Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have been told President Obama is a “security risk” and a “usurper” lacking constitutional authority since he admitted a dual citizenship at birth, thus making him ineligible for the office under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen.”
Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action in January 2009 on behalf of Kerchner, 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.
“Plaintiffs allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. They also allege that even if he was so born, he cannot be an Article II ‘natural born citizen’ because his father was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen, all of which makes him ineligible to be president and commander in chief of the military,” the appeal said.
Further, it explains Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship when Kenya gained its independence from Britain. Further doubts are raised by his relationship with an Indonesian stepfather during his childhood and his travels to Pakistan in 1981.
In an online commentary, Kerchner said, “This is not going to go away until Obama stops hiding ALL his hidden and sealed early life documents and provides original copies of them to a controlling legal authority and reveals his true legal identity from the time he was born until the time he ran for president.
“Obama at birth was born British and a dual citizen. He holds and has held multiple citizenship during his lifetime. He’s a citizenship chameleon as the moment and time in his life suited him and he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ with sole allegiance … to the USA as is required per the Constitution,” he said.
The appeal further challenges that not only might Obama not be a “natural born citizen,” he might not even be in the United States legally.
“If Obama was not born in the United States, there exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien,” it states.
The brief notes Obama’s campaign website Fight the Smears documented his British citizenship through his father at his birth.
“Neither has the 14th Amendment nor any U.S. Supreme Court decision, nor any act of Congress, changed the original common law definition of an Article II natural born citizen (to be distinguished from a ‘citizen of the United States’) which is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father,” the appeal said.
“Plaintiffs are requesting that the court enforce the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and not allow Obama to amend the Constitution by usurpation,” the brief said.
The case had been dismissed at the district court level, based on the judge’s ruling that plaintiffs didn’t have “standing” to bring the complaint.
The brief challenged that position directly, citing former Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that Obama’s plan to bring terrorists to trial in civilian courts in New York City threatens national security.
Cheney said, “I think it’s likely to give encouragement, aid and comfort to the enemy.”
The appeal said,
“If Obama is not an Article II ‘natural born citizen,’ plaintiffs cannot trust him to protect them. In such a case, plaintiffs have a right under the Fifth Amendment to bring an action against Obama and Congress in which they seek to protect their own life, liberty, and property, including their safety, security and tranquility, and to have Obama removed from office because he is not a ‘natural born citizen.’ These are real and concrete life and death needs,
The district judge had argued that all Americans were in the same position, so the plaintiffs didn’t have a specific complaint against the president, but the brief asserted otherwise.
“Is it not true that there are millions of Americans who welcome Obama to continue to be sitting as president regardless of whether he is eligible?” the brief said. The injuries to the plaintiffs, therefore, are “particular.”
“We say Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ of the USA and thus is not eligible to serve in the Oval Office. Obama is a usurper and must be removed to preserve the integrity and fundamental law of our Constitution and our Republic,” Kerchner said. “Obama, despite all his obfuscations to date, must prove to constitutional standards that he is eligible to sit in that seat.”
The lawyer also explains the Constitution provides, “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”
Apuzzo has explained that it is significant the lower court did not rule Obama was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous.
It simply said the case was dismissed because of the jurisdictional issue.
“By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American people unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ and therefore constitutionally eligible to be president and commander in chief,” the attorney said.
“A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications,” he has explained. “The court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II ‘natural born citizen.’
“The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in Hawaii, given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship, the American people deserve to know whether he is an Article II ‘natural born citizen’ which would make him eligible to be president,” the attorney said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “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.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
Just in the past few days, a move also has surfaced among members of individual state legislatures to assemble state laws requiring the documentation of eligibility from candidates to be president. None of those plans, however, has been adopted as law yet.
The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.