Posted on 11/23/2010 9:43:51 PM PST by Errant
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
To remove a president, yet. But the Constitution stipulated that if the PResident elect fails to qualify by Jan 20th the VP elect is to “act as President”.
That means that if Obama did not qualify by Jan 20th (which we know to be the case) only Joe Biden could veto bills, act as Commander in Chief, appoint Cabinet positions (such as Sec Def), etc.
Getting rid of Obama as POTUS would be a technicality because he would already have any presidential powers he’s pretended to have turned over to Joe Biden as required by the 20th Amendment. But Biden would only “act as President until a president shall have qualified”. So then we’d have a HUGE Constitutional crisis to figure out how we’re supposed to get a president who qualifies.
But if I understand correctly, the Kerchner case also brings up the issue of Congress never having lawfully certified Obama as the winner of the electoral vote. If Obama was never lawfully declared to be the electoral winner then he cannot be POTUS because he was never even the President elect.
Very interesting. What is that from?
Should have been “To remove a president, yes.”
Well first of all the House can hold hearings and subpoena documents without the consent of the Senate.
Convening a Grand Jury is an interesting thought but who will do it? And why hasn’t it been done before? A grand jury must be initiated by a prosecutor who in this case would be a US Attorney? This would be Obama’s realm and I don’t think it possible UNLESS the House appointed a special prosecutor. But first things first.
In both venues of a House Hearing and a Grand Jury, there has to be probable cause for convening and proceeding.
What we have for probable cause is that Obama was born to a Kenyan who was a British subject.
What we base ineligibility on is a muddled notion of what constitutes an NBC. I personally think it is clear that it means a person born of parents both of whom were American citizens at the time of the NBC’s birth, ostensibly for the purpose of nurturing allegiance to the United States.
We would need the SCOTUS to rule on what constitutes an NBC.
And therein lies the dilemma. Who moves first?
If we can get the House to pass a resolution that an NBC is defined as I have outlined above, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE WAY FORWARD TOWARDS SCOTUS RULING ON THE MATTER OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN NBC.
The House could then hold hearings on Obama’s eligibility and conduct an investigation into how the DNC and Pelosi certified his eligibility.
But there have to be Republicans with a spine and that is not a certainty even though there were so many new TP backed members elected. They have to get committee powers and be able to convene a hearing, set the agenda etc.
So it will fall to the House leadership to prioritize and my bet is they will not want to dabble in ‘birther’ matters because they will cry that other things take priority. UNLESS the TP pressures them on this.
And I will say again my response to the new incoming House leadership is you certainly can cut the deficit, pass House legislation to repeal Obamacare, repeal the recent financial overhaul legislation, conduct investigations into the causes of the economic collapse AND INVESTIGATE THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. In collequial terms I would tell them if I can chew gum and walk at the sametime, then why can’t they?
Denied without comment. (LOL)
Now that would be funny, wouldn’t it?
Yes, that's very true for the grand jury, probable cause must be met, or the subpoena may be quashed. However, the Court has given wide, virtually unlimited latitude, to the Congress when issuing subpoenas, due primarily to the wide reading it has given the speech and debate clause. As a result, the two hardest things to get rid of in DC - one is Ted Kennedy's bar tab, and the other is a Congressional subpoena.
The Court for all practical purposes never quashes a Congressional subpoena - just ask Dick Nixon.
Denied without comment. (LOL)
Now that would be funny, wouldn’t it?
Well first of all the House can hold hearings and subpoena documents without the consent of the Senate.
Convening a Grand Jury is an interesting thought but who will do it? And why hasn’t it been done before? A grand jury must be initiated by a prosecutor who in this case would be a US Attorney? This would be Obama’s realm and I don’t think it possible UNLESS the House appointed a special prosecutor. But first things first.
In both venues of a House Hearing and a Grand Jury, there has to be probable cause for convening and proceeding.
What we have for probable cause is that Obama was born to a Kenyan who was a British subject.
What we base ineligibility on is a muddled notion of what constitutes an NBC. I personally think it is clear that it means a person born of parents both of whom were American citizens at the time of the NBC’s birth, ostensibly for the purpose of nurturing allegiance to the United States.
We would need the SCOTUS to rule on what constitutes an NBC.
And therein lies the dilemma. Who moves first?
If we can get the House to pass a resolution that an NBC is defined as I have outlined above, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE WAY FORWARD TOWARDS SCOTUS RULING ON THE MATTER OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN NBC.
The House could then hold hearings on Obama’s eligibility and conduct an investigation into how the DNC and Pelosi certified his eligibility.
But there have to be Republicans with a spine and that is not a certainty even though there were so many new TP backed members elected. They have to get committee powers and be able to convene a hearing, set the agenda etc.
So it will fall to the House leadership to prioritize and my bet is they will not want to dabble in ‘birther’ matters because they will cry that other things take priority. UNLESS the TP pressures them on this.
And I will say again my response to the new incoming House leadership is you certainly can cut the deficit, pass House legislation to repeal Obamacare, repeal the recent financial overhaul legislation, conduct investigations into the causes of the economic collapse AND INVESTIGATE THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. In collequial terms I would tell them if I can chew gum and walk at the sametime, then why can’t they?
Any prosecuting attorney can initiate a grand jury investigation. You might recall that a local district attorney in New Orleans initiated a grand jury investigation into the Kennedy assassination. Whitewater began with a state level grand jury investigation in Arkansas.
Special Counsels get appointed to investigate heavily partisan issues. Do you think that a left winger like Janet Reno really wanted to appoint a conservative like Ken Starr to investigate Clinton? She had no choice.
Patrick Fitzgerald is still the US Attorney for Northern Illinois. He has shown non-partisanship by prosecuting and convicting Republican Scooter Libby AND Obama’s buddy Rod Blagojevich in Illinois.
I also suggest that any state with a Republican Attorney General could initiate a grand jury investigation. Probable cause already exists, Barack Hussein Obama himself signed documents to get on the ballot in several states in which he asserted that he is a “natural born citizen of the United States.”
Here’s a link to the statement that he signed in Arizona, for one example:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf
I think the House can ask SCOTUS to clarify by opinion a longstanding Constitutional phase such as NBC. This would not be new law or an alteration of an existing law which indeed would take both houses and a President’s signature to compel.
So I think a House Resolution could prompt a request for clarification. And I think SCOTUS could take the matter up if they choose, and I think they would.
Any prosecutor can initiate a grand jury, fine but why haven’t they? Because the definition and context of NBC have not been resolved in court, so there is no basis to convene a GJ.
Now it is possible for a GJ judge to agree with the historical context of NBC and go with it. But it could be challenged which would be fine because then it could be worked up to SCOTUS.
But the question is why hasn’t this happened? Simply because a court taking it up would be stopped as the other cases made their way through the system. Obama’s lawyers could simply put a hold on GJ investigations by claiming the matter was already before the courts.
You tell us why you think it hasn’t been initiated already.
Also Perhaps because the dem victories in 2006/2008 intimidated the social background politics that influence judges and prosecutors. Perhaps now there will be those that are emboldened, we can wish. But the stigma of ‘birther’ has been so well honed that I think it will take a new raw TP backed member of Congress or a prosecutor in good standing to get it rolling.
I still think the matter is best left with a House subcommittee that has the balls to subpoena the BC to see the citizenship of the father in conjunction with a House Resolution that asserts the meaning of NBC in its historical context.
Obama could try to assert Executive Priviledge but I don’t think it would fly. In fact it would invite a special prosecutor.
GJ prosecutors at the moment have no basis to initiate because the notion of NBC is not clear (it is clear to me but I am not a judge of a recognized court).
So I say go with the newly elected House.
During the last year or two there have been many persons including myself who have argued for the validity of the Founding Fathers use of Vatelle and his Law of Nations. Of especial interest to me has been the naysayers saying the explicit reference to the Law of Nations in Article I, Sec. 8 was meaningless as to NBC. Your presentation is very cogent and might or might not bring these naysayers forward. Related to this is I’m glad to hear Rush apparently has take cognizance of the Obama fraud.
I think this could happen if he doesn't get a second term....
They won't be happy until they get a 2 term president with a legacy and a national paid holiday in his honor.
I think the House can ask SCOTUS to clarify by opinion a longstanding Constitutional phase such as NBC. This would not be new law or an alteration of an existing law which indeed would take both houses and a President’s signature to compel.
So I think a House Resolution could prompt a request for clarification. And I think SCOTUS could take the matter up if they choose, and I think they would.
Any prosecutor can initiate a grand jury, fine but why haven’t they? Because the definition and context of NBC have not been resolved in court, so there is no basis to convene a GJ.
Now it is possible for a GJ judge to agree with the historical context of NBC and go with it. But it could be challenged which would be fine because then it could be worked up to SCOTUS.
But the question is why hasn’t this happened? Simply because a court taking it up would be stopped as the other cases made their way through the system. Obama’s lawyers could simply put a hold on GJ investigations by claiming the matter was already before the courts.
You tell us why you think it hasn’t been initiated already.
Also Perhaps because the dem victories in 2006/2008 intimidated the social background politics that influence judges and prosecutors. Perhaps now there will be those that are emboldened, we can wish. But the stigma of ‘birther’ has been so well honed that I think it will take a new raw TP backed member of Congress or a prosecutor in good standing to get it rolling.
I still think the matter is best left with a House subcommittee that has the balls to subpoena the BC to see the citizenship of the father in conjunction with a House Resolution that asserts the meaning of NBC in its historical context.
Obama could try to assert Executive Priviledge but I don’t think it would fly. In fact it would invite a special prosecutor.
GJ prosecutors at the moment have no basis to initiate because the notion of NBC is not clear (it is clear to me but I am not a judge of a recognized court).
So I say go with the newly elected House.
The reason that no grand jury investigation has been initiated for election fraud is because the entire legal strategy of those who have challenged Obama’s eligibility has been in the CIVIL court system via lawsuits. 85 of them have been adjudicated to date including eight previous appeals at the Supreme Court of the United States.
The problem with those eighty-five lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility is that none has presented a plaintiff with legal standing to sue Obama. Absent a lawsuit with John McCain, Sarah Palin or the Republican National Committee suing on behalf of McCain-Palin, the people who can demonstrate direct and particularlzed harm from the election of Barack Obama, civil suits will continue to fail just as the one that is the topic of this thread have failed at lower court levels and also at the Supreme Court.
Here’s one lower court decision on the issue of defining a Natural Borb Citizen: “We conclude that persons born within the Continental United States are natural born citizens for Article 2, section 1 purposes regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeney et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009
This decision was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court which rejected it for a hearing. It was not appealed to the federal courts.
The current law of the land as codified in the US Code of Laws defines the term “Citizen of the United States at birth.”
It might be interesting to test at the Supreme Court of the United States whether there is any difference in law between a “natural born citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States at birth.”
“Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth:”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
We should all know on Monday whether the recent election has changed the political climate for judges appointed for life so that they aren’t influenced by the coming and goings of partisan politicians in the other two branches of government.
The establishment is scared silly of the open “discovery” process that a public trial provides, because once the can of worms is opened they can’t be put back in the can. That is the core belief that conspiracist theorists subscribe and that applies to everything from Obama’s citizenship to JFK assassination, Gulf of Tonkin, to the USSLiberty, to Iraq intel, to 9-11, etc. Our history is replete with major events that some claim have much more unsaid baggage, and they are very likely correct.
If it is determined that native born citizenship requires two legal native born parents that would put a big crimp in the concept of anchor babies and it probably would make the US Chamber of Commerce and La Raza very unhappy. .
Fine but aren’t you the one arguing that a GJ approach would be successful whereas the Civil approach is doomed to failure absent a McCain or Palin complaint?
So the question remains why hasn’t a GJ been convened? And I think the answer is that NBC is nebulous (although not to me given the long history of its meaning).
So absent a clear meaning of NBC, a GJ would have no way of knowing whether Obama has committed fraud.
OTOH a resolution passed by the House that specifies meaning to NBC would enable them to convene hearings and subpoena documents. Who could stop the House from doing such a thing? If Obama tries to intervene on the meaning of NBC or as a matter of executive priviledge, then the jig is up in many ways.
The House can say what a NBC is and proceed.
A GJ cannot say what a NBC is without a long series of challenges. They may not be able to proceed.
I would put my money on the House getting to the bottom of the matter. I also see little political risk in the House conducting investigatory hearings. Even if Obama was determined to be eligible, the House leadership could respond to any criticisms with a simple remark that the entire matter could have been wrapped up long ago for a few dollars expense by Obama himself. And that delaying disclosure led to a loss of credibility in Obama and his presidency.
But I believe that Obama is hiding something and that House hearings will force him to either resign or commit acts that would expose him to the risk of impeachment.
It’s not ‘native born citizenship’, it’s ‘natural born citizen’ or NBC and it applies only to those that seek office of President and Commander in Chief.
The history of NBC is one that references meaning often as having both parents who were citizens at the time of birth so as to nurture allegiance to the United States.
It has nothing to do with whether anchor babies will be considered as citizens. The question of anchor babies will be resolved by adding meaning ti the 14th Amendment “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Good point.
Vattel’s “Law of Nations.”
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.