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.
Nope.
Electoral cannot consider someone who is not eligible for office, aka a person who does not qualify.
The DNC and RNC are supposed to attest to fact their Candidates are eligible for office. That assurance is sent to each State.
The Dems did not attest to the fact their Candidate is eligible per the Constitution. Go look up the nomination papers!!!
The Dems, by oath, shall uphold the Constitution.
The Dems lied, again!
As I said before, winning isn't generally in the cards for a third party or independent candidate. They have other interests in running. Actually according This article He was only on the bollot in 3 states, but was a write in candidate in 5 others.
The oath of office is not issued, like a King's scepter or crown, it's taken by the President-Elect. Taking it is required before exercising the powers of the office, but taking it does not a President make. Getting a Majority of the electoral votes, being eligible, taking the oath and then the clock and calender, a President make. Except in the case of death, disability or removal of a President, in which case it's that event, plus being eligible plus taking the oath. Generally taking the oath is the last "wicket" in both instances, but all the wickets must be passed before one is President. If you don't meet *all* the wickets, you aren't President, and have no power to act as such.
Also, the oath need not be administered by the Chief Justice, and many times has not been. Most of those were early on, or were the cases of Vice Presidential succession due to death of the President. The big ceremony with the Chief Justice is *tradition* and *cusyom* not law. It's certainly not a Constitutonal Requirement.
Being over 35, 14 years a resident, and a Natural Born Citizen is though.
Yes, you have stated the process correctly as it is delineated in Article II of the Constitution.
Article II Section I Clause VIII: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—’’I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’’
Oopps, I see you are reading into statements what you wish to believe.
1) The 0bama COLB points to a document “on File” at the State of Hawaii. If the document was accepted or registered, I would expected said COLB to disclose that fact. I guess the State of Hawaii cannot attest to 0bama document as “registered”. This is the same as the IRS, you can “file” your tax return, but the critical step is review and acceptance by the IRS.
2)..have seen the Vital records (plural). How many Birth Certificates does 0bama need to prove Citizenship??? I only need one BC.
3)These vital records are on file, not registered or accepted
4)What is a natural born American Citizen. Why not state 0bama is a natural born Hawaiian citizen?? Canada is part of America, Brazil is part of America, the United States are part of America. “America”, both north, south and central, are comprised of at least three distinct Countries! You need to be a citizen of a State to to be a citizen of the United State. The phrase “natural born American Citizen” is a meaningless statement.
5) Lot’s of anchor babies are born in the United States, the might become citizens, but certainly are not Citizens (capital C for specific reason)
0bama needs to release his long form Birth Certificate, and all of those other vital records
Obama is under no obligation to release anything to anybody. If you don’t like his lack of transparency, vote for another candidate in 2012.
There is no way she can make that statement based strictly on a long form birth certificate. A birth certificate does not indicate the parents citizenship, nor if they are the representative of a foreign government. While the "foreign citizen" criteria might be in dispute, the "representative of a foreign government most certainly is not".
Thus she exceeded her authority, and likely even her understanding, in saying BHO Jr is a natural born citizen.
Then too, there is the possibily that the "original vital records" were fraudulently obtained. It was very easy in that time to apply for a "home birth" or "delayed" certificate. (same certificate, just with different information in a few fields). (Notice she did not say *when* he is listed as having been born", nor did she confirm that the state ever issued that June 2007, COLB. While the birthdate, just like the birthplace, might be considered "protected", the fact of issuance of COLB very likely is not.
VERIFYING Barack Hussein Obama was BORN IN HAWAII AND IS A NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN.”
There is no way she can make that statement based strictly on a long form birth certificate. A birth certificate does not indicate the parents citizenship, nor if they are the representative of a foreign government. While the “foreign citizen” criteria might be in dispute, the “representative of a foreign government most certainly is not”.
Thus she exceeded her authority, and likely even her understanding, in saying BHO Jr is a natural born citizen.
Then too, there is the possibily that the “original vital records” were fraudulently obtained. It was very easy in that time to apply for a “home birth” or “delayed” certificate. (same certificate, just with different information in a few fields). (Notice she did not say *when* he is listed as having been born”, nor did she confirm that the state ever issued that June 2007, COLB. While the birthdate, just like the birthplace, might be considered “protected”, the fact of issuance of COLB very likely is not.
But make the statement she did, and thus far 51 state and federal courts plus the US Supreme Court have chosen not to force release of any additional information or documents.
Regardless of Barack Hussein Obama, no court in the nation’s history has ever adjudicated the precise legal definition of the term “natural born citizen” and it is unlikely to happen with Barack Obama, ex-post facto.
Incomplete thought. Sorry. In my view, it is incorrect to find these plaintiffs don’t have standing to bring the action. That is what I find morally abhorent. It seems to me that ANY US Citizen of voting age should have standing to challenge the eligibility of ANY elected official representing him or her. That would include, at the Federal level, any elected official in the Executive branch, either of the Senators representing the voter’s state of residence, and the Representative elected in his/her district of residence.
In addition, specific to the office of President, that standing should extend to any member of the US military, active or reserve, current or retired (subject to recall).
I know that there are specific plaintiff characteristics that substantiate standing as established by precedent. It seems to me, though, that precedent is wrong in this area.
The most frustrating thing is that this particular question lingers, festers, unanswered, without ever being fully examined for its facts, for the truth.
This question deserves a full and complete hearing and resolution within the scope of the US Constitution as written. To this point, we have not gotten that...
Slick, but tedious. The U.S. Code is administrative law, not common law. And as I pointed out, a Writ of Mandamus is a common law writ. So why do you expect to find it in the USC?
However, as I also pointed out, it's a mandamus legal issue - i.e. the issue of how to force the government to do what it is specified to do by law. So, since you keep bringing up the USC, I'd ask in reply, why do mandamus issues have to be addressed there, instead of the Constitution itself? And also, if the Constitution does not use the word "mandamus," are you actually arguing that there are no - at the very least implicit - Constitutional remedies to the refusal of Congress to obey it?
As for the actual requirement, perhaps you missed the part of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment that states "...if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified...". There is no declaration of a time limit, and fraud vitiates all legitimate legal process. Therefore if Obama defrauded Congress with false information there was no true qualification, and if Congress did not correctly qualify him, it did not meet its Constitutional mandate to do so.
The standards are absolute - and so is the Congressional requirement to meet them. If there is evidence that such standards have not been met (and Obama's acknowledged foreign father is enough to do that), then to argue that there is no Constitutional remedy is to argue that the Constitution literally enables itself not be followed by the Congress it creates - an argument which must be rejected as an oxymoron if the Constitution is to remain viable.
There's a four paragraph bender for ya. Have a drink and think about it.
That's too much of a contraction - rather I should have said that the U.S. Code is statutory law connected to administrative law through the Code of Federal Regulations for practical application. But my point is the same - neither of these types of interconnected and interdependent legal jurisdictions are common law, and a Writ of Mandamus is a common law writ, outside of them. Nevertheless, mandamus is the appropriate legal subject matter for forcing the government to comply with the law, under any jurisdiction.
I don't. But, I do expect you to point to either the administrative function that you claim - by asking for Mandamus - hasn't been executed by the Legislative Branch? What is it?
"So, since you keep bringing up the USC, I'd ask in reply, why do mandamus issues have to be addressed there, instead of the Constitution itself?"
They don't. If, for example, the Electoral College refused to meet or refused to vote, I imagine a person with standing could sue, citing Mandamus, to have the judiciary compel them to meet or to vote - unusual, but I suppose it's theoretically possible. But again, what Constitutional task hasn't been executed that you would request Mandamus compel be executed?
"As for the actual requirement, perhaps you missed the part of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment that states ""
Wow. That's an increasingly popular one. Someone beat you to it, just a few posts up. Once again, you understand that 20 sec 3 deals with contested elections, dead Prez or VP Prez, or both or some other Electoral College crisis, right? Qualify, in the context of the Amendment, is referring to someone actually not qualifying. But, Obama & Biden were qualified. How do I know that? Because both were certified, multiple times in complete accordance with Constitutional and Statutory law.
"then to argue that there is no Constitutional remedy"
Who's arguing there's "no Constitutional remedy"? If Obama perjured himself when signing 50 certificates of eligibility (which is what my state of OH calls it, another state may call it something slightly different) that he submitted to each state, under penalty of perjury, that he's indeed a Natural-Born citizen, then that's a matter for the Legislature. I went to law school quite a while ago, but I'm fairly confident perjury is still a "high crime & misdemeanor", right? Looks like it's a clear case for Impeachment, and thankfully Impeachment just happens to be the prescribed Constitutionally remedy.
Every element of the election of Barack Obama that was subject to judicial review - to include all the prerogative writs - was either met or successfully and fully executed. And, equally importantly, all the people that are legally tasked/empowered to challenge these qualification or standards or administrative tasks, didn't. Not one Secretary of State, not one Elector, not one legitimate candidate and none of the Constitutional officers of Congress objected when it was their opportunity to object.
There was a judicial remedy to this problem - to the extent that there is a problem - before Obama was inaugurated. There remains a remedy for this problem today, but it's only a remedy available to the Legislative Branch - exactly as the Constitution demands.
Do you think Oboemata realized that once elected there is nothing in the Constitution where he could be easily removed...Seems the only way is impeachment by Congress for a very serious offense...Guess not revealing your true country of birth is not an impeachable offense...He knows this and so do most of the JD’s he has surrounded himself with as advisors and cabinet members...
On the other hand there certainly has been an abuse of power by virtue of ignoring the ‘Separation of Powers’ between the Executive and Legislative branches, where the WH has gone far beyond the boundaries and has virtually dictated a reorganization of this country by proclimations and edicts by the POTUS, his Cabinet, his unnacountable ‘czars’, and his spineless cronies in the Legislative Branch..A fawning mass media is not part of this process but it certainly does not help the situation..
As Reilly used to say ‘ What a revoltin’ development’....
John McCain, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, and Cynthia McKinney all have better claims as well as the possibility of having standing.
But all of them are too level-headed to buy into Birtherism. And I never, ever thought that I'd have to apply the label "too level-headed" to Cynthia "the government planned 9/11 and assassinated Bob Marley and Jimi Hendrix" McKinney.
Actually, given her enormous predilection for conspiracy theories, for all I know she might be open to another one.
McCain? Yes, since he was the only one with any chance of winning regardless of Obama's eligibility. In fact, the judge noted as much when he dismissed the Hollander v McCain case.
Actually, given her enormous predilection for conspiracy theories, for all I know she might be open to another one.
Had McCain won and had there been a similar Birther movement on his eligibility then I could see McKinney leading the pack.
I guess you cannot/will not comprehend the meaning of Dr. Fukino’s meaningless statement.
Just what is a natural born American citizen? POTUS must be a citizen of a State within the union of United States, a Country, not a Continent!
Oh, and yes 0bama must disclose his Vital records. The DNC and Lawyers, who draft a letter, delivered to the States, must attest to the fact that candidates are eligible for office.
No Lawyer would want to be exposed to a fraud, and thus would demand solid legal evidence.
Oops, the Dem’s DID NOT attest to 0bama eligibility for office, per the Constitution.
Perhaps you could share your proof 0bama is a natural born Hawaiian Citizen, whose records are not only on file in Hawaii but also accepted and registered by the State of Hawaii.
Words have meaning
guess you cannot/will not comprehend the meaning of Dr. Fukino’s meaningless statement.
Just what is a natural born American citizen? POTUS must be a citizen of a State within the union of United States, a Country, not a Continent!
Oh, and yes 0bama must disclose his Vital records. The DNC and Lawyers, who draft a letter, delivered to the States, must attest to the fact that candidates are eligible for office.
No Lawyer would want to be exposed to a fraud, and thus would demand solid legal evidence.
Oops, the Dem’s DID NOT attest to 0bama eligibility for office, per the Constitution.
In the meantime, Barack Hussein Obama II is the duly elected and sworn in 44th President of the United States. At a joint session of Congress Vice President Cheney officially certified Obama’s 365 Electoral College votes with no objections from the 535 members of Congress and Chief Justice John Roberts swore him in.
Yup, but not dismissed based on the merits of the case.
I believe you do not understand the foundation of my position. Elected, sworn in, certified - does not matter a wit if a candidate is not eligible!
Suppose, an individual ran for a position on a Condo board and won the most votes. Also, that individual did not live in the condo. If the Condo “constitution” required board members to live in said condo, I am afraid the election “winner” does not sit on the Condo board until he buys a condo unit.
Finally, yes 0bama bungled the oath of office at the public inauguration. The oath needs to be stated complete and correct. A redo was held a few days later, no witness, no media, behind closed doors.
Please share with me your evidence 0bama was properly sworn in.
It was the very next day. And if there were "no witnesses," who do you think took the picture of Roberts administering the oath to Obama?
Heck, you can even listen to the audio of the oath for yourself.
Yup, but not dismissed based on the merits of the case.
I believe you do not understand the foundation of my position. Elected, sworn in, certified - does not matter a wit if a candidate is not eligible!
Suppose, an individual ran for a position on a Condo board and won the most votes. Also, that individual did not live in the condo. If the Condo “constitution” required board members to live in said condo, I am afraid the election “winner” does not sit on the Condo board until he buys a condo unit.
Finally, yes 0bama bungled the oath of office at the public inauguration. The oath needs to be stated complete and correct. A redo was held a few days later, no witness, no media, behind closed doors.
Please share with me your evidence 0bama was properly
My further evidence is that Barack Hussein Obama II has signed scores of laws into effect, sent thousands of American troops into harm’s way as Commander-in-Chief, signed many executive orders, and appointed hundreds high governmental officials and federal judges. Not one of those actions of a president has been successfully challenged in any court.
Video?
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.