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 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 argument for dismissal relies almost exclusively on standing. See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!"How can you deny he's affecting me?" Apuzzo said recently during an interview with WND. "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. 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." The argument cites warnings from both George Washington and John Jay about the "insidious wiles of foreign influence" in the White House. WND reported earlier when the appeals court indicated it was listening to arguments in the case and granted special permission for an extra-long document to be filed. The judges approved Apuzzo's request to submit arguments totaling 20,477 words, when the normal limit is 14,000 words. He said the arguments are not complicated. "We maintain that Obama is not an Article II 'natural born citizen' because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth," he said. 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 actually 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. The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 495,000 signaturesdemanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question andthe production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question. The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny. Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth. If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND. Related offers: Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue. Previous stories: Eligibility lawyer says 'standing' a no-brainer 'Twittered' eligibility case lawyer faces threat of sanctions Obama banks on 'no standing' decision Appeals court told Obama 'security risk' Obama's eligibility becomes war among the states Appeal filed in Obama eligibility argument Judge tosses eligibility case against Congress
BORN IN THE USA?Court told 'citizen' Obama actually may be alien
'Under British Nationality Act … he was a British subject'
Posted: March 25, 2010
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip
Friday, 26 March 2010
12:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Posts
