A new court filing that returns the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to the U.S. Supreme Court warns that unless the judiciary makes a definitive decision in the dispute, it will be the same as allowing the political interests in the United States to amend the U.S. Constitution at will.
A petition for writ of certiorari has been filed with the high court in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the dismissal of a case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelsen Jr.
Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, the 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 trial court rejected the case based on issues of “standing” and never addressed the core issues presented. The appellate court did the same.
Now Apuzzo has escalated the issue to the highest court in the land, suggesting that “the constitutional issue … cannot be decided by the political parties and a voting majority. Our nation is ultimately guided by the Constitution and the rule of law, not by majority rule. Allowing the political parties and the voting majorities to decide constitutional issues would be tantamount to amending the Constitution without going through the amendment process prescribed by Article V of the Constitution and abandoning the basic principles of republican government.”
In an announcement about the filing, Apuzzo said Obama not only has not proven, as required under the Constitution, his status as a “natural born citizen,” but “he has hidden all his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, early school records, college records, travel and passport records needed to prove he is even a born citizen of the United States.”
His case argues, essentially, that even if Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, he still fails to reach the Constitution’s mandated eligibility requirement.
And it could be even worse.
“Putative President, Barack Hussein Obama … has not yet conclusively proven that he was born in the United States … His father was never a United States citizen nor was he even a permanent resident … They both became Kenyan citizens when Kenya got its independence in 1963 … Obama’s relationship to his Indonesian stepfather and move to Indonesia when he was a child … and his travels to Pakistan in 1981, also raise doubts,” the petition explains.
“If Obama was not born in the United States, there exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien,” it states.
“Obama was born a British subject/citizen to a British subject/citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and never intended to be one. Obama’s father was never even an immigrant to the USA nor was he even a permanent legal resident. Obama’s father was a foreign national sojourning in the USA to attend college. Obama is still a British subject/citizen to this day because he has never renounced that citizenship. According to this lawsuit, Obama was born a dual-citizen with dual allegiance and loyalty and is therefore not constitutionally eligible to be the president and commander-in-chief of our military,” Kerchner explained.
“The founders of our country and framers of our Constitution required the president to have unity of citizenship and sole natural allegiance to the USA from the moment of birth, which Obama does not and cannot have. This was a national security issue to the founders and framers,” he said.
Besides Obama’s British citizenship, which “converted to Kenyan citizenship at age 2,” Kerchner writes, “Obama was also an Indonesian citizen as a youth when he was adopted or acknowledged by his Indonesian stepfather when he married his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.”
The lawsuit simply seeks a trial on the merits “to determine the true facts of Obama’s legal identity and exact citizenship status and to require Obama to prove to the courts that he is eligible for the federal office he sits in per our Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law by Emer de Vattel, published in 1758 and “used by … the Continental Congress during the formation of our country…” defines natural born citizen as “a person born in the country to two parents who are both citizens of the country.”
That phrase was left undefined in the Constitution, and Apuzzo argues only the judiciary can fully define it now.
“If neither Congress nor the Executive branches of government will give the petitioners that protection to which the Constitution entitles them, they should have access to the courts to be able to protect and vindicate their own rights to that protection,” he wrote in the petition.
“This right to access to the courts is more critical when both the executive and legislature are acting in concert to deprive the petitioners of their right to this protection. Since Obama has already been sworn in, it could be argued that only Congress has jurisdiction over the question of whether he is a ‘natural born citizen.’ But what happens when Congress also refuses to perform its constitutional duty … to make sure that only a ‘natural born citizen’ is given the great and singular powers of the office of president and commander in chief of the military?
“Surely the Constitution would not leave someone like the petitioners without any remedy to protect the same rights which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution recognize as their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property,” the petition states.
The petition explains the nation’s Founders required the “natural born citizen” status “to provide a ‘strong check’ on foreign influence making its way into our government and specifically in the office of president and commander in chief of the military.”
Apuzzo continues, “Whether he is legitimate is also vital in maintaining the proper chain of command in our military and in giving legality to all military orders … Since the president signs all acts passed by Congress into law, it is vitally important that the president be legitimately in power so as to give those laws domestic and international legality.”
And the polls are no legitimate remedy, he suggested.
“The rule of law does not allow that the will of the people or the popular vote should determine the meaning of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause and that Congress should defer to that will on such vital constitutional questions.”
And the plaintiffs have standing because, “the threat to petitioners’ life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property is actual and concrete rather than merely conjectural or hypothetical. The Declaration of Independence recognizes these rights as ‘unalienable’ and as having been endowed upon an individual by his or her ‘Creator.’ The Constitution recognizes these rights not as being abstract or theoretical rights but rather as concrete and real and needing protection from government abuses.”
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.
The Supreme Court previously has rejected out of hand a series of filings regarding Obama’s eligibility, but most of them were filed under an “emergency” procedure that approached the high court before having worked their way through the trial court and appellate court processes. There was no immediate word whether the Supreme Court would accept the Kerchner case.
The petition also seeks the recusal of justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who have been appointed by Obama, as having potential conflicts since Obama’s eligibility ultimately could impact their own jobs.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in an appearance before Congress, previously said the court has been “evading” the Obama eligibility issue: