Appeals Court Considers Obama's Constitutional Eligibility For Office

From World Net Daily and Floyd Reports (Impeach Obama Campaign):

BORN IN THE USA?




Appeals panel considers whether Obama is even American

Case challenges eligibility for failure to provide proof of citizenship



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: June 29, 2010

9:02 pm Eastern





By Bob Unruh

© 2010 WorldNetDaily







Three judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are beginning to review a case that alleges Barack Obama is not eligible to be president and may not even be American.



The federal court case, brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of plaintiffs Charles Kerchner and others, had been dismissed at the district court level.



Arguments earlier had been scheduled for June 29 in the dispute, but a court order recently canceled the hearing and instead announced the case would be decided based on the merits of the legal briefs submitted by attorneys.



A document from court clerk Marcia Waldron said the case will be decided by Judge Dolores Sloviter, who was appointed by Jimmy Carter; Maryanne Trump Barry, appointed by Bill Clinton; and Thomas Hardiman, appointed by George W. Bush.



Sign the petition that asks state officials to validate Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility.



The filings were due on the day the hearing would have been held, but there's no published timetable for a decision to be released.



The case argues Obama probably is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution of the chief executive officer,



On a blog dealing with the case, lead plaintiff Kerchner has delivered updates.



(Story continues below)









The case filed was against Obama, Congress and others, just before Obama was sworn into office.



The case has argued, "Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born.



"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii," the arguments have claimed.



The claims from Apuzzo came in opposition to government demands that the case be dismissed for lack of standing on the part of the plaintiffs.



See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!



Apuzzo has argued that standing should be a simple decision.



"How can you deny he's affecting me?" Apuzzo told WND during an interview. "He wants to have terror trials in New York. He published the CIA interrogation techniques. On and on. He goes around bowing and doing all these different things. His statements we're not a Christian nation; we're one of the largest Muslim nations. It's all there."



The case was brought by Apuzzo in January 2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.



Named as defendants are 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.



Apuzzo's latest filing argues Obama's arguments "are nothing more than presentations of general statements on the law of standing which do not address the specific factual and legal content of plaintiffs' claims. … The defendants in much of their brief basically tell the court that the Kerchner case should be dismissed because all other Obama cases have been dismissed."



Apuzzo said it is "self-evident" under the Constitution that "anyone aspiring to be president has to conclusively prove that he or she is eligible to hold that office. Part of that burden is conclusively showing that one is a 'natural born citizen.' Hence, the citizenship status of Obama is critical to the question of whether plaintiffs having standing, for it is that very statute which is the basis of their injury in fact."



He noted the case was filed before Obama became president.



"At this time he was still a private individual who had the burden of proving that he satisfied each and every element of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. That plaintiffs filed their action at this time is important for it not only sets the time by which we are to judge when their standing attached to their action against Obama, Congress and the other defendants … but also to show that Obama has the burden of proof to show that he is a 'natural born citizen' and satisfied the other requirements of Article II," Apuzzo wrote.



"At no time in these proceedings or in any other of the many cases that have been filed against him throughout the country has Obama produced a 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate from the state of Hawaii showing that he was born there … We must conclude for purposes of defendants' motion that since Obama is not a 14th Amendment 'Citizen of the United States' let alone an Article II 'natural born citizen,' he is not eligible to be president and commander in chief. Not being eligible to be president and commander in chief he is currently acting as such without constitutional authority. It is Obama's exercising the singular and great powers of the president and commander in chief without constitutional authority which is causing plaintiffs' injury in fact."



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 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. And still others contend he holds Indonesian citizenship from his childhood living there.



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.