Replies

Pathetic?

The 3rd Appeals Court:

“The Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s frustration with what they perceive as Congress’s inaction in this area.

We agree.”

The court here is NOT agreeing that they agree Kerchner and Apuzzo are frustrated as that would be silly. Of course the Plaintiff and his counselor are frustrated. What the court is saying is that they are too nonplussed, frustrated, and feel that the ball has been unfairly put in in their court. It is a moment of the court being candid.

You further show your complete ignorance by stating that Congress can define or change the natural born citizenship clause. The Constitutional NBC clause cannot be changed as it still has the same meaning and intent as at the time of adoption of the US Constitution in 1787. Moreover, the 14th Amendment never changed or was it intended to change the meaning of the NBC clause. If you want the NBC clause changed to whatever...you clown Jameseee, you have to amend the US Constitution with an Amendment that would follow the 27th Amendment.

The Appeals Court was so “nonplussed” that the judges wrote that the original challenge to Obama’s eligibility (Berg v Obama) was “frivolous” and they applied the same term, “frivolous” to “Kerchner et. al v Obama et. al.”
I quote from the Precedential Ruling of the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals: “Appellants challenge the District Court’s order DISMISSING their complaint. We will AFFIRM the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to SHOW CAUSE why JUST DAMAGES and COSTS should not be IMPOSED ON HIM for having filed a FRIVOLOUS appeal.”
Does that sound “nonplussed” to anyone with a working brain? Courts don’t mandate that an attorney show cause why he shouldn’t be sanctioned and fined for bringing a frivolous appeal if you’re “nonplussed” with the issue under adjudication. The court costs that attorney Apuzzo and plaintiffs Kerchner and others will have to pay will be paid to Obama’s US Justice Department attorneys, so birthers will be paying Obama for the trouble.

A person born in Kenya IS a foreign national if they don’t become a naturalized US citizen as far as US law is concerned.

Every ratified amendment to the US Constititution thus far has been proposed by a two-thirds vote of the members of both Houses of Congress. In Article One, Section Two, the Twelfth Amendment has altered the text of the original Constitution.

The US Court of Appeals’ judges have expressed the exact same judicial point of view as US District Court Judge David O. Carter expressed in his decision in dismissing “Taitz v Obama:”
Judge Carter wrote:
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al., October 29, 2009

The “Birther” versus Obama lawsuit scorecard is now Obama 71-Birthers O.

quote from the Precedential Ruling of the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals: “Appellants challenge the District Court’s order DISMISSING their complaint. We will AFFIRM the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to SHOW CAUSE why JUST DAMAGES and COSTS should not be IMPOSED ON HIM for having filed a FRIVOLOUS appeal.”

Frivolous is convenient excuse to give. Evading Obama's lack of NBC status is the easier path for them to take. None of these federal court opinions has proclaimed Obama a natural born citizen as to the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. This one didn't either. It is just as easily for them to claim a case "frivolous" as easily to say Obama is a natural born citizen and is qualified to hold presidential office... if that was true. Gee Obot clown why is that not happened? Why has none of these federal judges claimed Obama an NBC?

However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s

Does this pResident look like he has taken his oath to the US Constitution seriously to you? Does he care about checks and balances of this government or does he hold them in contempt? Obama shows his contempt everyday and is in your face that he flaunts the laws of this country and certainly when it has to do with citizenship. As Obama has just proclaimed - "Obama: Being An American Not A Matter Of "Blood Or Birth"

One day Obot, you'll get the zot here and I'll be there to wish you bon voyage.