March 25, 2010
By Bob Unruh
Forget the dispute over the "natural born citizen" requirement of the U.S. Constitution for presidents, Barack Obama may not even be a "citizen," according to a new filing in a long-running legal challenge to his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
"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," says a new filing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Kerchner v. Obama.
"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 submission comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the case. His brief argues against the earlier document from Obama's attorneys demanding that the case be dismissed.
WND reported earlier when the lawyer argued that the most common reason judges have used to dismiss cases against Obama – a lack of "standing" – is just wrong.
Obama's arguments in this case, in fact, rely almost exclusively on that issue to suggest the case by Apuzzo should be dismissed.
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.
In a statement on his blog, Apuzzo said the next step in his case is a decision from the court.
"We will now wait and see if the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals grants my request for oral argument and if so when the oral argument will be," he said.
His latest filing also has been posted online.
It argues that the district court decision as well as 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."
He 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 satisified 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."
Full story HERE
