- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
Obama challengers: Doc proves president ineligible
Posted By Bob Unruh On 04/27/2011 @ 8:07 pm In Front Page | Comments Disabled
President Barack Obama in the Oval Office April 4, 2011
The “Certificate of Live Birth” document released by the White House today, if authentic, assures Americans that their president was born in Hawaii as he has said, according to two participants in a lawsuit who challenged the president’s tenure in the Oval Office.
But they say it also proves he’s ineligible under the Constitution’s requirements to be president.
According to Mario Apuzzo, the attorney who argued the Kerchner vs. Obama case, and the lead plaintiff, retired Navy Cmdr. Charles Kerchner, the documentation reveals that Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, was the father when Barack Obama Jr. was born.
That, they say, would disqualify Obama because of the Founders’ requirement in the Constitution that a president be a “natural born Citizen,” commonly understood during the era of the beginnings of the United States to mean a citizen offspring of two citizen parents.
The Kerchner vs. Obama case, as have some others, challenged Obama on two grounds: that he had not proven his U.S. birth and that even if that was documented, he still needed to meet the requirements of being a “natural born Citizen.”
That’s in Article 2, Section,1, 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.”
“They are going to have to face the music on this at some point,” said Kerchner, whose allegations never were decided on their merits after the courts created a roadblock by determining Americans don’t have “standing” to demand the Constitution’s requirements be followed.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo agreed.
“Assuming that it’s valid, that he’s born in Hawaii,” he said, “It confirms who his father was. His father was not a citizen.”
What the president released:
Image released by the White House April 27, 2011
He said in American jurisprudence “there is not one case that says being born to an alien parent creates a natural born citizen.”
But Apuzzo said the White House simply wants to ignore the Constitution’s demand.
“It doesn’t say born,” he said. “They want to steamroll over ‘natural born.’”
He said the problem, however, is getting a court to decide the dispute he raised. The seven or eight dozen cases brought so far largely have been turned back without a review of their actual merits.
Courts decided that plaintiffs don’t have “standing,” or an injury or possible injury from a violation of the U.S. Constitution, so the cases are thrown out.
Apuzzo said, however, with the flood of state proposals being considered at the legislative level, at some point a law specifically will give a plaintiff standing, and then a dispute could be argued in the state courts.
Kerchner also said it is inevitable that the courts will have to make a ruling on the arguments.
“The legal definition of the legal term of art will have to be litigated because of all the confusion that Obama and the Progressive/Socialists have introduced into that term,” he told WND. “It will take a Supreme Court decision, a congressional investigation and hearing under oath, or both, to settle it. I gave the Congress the chance and asked for congressional investigations. They ignored me. I sue[d] Obama and the Congress and the courts ducked the issue. But they are going to have to face the music on this at some point.”
He’s been involved in a series of ads that have run over the dispute:
They quote Vattel’s 1758 “The Law of Nations,” a document used widely by the American Founders, where it states in Vol. 1, Ch. 19, Section 212: “natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
His organization, ProtectOurLiberty.org, also explains that under the British Nationality Act of 1948, when Obama was born in 1961 he was a British subject.
The goal, according to Apuzzo, was to avoid a president with divided loyalties – to America and to another nation to which his father or mother owed loyalty.
“This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) at the time of birth assure that one is born with sole natural allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives),” the organization explains.
“Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and sole natural allegiance from birth only for the president and commander in chief of the military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to make decisions for our national survival. It is required of the president because such a status gives the American people the best chance that a would-be president will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation.
“The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the constitutional Republic, the office of president and commander in chief of the military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause that gives the American people the best chance to keep it that way.”
The U.S. Supreme Court effectively killed the Kerchner case when it was before the justices with one terse statement: “The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.”
Apuzzo said his clients were hurt by the court’s ruling, as was Obama.
“This decision did not help Mr. Obama,” Apuzzo said at the time. “It did not bring legitimacy to his office. Mr. Obama does not have legitimacy of office by the court or by the consensus of the nation, because many people question whether he is a natural born citizen. How does our nation go forward with this kind of result?”
“This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn’t,” wrote Kerchner when the case was developing. “Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn’t. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn’t. Everyone in our system of government chose appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else.”
“Now it is far worse,” Kerchner continued. “The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken.”
Apuzzo commented that the new release from Obama proves his ineligibility because before that, there had been assumptions about the identity of his father. There had been statements that Barack Obama Sr., who returned to Kenya to his first wife after abandoning Obama’s mother and his son, was the father, but no documentation to affirm that.
At the time the case was rejected, Apuzzo warned, “If he runs again in 2012, people will want to know. … The issue is not going away. … You’re going to have a lot of states that are going to be on this, they will want to see that birth certificate.”
In fact, lawmakers in Oklahoma are scheduled to vote within a day or two on a proposal that would require verification of eligibility for candidates on the state’s ballot.
Lawmakers in Arizona earlier adopted a requirement, but it was vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer. Other states with pending plans include Pennsylvania and Louisiana.
If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND poll.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/292441/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.