on the 1795 Act, too. But, it's apparently not "future history" in 1790 that seems to matter, but "past history" in 1790, as far as using statutory law in an attempt at determining original intent, in the here and now.
And, again, I'm attempting to negate the Senate stance on the matter, so the debate is not necessarily with me, but with the Senate.
Please see my reply to MHGinTN, thanks.
Enforcing the Constitution is not judicial activism. Finding things that aren't there, or changing things that are, especially governmental powers, that is judicial activism.
This clearly a case and a controversy, as those terms were understood until the early 20th century.
No. He has an Hawaiian COLB. Arnold was born in Austria to non-American parents. Arnold is easy, he ain’t a NBC.
Obama has an American mother and was born in the USA. Those are the basic facts. Someone has to tweak the law and pick and choose to find otherwise.
parsy, who repeats the mantra
In the absence of another "Black" candidate, I think he would have gotten a whole lot more than 135,000 votes.
Yup, twas.
Don’t ya just enjoy the assertions the obamanoids make so casually, while accusing vetters of being irrational? ... “No. He has an Hawaiian COLB.” Since no one in vital records or the health department in Hawaii has ever vouched for a CoLB being issued to Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Hussein Obama, one wonders what medication it takes to keep making this specious assertion while claiming to not be a kneepad sycophant for Barry?
Obama also has Kenyan birth certificate.
If Obama failed to qualify in accordance with the US Constitution it's a simple as that.
A Certification of Live Birth points to a document on file.
Can you tell me if the submission has been accepted by the State of Hawaii?
This is similar to the IRS-you can “file” your return, but you are not clear until said document is accepted?
Why does the COLB not state “Accepted”?
Does not matter if you are sworn in.
The Candidate must FIRST demonstrate eligibility before Constitutional powers flow to the Candidate
0bama has not demonstrated he is eligible. His COLD states the Registrar has filed his document-awaiting the all important “Acceptance” decision
The Constitution leaves to the “Militia’s” the responsibility to enforce the Law of the Land (ie. the Constitution).
Militia members swear and oath to uphold the Constitution.
0bama has precious little time.
Grab your pitchforks and head to D.C
Because the DHS accepted the underlying document?
parsy, who thinks that was too easy
Sure he would.
I think it matters to the court that he has been sworn in. You are arguing that his candidacy is a “nullity.” That much is not even good law to my knowledge.
parsy, who thinks birthers jump to to many conclusions
Which article is that? There's a clause saying that the legislature can call forth the militia to "Execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" but nothing about the militia acting on their own.
Back off. Parsi just disagrees with us here. You sound like a fire breathing kook. How about you “examine your conscience” to rediscover your humanity. You should appologize to Parsi.
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.