Nation ‘tearing itself apart’ over presidential eligibility Supremes need to ‘do their job,’ make ruling on constitutional question | by Bob Unruh | @ WND.com

Nation ‘tearing itself apart’ over presidential eligibility Supremes need to ‘do their job,’ make ruling on constitutional question | by Bob Unruh | @ WND.com

Read the entire article here:  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=349545

For the details of the legal issues that the U.S. Supreme Court (one that would make Neville Chamberlain proud) has been ducking for three years, turning away from taking any of several cases brought before them on the Obama constitutional eligibility issue, read the Petition for Certiorari for the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit filed in Sep 2010, prepared by Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesburg NJ.  The original lawsuit was filed very early in the a.m. of 20 January 2009, Inauguration Day, before Obama was unconstitutionally sworn in.  The various filings and briefs for that case can be read here.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in this historic case and thus we are in the situation we are in today, a constitutional crisis. Link to get a copy of the U.S. Supreme Court filing:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

This is not a fringe issue and concern despite the major media still running a cover up on this issue for Obama. More and more people know about this issue with Obama’s lack of a conclusively proven legal identity. See this poll done recently in SC showing 2/3 of those polled want Obama’s eligibility to be President investigated: http://visiontoamerica.org/3805/astounding-percentage-in-early-primary-state-question-obama-eligibility/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

3 thoughts on “Nation ‘tearing itself apart’ over presidential eligibility Supremes need to ‘do their job,’ make ruling on constitutional question | by Bob Unruh | @ WND.com”

  1. There is already legal precedent for the definition of “natural born citizen” from Minor v. Happersett (1875)

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

    “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    ———————————–
    Editor’s note: My attorney, Attorney Mario Apuzzo, first wrote in early January 2009 about the legal precedence of the U.S. Supreme Court of Minor v Happersett (1875) and that case defining what a natural born Citizen of the United States is. That case and decision has never been overturned. It is binding precedent. That case was cited as part of the filings and briefings to the federal courts in the lawsuit Kerchner v Obama in 2009 and 2010 in working the case up the federal court ladder. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case since as Justice Thomas said, they are avoiding this issue. And thus we are in the constitutional crisis we are in. Attorney Apuzzo reprinted his essay recently. See this link: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html

Comments are closed.