Posted: November 23, 2010
9:45 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
C 2010 WorldNetDaily
U.S. President Barack Obama
listens to remarks by Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev during
meeting at the
APEC Summit in Yokohama, November 14, 2010. REUTERS/Jim Young
- Tags: POLITICS)
WASHINGTON - Is this the case that will break the presidential
question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be
heard on the merits of
Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether
President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because
may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II,
Section 1, Clause 5 of the
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court,
Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel
theory," which argues
that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born
to mean a person born in the United States to parents who
were both American citizens.
"This case is
unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney
bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case.
shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for
the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing
in their way to grant
us a writ of certiorari."
If the Supreme Court decides to grant the "writ
of certiorari," it
may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits
of the case, or it may
choose to hear the merits itself. The court's
decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.
If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark
the "death knell" for Obama's legitimacy.
"Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a
natural-born citizen so it's a death
knell to his legitimacy. What
happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would
work that out,
is something else," Apuzzo told WND.
Apuzzo observed it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a
on the merits "is also a death knell because it would allow
discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth
and we don't know what that would show," according to Apuzzo. "We
might not even get to the
question of defining 'natural-born
citizen.' If he was not born in the U.S., he'd be undocumented,
never been naturalized. We don't even know what his
citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records,
but that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents."
Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility
cases to the
Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink
one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery,
Obama would be out of office," Berg told WND. "We
would ask for
a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents. The last official
report said Obama has spent $1.6
million in legal fees [keeping his
papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You
that kind of money unless there's something to hide,
and I believe the reason he's hiding this is because he was not
born in the United States."
"The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an
case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide
to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly.
decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office."
"They're taking a different approach,
arguing that both parents
must be citizens," Berg noted.
Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory,"
which asserts that the term
"natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined
by French writer
Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of
Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers,
used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed
question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding
former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American
the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress
have never changed the definition," said
Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief
of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents
so that American values would be imparted to him."
Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's
definition of "natural-born citizen" in
"dicta," or statements made
in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme
Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus"
case, in which Marshall endorses
Apuzzo also cites
of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South
Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.
Previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility have all been
rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have
the plaintiffs do not have "standing" to bring a suit against Obama
because they have failed
to prove they are directly injured by his
occupation of the Oval Office.
"To me that's false," said
Berg. "The 10th Amendment refers to
'we the people.' If the people can't challenge the president's
that would be ridiculous."
"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting
said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life,
property, and welfare of my clients."
said the founding fathers had good reason to require the
president to be a natural-born citizen.
were making sure the President had the values from being
reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would
preserve everybody's life, liberty and property in the process.
"They made that decision, so my clients
have every right to expect
the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your
basic rights, every right
that is inalienable. The president has
to be a natural-born citizen."