Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

November 28, 2009

Obama’s Lack of Constitutional Eligibility – The Three Enablers – 30 Nov 2009 Issue of Washington Times National Weekly – page 9

Obama’s Lack of Constitutional Eligibility – The 3 Enablers – 30 Nov 2009 Issue of Washington Times National Weekly – page 9

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23299370/Obama-s-Lack-of-Eligibility-The-Three-Enablers-20091130-issue-Wash-Times-National-Weekly-pg-9

The ad depicts “The Three Enablers” of Obama’s usurpation of the Office of the Presidency and Commander-in-Chief of our military in violation of the eligibility clause of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Despite the pleas and petitions of the hundreds of thousands of Americans for a serious in-depth investigation of Obama’s sealed and hidden early life records, the Congress will not “look” at or investigate the merits of the charges against Obama despite holding hearings and investigations of John McCain in April 2008 on similar eligibility charges thus violating our right to equal protection under our Constitution. The Courts will not “hear” in a trial the merits of the charges against Obama. And the Main Stream Media will not “talk” about the merits of the charges against Obama and investigate his hidden early life records and thoroughly discuss with the American people the legal and Constitutional issues involved. The Three Enablers are not being responsive to questions and concerns of We the People and have placed a “cone of silence” over this issue to the detriment of Constitution and the Republic. Their ignoring the concerns of the People on a matter as serious as this and allowing Obama to completely seal and hide all his early life records and not requiring him to conclusively prove his constitutional eligibility to a controlling legal authority endangers our system of government. We are supposed to be a nation of laws not men. The Constitution is the fundamental law of our land and guarantor of a representative Republic form of government. With an arrogant, indifferent, and imperial Congress, complacent Judiciary, and a silent main stream media and press, our freedom and liberty and the future of our Republic is in great danger.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Please help the cause to fund more ads to educate the People about Obama’s usurpation of his office: http://www.protectourliberty.org/
###

Advertisements

November 25, 2009

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Briefing Notice Issued

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Briefing Notice Issued

24 Nov 2009: BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED. Brief on behalf of Appellant Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Appellant Darrell James Lenormand, Appellant Donald H. Nelsen Jr. and Appellant Lowell T. Patterson due on or before 01/04/2010. Appendix due on or before 01/04/2010. (TMK)

26 Dec 2009 UPDATE: Due date for Appeals Court briefs rescheduled to Tuesday, 19 Jan 2010.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., CDR USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

November 22, 2009

New Video About Natural Born Citizen – Three Little Words

New Video About Natural Born Citizen – Three Little Words

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B278681E23614868

This excellent video was created and produced by a commenter in our group.
Thank you Sir.

Also see another great new graphical presentation by Erica of the JeffersonsRebels blog:
http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-obama-unconstitutional-usurper.html

To further help our publicity and education campaign visit this site: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Synergy at Work! If we all do a little, together we can accomplish a lot!
Charles Kerchner, CDR USNR (Ret), Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
###

November 20, 2009

One Important Congressional Effort to Amend the "Natural Born Citizen" Clause

Members of Congress have over the years made various attempts to change the meaning of “natural born Citizen” as it is found in Article II. One of these attempts is most noteworthy because it pertains to children born in the United States. After H.J. Res. 88 failed to make it out of committee, Sen. Nickles (OK) along with Landrieu (LA) and Inhofe (OK) brought forward S. 2128 in February 25, 2004, the Natural Born Citizen Act, a bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in Article II of the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128.

This bill provided as follows:

“A BILL
To define the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Natural Born Citizen Act’’.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ‘‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’’.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress finds and declares that the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means—
(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States– (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress . . .”

Paragraph (1) repeats the same language that we find in the Fourteenth Amendment. But if a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen is automatically an Article II “natural born Citizen,” why would such a bill be needed? This attempt at amending the “natural born Citizen” clause shows that there are members of Congress who understand that just being a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen does not make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Congress also tried such changes with S. 2678 (2008); H. J. RES. 15 (2005); H. J. RES. 104 (2004); H. J. RES. 47 (2001), and approx. 25 other times since the 1870s. If a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen” was the same as an Article II “natural born citizen,” why would members of Congress see a need for this bill? Hence, it can be seen that just being born in the United States and being declared a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

It is also noteworthy to examine the Natural Born Citizen Act Summary that accompanied the bill which states in pertinent part: “The bill is intended to clarify the term and end uncertainty about the eligibility requirements to run for the Office of the Presidency. The definition of this term is an issue that has been debated in legal circles for years and has never been ruled on by the courts. Clarification is needed before this becomes a real issue. Congress should be the institution that defines this term, not the courts.” http://www.jcics.org/natural%20born%20summary%20%28word%29.doc. The same information was expressed by Senator Nickles of February 25, 2004 when he addressed the Senate on the bill and which statements are contained in the Congressional Record. Sen. Nickles, in his speech when introducing the S. 2128, announced that: “There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what ‘natural born’ means.” Sen. Inhofe referred to the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 and used it to argue that in the absence of any judicial interpretation, Congress has the authority to define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Among other things, the bill provided that “any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Senator recognized that simply being born in the United States and being subject to the jurisdiction thereof does not necessarily make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The bill did not advance and met the same fate as other similar Congressional proposals to amend Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause.

What is important is that this “natural born Citizen” issue as it pertains to children born in the United States existed in Congress as far back as February 2004 and has yet to be resolved. What is also important is that this bill would have directly impacted Obama’s eligibility to run for President of the United States. Whether or not this bill if enacted into law would have been Constitutional is another question.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
November 20, 2009

November 16, 2009

New "Citizen vs. Natural Born Citizen" Pictorial Advertisement in Washington Times National Weekly – pg 5 – Monday 16 Nov 2009 Issue

New “Citizen vs. Natural Born Citizen” Full Page, Full Color, Pictorial Advertisement in Washington Times National Weekly – pg 5 – Monday 16 Nov 2009 Issue:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22586923/Citizen-vs-Natural-Born-Citizen-Advertorial-in-20091116-Issue-of-Wash-Times-National-Weekly

Many people do not know there is a difference between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” Being a “Citizen” of any type, whether an Article II natural born Citizen, 14th Amendment born Citizen, 14th Amendment naturalized Citizen, or statutory born Citizen under a Congressional Act, means you are a member of the society and entitled to all its rights and privileges. But under our Constitution to serve in the singular most powerful office in our government, that is to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of our Constitution you need to be a “natural born Citizen.” Being a “natural born Citizen” cannot be conveyed by any laws of man and can only be conveyed by the facts of nature at the time of your birth and circumstances of your birth, i.e., being born in the country to two citizens of the country. (Legal Treatise “The Law of Nations – Principles of Natural Law” Section 212 by E. Vattel 1758, SCOTUS Decision Venus 1814, SCOTUS Decision Minor v Happersett 1874). This new advertorial is designed to help educate the public pictorially about the fact that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and thus is ineligible under our Constitution to the office he sits in. He is a Usurper who was allowed to be put there by millions in foreign money, a corruptly lead Congress, and an enabling main stream media. This is a constitutional crisis and a national security concern that must be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court or our Republic, Constitution, and Liberties are in great danger.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ … help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

P.S. A special thanks to “Erica” at the http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/ site for the concept and idea.
###

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.