Posted on 07/25/2010 5:29:54 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suddenly have abandoned plans to assess damages against an attorney whose clients are challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president after he argued that if there was to be punishment, he would have the right to know whether the defendants could have mitigated their injury by publicly releasing Obama's birth documentation.
The decision came from Judge Dolores Sloviter in the Kerchner vs. Obama case handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court had ordered Apuzzo to explain why defense costs shouldn't be assessed against him for the "frivolous" appeal.
However, her newest order denied Apuzzo's request to reconsider the case and stated "based on Mr. Apuzzo's explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause."
The case was filed against Obama, Congress and others just before Obama was sworn into office, arguing that Obama was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Apuzzo’s case is totally different. Try doing the research before you spew nonsense that is false.
Apuzzo’s case is totally different. Try doing the research before you spew nonsense that is false.
It may have been “totally different” but Apuzzo’s appeal was dismissed by the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals.
You can read the decision of the court here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33824651/KERCHNER-v-OBAMA-Precedential-Opinion-Transport-Room
Or you can just jump down to page 9 of the opinion and read these few words:
“For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court’s order of dismissal.”
Mario Apuzzo DID manage to escape having to pay court costs and sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit however.
No you have no idea what is going but keep trolling.
Horse Apples.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
...
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, under their Authority
There is no specific mechanism for enforcing most of the provisions of the Constitution. Someone who is not eligible cannot be President, no matter any election results, or any oathes taken. The Courts, under the power granted in Art. III sec 2, can rule on eligibility. Not Eligible == Not President. No "removal" required.
To me divorce of any kind signifies there was a marriage. As such the provisions for an out-of-wedlock child doesn’t seem applicable when the father is known. Perhaps a situation where a married woman who had a child by someone other than her husband could give an out-of-wedlock case, but I don’t believe this case can be made for BHO.
For natural born citizen there was at the time the Constitution was written, and absent any amendment, there still is.
There is an exception for those born of citizen parents in the armies of the nation. So McCain qualifies under that.
Unless you start making up your own version of the United States Code, you cannot find a statutory requirement for both parents of a President to be US citizens nor is there a requirement that his birth occur on US soil.
We're not talking about citizen at birth, but rather Natural Born Citizen, which remains what it was in the late 1780s when the Constitution was written and ratified. No meer law, which is what the US code is, can modify the meaning of a Constitution term.
Again, natural born citizen is not the same as citizen at birth. Those people born outside the US who are citizens at birth strictly due to the statutes are, under various Supreme Court rulings, "naturalized at birth".
So Congress can change the meaning of the Constitution all by itself?
NOT
The courts have ruled that such persons are naturalized at birth, since Congress has no other power to confer citizenship, except via naturalization. Naturalization can be accomplished in ways other than the "live in the country awhile, apply individually, take a test and take the oath" manner. Sometimes masses of people are naturalized at once, when the US acquires new territory, such as when it purchased Alaska or acquired Hawaii. (In both cases mass naturalization did not occur right away, but did not wait on statehood either).
Bottom line, NBC means what it meant when the Constitution was written, since there have been no amendments changing the definition.
“No you have no idea what is going but keep trolling.”
You didn’t even know that “Kerchner v Obama” was dismissed at the District Court level and again at the Appeals Court level.
No you are not paying attention troll. The case is going to SCOTUS.
I don’t think all of trolls know that its been revealed that some of these cases were blocked by Kagan.
Now that she is going through the process of getting her compensation for sheltering an usurper to the Office of the President there doesn’t appear to be much more obstructions for these cases to move ahead.
Your point is well taken . Now, what if there were children of the invalid marriage ... just as Team Obama has spawned fundamental societal changes?
We have many examples in history of invalid kings, Popes, and usurpers of all kinds. In general, it seems to me that their decrees, laws, appointments, etc. lived on well beyond their tenure in the office they invalidly held.
IOW, what do we do with the Obama Legacy, when his political party remains strong, organized, and very effective, while the other party (I hesitate to say "ours") remains in the control of unprincipled compromisers and cowardly poltroons?
Few Federal judges have “Political aspirations,” even within the party that selected them. The reason they became judges is (a) to get out of the trenches (b) to effectively promote the party agenda without having to deal with party politics.
<[>For a Leftist “intellectual jurist” this is the ideal solution to ....EVERYTHING.
No you are not paying attention troll. The case is going to SCOTUS.
There is nothing about Kerchner v Obama that separates it from the eight previously rejected appeals listed above.
In fact Mario Apuzzo came very close to being sanctioned for failing to mention Berg v Obama in his legal briefs, but I’m sure anything about that is way over your head.
By the way, the Supreme Court is out of session until October 3rd when the Court’s Fall term begins.
Horse Apples.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
...
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, under their Authority
There is no specific mechanism for enforcing most of the provisions of the Constitution. Someone who is not eligible cannot be President, no matter any election results, or any oathes taken. The Courts, under the power granted in Art. III sec 2, can rule on eligibility. Not Eligible == Not President. No “removal” required.
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
Why not? A Bible isn't required-- not every President has used one.
Only because the judges ruled with prejudice and didn't actually pay attention to what the case was actually about. Apuzzo's response forced the judges to admit their reasoning was flawed. I thought you said you read it???
Only because the judges ruled with prejudice and didn’t actually pay attention to what the case was actually about. Apuzzo’s response forced the judges to admit their reasoning was flawed. I thought you said you read it???
Kerchner and his co-plaintiffs could not pass the first test for legal standing: they could not show particularized injury-in-fact. The Appeals court agreed with the District Court and with 70 other such lawsuits, all decided the same way.
I said that I read the Court’s opinion. I did not read Apuzzo’s 95 page response to show cause why he should not be sanctioned or forced to pay court costs. The Appeals court judges retreated not one inch on their ruling upholding the district court’s dismissal but they did cut Apuzzo some slack on not sanctioning him and assessing court costs against him. A “show cause” order allows an attorney to present his side of a specific issue; In this case, that specific issue was whether or not the Kerchner appeal was frivolous.
Mr. Apuzzo obviously did a good job of talking the judges out of the frivolous charge.
“... a matter of bad taste.”
Good enough of a reason to boot him, IMHO.
Again, I say: "Horse Apples".
Again, I say: "Horse Apples".
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.