Artile II, Section 1, Clause 5 Eligibility Case Appealed To Supreme Court

From A Charging Elephant:

Finally the case with legs? Don Frederick weighs in on the Issue


Posted on October 1, 2010

by dancingczars
Leave a comment

Don Frederick



Colony14.net



On September 30, 2010 attorney Mario Apuzzo filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. on behalf of plaintiff Commander Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. and others, challenging the recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia which affirmed the dismissal of Kerchner v. Obama.







How long will Barry keep laughing at us?



The lawsuit charges that Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, has not conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is therefore not constitutionally eligible to serve as the President and Commander-in-Chief of the military, and that he has hidden his early life records including his original long-form birth certificate, school records, college records, travel and passport records needed to prove he is even a born Citizen of the United States.





Mr. Apuzzo argues in his filing that “Petitioners’ claims involve the national security of the United States which is now vitally at risk. Because both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found that petitioners do not have Article III standing, those courts never decided the underlying merits of petitioners’ case.” The case is “about whether we should allow a critical question such as the meaning of a ‘natural born Citizen’ [in the U.S. Constitution] to be answered by the political parties and the people through their act of voting at the polls, or by the judicial branch of government. The answer to this question has direct implication not only for the protection of life, liberty, and property …but also for the national security of the United States …for who is allowed to wield the all and singular powers of the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Military is of vital importance to the preservation and survival of the constitutional republic…”



Attorney Apuzzo astutely included the following request: “We respectfully request that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 (a) and (b), Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan should recuse themselves from having any involvement or deciding any issues in petitioners’ petition to the Supreme Court in which they are challenging the legitimacy of the putative President Obama, the government official who appointed them to their offices. The validity of their appointments can be questioned should Mr. Obama be found not eligible to be President which could cause them to lose their appointment in which they have a financial interest.”



Kerchner v. Obama is considered by many observers to be the most carefully crafted and soundly argued of all the Obama eligibility cases. Mr. Apuzzo has avoided the errors made in many of the other cases. No court has judged the case on its merits; they have all avoided making a ruling on the meaning of “natural born citizen.” Some argue that is cowardice on the part of those judges; others argue that the issue is of such national and historical significance that its proper place belongs at the U.S. Supreme Court. Few would disagree that Kerchner v. Obama is one of the most significant cases ever to be hear by the Supreme Court—assuming the Court has the courage to accept it and issue a ruling.



Interpreting what the Founding Fathers meant by the term “natural born citizen” clearly makes Kerchner v Obama the type of case that Supreme Court Justices “live for.” It will be the most significant ruling of their careers and of monumental importance—in no small part because of the growing population of immigrants in the United States. It is important for future elections that all citizens understand the requirements of the presidency. Obama was allowed to run and then elected because the vast majority of voters do not understand the term “natural born citizen” and because they assumed that the politicians know, understand, and follow the U.S. Constitution. They were wrong—and the error should be corrected.



There can be no doubt that the Justices of the Supreme Court fully understand the consequences of ruling against Obama. They know that declaring him an illegal president who must be removed from office will, at the very least, create mountains of legal issues relating to every official document he signed since being sworn in on January 20, 2009. A ruling against Obama could easily lead to social unrest and nationwide riots in which hundreds—or even thousands—are killed. The Justices will certainly be aware of that possibility. Nevertheless, they must rule according to the law, the arguably clear intentions of the men who drafted the Constitution, and the historical documents upon which they relied when creating the law of the land. This author argues that the Court will have no choice but to rule against Obama. The alternative—either ruling in favor of Obama or simply refusing to review the case—would be to render the U.S. Constitution meaningless and irrelevant.



Don Fredrick



October 1, 2010