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.
If we give it a third go, this time with spell check, it’ll be poifect, lol.
Really? Can you tell me where that is in either the US Code or the US Constitution. I've read it a bunch, and I've got a pretty good memory. But, strangely enough, I don't remember anything about "flowing" or even trickling.
We hold election to elect electors who then in turn elect candidates. Fifty State Secretaries of State certified the election in fifty states. The electors met and elected Barack Obama as President and Joe Biden as Vice President. The Congress certified the Election held by the Electoral College. Barack Obama assumed the office on the 20th of January, 2009 and affirmed his oath of office under the officiating of Ch. Justice John Roberts.
Barack Obama is President. The only thing that will remove him is impeachment in the House and a conviction in the Senate. It's in the Constitution. You should read it some time, rather than making it up as you go along.
Really? Can you tell me where that is in either the US Code or the US Constitution. I’ve read it a bunch, and I’ve got a pretty good memory. But, strangely enough, I don’t remember anything about “flowing” or even trickling.
We hold election to elect electors who then in turn elect candidates. Fifty State Secretaries of State certified the election in fifty states. The electors met and elected Barack Obama as President and Joe Biden as Vice President. The Congress certified the Election held by the Electoral College. Barack Obama assumed the office on the 20th of January, 2009 and affirmed his oath of office under the officiating of Ch. Justice John Roberts.
Barack Obama is President. The only thing that will remove him is impeachment in the House and a conviction in the Senate. It’s in the Constitution. You should read it some time, rather than making it up as you go along.
Yes, that’s the point.
They didn’t. In 1790 after the constitution was adopted, the first congress passed a naturalization act that defined some specific cases to be treated as a “Natural Born Citizen”. However in 1795 they turned around and repealed the 1790 statue and replaced it with nearly identical language except the wording “Natural Born Citizen” was changed to simply “Citizen”.
Since it was the first congress, it’s thought that the 1790 statute might play a role in defining what the original intent of the term “Natural Born” was. But since they repealed that statute and changed the language just 5 years later, I think the repeal would also play a role. Still the most logical explanation is that the term refers to the “Natural Born” as defined in “The Law of Nations” which they would have been familiar with.
I suppose this German paper stapler on my desk, if it was voted into office as US president by popular and electoral vote, who received no Congress objections or that all objections failed, the Paper Stapler would be duly the United States President. And only Congress could remove the Paper Stapler from office through impeachment and Senate vote, even though, clearly the Paper Stapler is not constitutionally qualified to hold office.
However, even after the presidential inauguration, a constitutional remedy does exist in the 20th Amendment.
The courts could compel Congress to act by finding that the De facto Paper Stapler, acting as president, has no US Constitutional legitimacy and no authority after Congress clearly failed to follow or abide by the supreme law of the land.
At that time, president Paper Stapler would be less than a figurehead at the head of the Executive Branch.
I suppose this German paper stapler on my desk, if it was voted into office as US president by popular and electoral vote, who received no Congress objections or that all objections failed, the Paper Stapler would be duly the United States President. And only Congress could remove the Paper Stapler from office through impeachment and Senate vote, even though, clearly the Paper Stapler is not constitutionally qualified to hold office.
However, even after the presidential inauguration, a constitutional remedy does exist in the 20th Amendment.
The courts could compel Congress to act by finding that the De facto Paper Stapler, acting as president, has no US Constitutional legitimacy and no authority after Congress clearly failed to follow or abide by the supreme law of the land.
At that time, president Paper Stapler would be less than a figurehead at the head of the Executive Branch.
When Vice President Cheney certified the vote of the Electoral College and when Chief Justice Roberts issued the oath of office Barack Hussein Obama became the duly elected 44th President of the United States.
The state of Hawaii has verified that Barack Hussein Obama II is a natural born US citizen. That birth having taken place in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961 and that birth registered by the state of Hawaii on August 8, 1961.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...”
With the dismissal of the lawsuit that is the topic of this thread the score is now 51 lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility dismissed or denied and 8 lawsuits still pending or on appeal.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/docket/
The 20th amendment pertains to the death of a president and under its provisions it appears that you would want Harry Reid to decide who is president.
Section 3 of the 20th Amendment: “Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect SHALL HAVE DIED, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
As I said, the German Paper Stapler was voted into office and Congress certified the election, therefore, according to you, the German Paper Stapler is the US President and only Congress can remove it from office. It doesn't matter if he's not qualified to hold office. The Paper Stapler was voted in and no courts can remove it from office according to you. Although, I gave you a remedy that Congress would be the ones to ultimately remove him after the courts say the De facto, president Paper Stapler is an illegitimate president with no power to act.
20th Amendment: If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;
What you should have capitalized is what's in bold above. Clearly the German Paper Stapler is not qualified to hold office as president. Heck, it is of modern design over engineered and only about 7 years old - too young to qualify for office.
Unfortunately your GERMAN stapler is not a natural born US citizen and it is not 35 years old, so it is disqualified.
As I said, the German Paper Stapler was voted into office and Congress certified the election, therefore, according to you, the German Paper Stapler is the US President and only Congress can remove it from office. It doesn’t matter if he’s not qualified to hold office. The Paper Stapler was voted in and no courts can remove it from office according to you. Although, I gave you a remedy that Congress would be the ones to ultimately remove him after the courts say the De facto, president Paper Stapler is an illegitimate president with no power to act.
20th Amendment: If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;
What you should have capitalized is what’s in bold above. Clearly the German Paper Stapler is not qualified to hold office as president. Heck, it is of modern design over engineered and only about 7 years old - too young to qualify for office.
No it is not. It’s for more than a dead president-elect. And there is no time limit for the 20th Amendment to be placed in effect.
...Plaintiffs point to the risk that Mr. Kerchner may be recalled to active duty in the U.S. Naval Reserves by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in an extreme national emergency. Under these circumstances, Mr. Kerchner “would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 8.) While the Court has doubts about the particularity of this harm, the Court will not address this issue because the alleged harm is neither actual nor imminent, but rather is impermissibly conjectural. The hypothetical nature of this future injury, conditioned on the occurrence of “an extreme national emergency,” is not an “injury in fact” necessary to establish standing.
Thanks
What is amazing to me is this wasn’t required before. As i semi understand it it is up to the party to certify the candidate and the Secs of State in the states don’t do that. assuimg a party wouldn’t field an ineligible candidate.
Odumbo and his thugs knew that and were counting on it.
It is not that I think he was not born in HI, it is that there is something on his original that he did not want known.
Thank you for the clarification.
Thank you for the clarification.
The English translations of The Law of Nations available to the drafters did not include the term “natural born.” Blackstone had “natural born subject” and the law of England at the time defined “natural born subject” as born on English soil (with some exceptions for the children of diplomats of invaders) or statutorily a subject at birth (so children of the English born oversses would be “natiral born subjects”). A fair reading of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution could be analogous to “natural born subject”, with either born on U.S. soil or statutorily a citizen at birth. The 1790 statute indicated that Congress was thinking this way. 8 of the 11 of the Committee of 11 that imported “natural born citizen” into the Constitution were members of the 1790 Congress and there is no record of any of the 8 objecting to the use of “natural born” in the 1790 statute.
No it is not. It’s for more than a dead president-elect. And there is no time limit for the 20th Amendment to be placed in effect.
So would the parents of a dead soldier, or an injured soldier, have standing?
Can you reconcile the “having failed to qualify” language of the succession amendment with your “fait accompli” interpretation?
The mechanism for policing this amendment was left up to the wisdom and moral turpitude of congress, apparently. This was obviously a serious mistake, given what congress (the opposite of progress) has become.
It defined a single case, that of a child of citizens who was born overseas. Such a child would be a natural-born citizen. It did not mention the status of children born in the U.S.
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.