Appeals court: We're listening to eligibility case (re: Kerchner v. Obama)

WND ^ | February 23, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[rxsid]

"Appeals court: We're listening to eligibility case
Judges grant permission for lengthy filing in case challenging Obama

An appeals court has indicated it is listening to arguments in a case that challenges Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office with a ruling that gives special permission for an extra-long document to be filed in the case.

WND has reported on the case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo in January 2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.

Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens."

More here:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125985

 

Attorney Apuzzo also has info on this, on his site:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/02/court-grants-motion-for-leave-to-file.html

[mojitojoe]

I figured you would be a tree hugger.

[patlin]

Have you seen this treatise? I am blown away by what I am reading.

Houston, we have another winner!

A Treatise on citizenship, by birth and by naturalization, with reference to the law of nations, Roman civil law, law of the United States of America, and the law of France; including provisions in the federal Constitution, and in the several state constitutions, in respect of citizenship; together with decisions thereon of the federal and state courts (1881)

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924020027870

[patlin]

Yinger’s work only educates one by how much time one spends studying his sources.

You obviously don't care to take the time to assert any individual freedom or free thinking by doing so.

Nope, you are nothing more than a drone who regurgitates lies spread by your commander, the washed up traffic law clerk.

[patlin]

parsy, who suggests the Birthers might want to turn off the lights, the party’s over

No, it's parsy who copies and pastes from sites set up for drones like parsy who edit & tweak Kent's commentaries and put sections on natural law with sections on immigration in order to make their case seem plausible.

Now, I dare you to go back and fill in all those ...’s. What is missing that you don't want readers to see? I know, because I have them posted at my site which you laughed at, saying I put too much effort in and should find something else to do.

Bwaaahahaha, thanks for the gut busting laughter DRONE! Your efforts are most comical!

[parsifal]

Dude,, if you think the “washed up traffic clerk” has done a bad thing, then by all means PUT UP OR SHUT UP ABOUT IT.

I have given you the link to the actual case. I doubt Cornell University is on the conspiracy. First, go to the traffic clerk’s link and copy the material you think is suspect. Then go to the case and copy the correct material.

Then reply to me, or make a separate post on it. As for me, I have not found any inconsistencies, but if I am wrong, I really, truly want to know. I try to be accurate.

So, you made the statement that his stuff can’t be trusted. SOOOOO, BACK IT UP OR QUIT SAYING IT! Do you find that an unreasonable request?

parsy, who wants to know when he is wrong

[patlin]

Dude,, if you think the “washed up traffic clerk” has done a bad thing, then by all means PUT UP OR SHUT UP ABOUT IT.

Drone, I already have. What you need to do is actually read & study what I have already posted at my site as well as all the links provided and the references therein that shows your washed up traffic law clerk to be a fraud & a liar.

Regards, The “Dudette”

[parsifal]

Dudette,

Please ma’am, did he mis-post any language from the decision? I don’t care about his interpretations. I can read the case for myself. Did he mis-quote the language of the case? And if so, where.

parsy, who says, Queen Bee, please answer a lowly drone’s simple question

[MilspecRob]

I figured you would be a tree hugger.

Perhaps, but I'm all for genetically modified fast growth tree farming as a sustainable source of wood product. Not sure that would make many friends with the tree huggers.

[patlin]

please answer a lowly drone’s simple question

The entire WKA decision is based on parsed & edited quotes from Kent's work, not to mention that Grey in writing the opinion, completely disregarded his deciding opinion in Elk wherein he cited the law of nature as well as Vattel in determining the meaning of ‘subject tot he jurisdiction’.

You can not see the error without studying both cases in which Grey wrote both opinions.

So, the question that begs an answer is, why did Grey overturn his own ruling based Constitutional American law per SCOTUS rulings and go on to rule that an English feudal definition of ‘subject’ was used to define US citizen thereby going on to grant citizenship to a Chinese alien, who by law, would never have never even been granted the right to naturalize? What happened in US history between 1884(Elk) & 1898(WKA) to change citizenship laws? NOTHING!

http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm

All we have to do is look to who nominated him to the high court and we have our answer. The only other British subject at birth, long after the grandfather clause was ‘wholly extinct’ who attained to the office of the executive. It was a huge controversy then, but drones like to cast that little known fact aside. Grey was 11yrs old when his father formally naturalized & became a US citizen, therefore, Grey was Solly a British subject at birth.

But let's not stop there with Grey. He went on to rule in another case a few years later in which he held a personal & financial stake in. A ruling that granted him much wealth and a ruling that was in total contradiction to the constitution also.

parsy, you seem like an intelligent person. It's sad that you don't use it independently but instead take at face value everything put out by the statist drones of marxist professors as if it was gospel.

Preface: National character as incident to birth in a particular locality was the creature of feudal times and of military vassalage, and was described as the jus soli ; national character as the result of parentage was the rule adopted by freer peoples and more enlightened communities, and was designated jus sanguinis?

§ 10. The language of Vattel ^ is : “ By the law of nature
alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and
enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no
change in this particular ; for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction. Children born at sea, out of the country, in the armies of the state, in the house of its ministers at a foreign court, are reputed native citizens. Every man, born free, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he finds that it will be of no advantage to him to remain in it, he is at liberty to leave it.”
These and similar expositions of public or international
law, by civilians and publicists generally, are only confirmatory, and constitute developments of the doctrine Jus sanguinis, which prevailed among the ancient free republics, preceding the feudal doctrine jus soli, which had its existence and recognition in a governmental system based upon feudal tenures and military vassalage. The influence of the wiser principles and more liberal ideas of the early republics is felt, and is apparent to-day in the legislation and practices of modern European states and of America.
‘ § 11. The father or mother, who transmits his or her status to the child, may change his or her condition in the interval between the conception and the birth of the child. When it is the father who transmits nationality to the child, the status of the father at the time of conception is considered. If, on the contrary, it is the mother who transmits nationality to the child, —which would be the case when there was no marriage between herself and the father of the child, — attention is paid to the moment of delivery.^

Citizen and person are synonymous terms.* Citizen is analagous to subject at common law.^-Morse (1881)

analagous: Similar in function but not in structure and evolutionary origin

synonymous: Having the same or a similar meaning; Equivalent in connotation

[rxsid]

It's interesting the influence "natural law" has had, not only on U.S. law, but British and Roman law as well. Of course, Vattel's "Law of Nations" was built around natural law. Our Deceleration of Independence was heavily influenced by natural law, as was, (naturally) Thomas Jefferson [1], [2], [3], [4] (for a few examples).

"Greek philosophy emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, φúσις) on the one hand and "law", "custom", or "convention" (nomos, νóμος) on the other. What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere."

Heck, even Turbin Durbin recognizes (in 2008) that natural law was an important factor in our founding.

Since it's probably next to impossible, that the framers made up the term "Natural Born Citizen" on the spot and entered it into the Constitution as a requirement for POTUS without debate, we must determine from where they got their definition. That is, what/who were they familiar with at the time. What ideas where influencing them at that time, with all that was going on then. In my opinion, it's 100% clear they got their definition for NBC from Vattel. Someone they were very familiar with, and referenced often...during the task of raising a state and during the writing of and debating of the Constitution [1], [2] (for a few examples).

As we know, nobody is trying to make the argument that Vattel (or natural law) was it, period. That it was 100% the single only source they used to found the country and frame the Constitution. They used multiple sources, of course, to create their own unique system.

So far as I can tell, Vattel is the only source they would have been familiar with, that defined a "natural" born citizen.

[parsifal]

Here the problem:

“The entire WKA decision is based on parsed & edited quotes from Kent’s work, not to mention that Grey in writing the opinion, completely disregarded his deciding opinion in Elk wherein he cited the law of nature as well as Vattel in determining the meaning of ‘subject tot he jurisdiction’.”

A majority of the none justices agreed or this would not be law. You can’t go back behind the decision and try to argue about Grey. That has absolutely NO LEGAL EFFECT OR FORCE.

If someone were to argue the case today, they would have to deal with the case, the ideas and reasoning in the case, and the application of law to the facts in the case.

IMHO, todays court would rubber stamp a lot of this stuff. That is my LEGAL OPINION OR THEORY. But until it is argued, and overturned, then Obama is NOT A USURPER. The case law clearly supports him.

This is where Orly Taitz went really really weird. When she lost in Georgia, rather than deal with the decision the judge handed down, on the legal merits, she turned and started calling the judge names and accusing him of things.

Hey, if you have a good case, you don’t need to do stuff like that. Lawyers win bad cases and lose good ones all the time. Either way, you respect the law.

parsy, who apologizes for the delay. I was in a birther food fight on another thread

[patlin]

OK, so the majority in that particular court ruled, did it change anything regarding US law & International law? No, as I have shown in the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act.

Here's another good one to ponder from the 1903 Cyclopedia of Law & Procedure. It regards passports issued by the US State Dept and is under the section on ‘Evidence of Citizenship’:

2. Passports. A passport granted by the secretary of state of the United States, reciting that a certain individual is a citizen, is not admissible to prove such citizenship.

So much for that argument that a US passport automatically concludes one to be a US citizen.

[parsifal]

But the problem is that you are pulling tidbits from all over and trying to match it all up. Thats not how things work. You have to kinda know what you are looking for or you will just end up running around in circles.

Here’s a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America

parsy

[patlin]

But the problem is that you are pulling tidbits from all over
_________________________________________________

I am doing no such thing. I cite a pertinent portion then link to the entire piece. I cite several sources as that is what a thorough researcher does.

And again, wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. It is a private site run by a DRONE and probably out of his mothers basement. Anyone can post and change things there and as we know per BHO’s bio, the page changes frequently as new information is discovered.

BTW, here is the link to my last post. I had an OOPS moment.

http://books.google.com/books?id=rHs8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[parsifal]

But you are using a 1903 book. Both law and procedure have changed a whole bunch since then. Do you have access to an online law library? Or an actual legal library?

If so, type Wong Kim Ark, and it will bring up every case that has cited it. Then you can see what the current state of the law is.

parsy

[patlin]

Great links!

Right now my head is swimming trying to absorb Morse’s works. There is much more to research regarding his conlusion that Grey in WKA had really decided that the 14th was about a silent naturalization of those born to aliens on US soil.

Very interesting concept indeed.

[patlin]

But you are using a 1903 book

ROFL, and the constitution was not drafted in 1898 either. The term ‘natural born’ needs to be defined in the terms that the framers intended, not some corrupt judge who overturned his own ruling in the matter of a few years when nothing had changed int he laws and no amendments had been made to the constitution. The book I quote from cites laws from the period of the founding as well as laws from 1790 up to the point of its publishing.

[parsifal]

All of which is subsumed in the decision.

parsy

[Canadian Outrage]

He’s a pathological liar Kenny Bunk. He’s lies about everything and anything with the greatest of ease. The man is morally bankrupt and he should NEVER have been allowed to hold this office. What a complete sham. IF the American court system doesn’t soon step up to the plate and take this CONSTIUTIONAL matter seriously, then America is in HUGE trouble. In one single year this wicked cave crawler has wreaked much destruction. CO

[AmericanVictory]

Where in Wong Kim Ark is there any discussion of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5? The principal authors of the 14th Amendment as a matter of record did not believe that they were changint Ar5icle II, Section 1, Clause 5, which, at that point, had been in existence for over 80 yearz.