We are in the crucible now of our struggle to articulate and lawfully act on the violations of the Constitution by our elected officials. While the Congress can escape for a while by claiming flexibility is allowed with the 18 enumerated powers we allowed them, Obama cannot escape his direct violation of Article II of the Constitution for the United States of America.
This blatant violation of the Constitution, for highest office in the United States and arguably the world, could not have been possible without other constitutional violations long-entrenched within the political class, cooperation of key government officials at every level, and the operations of government hacks, party operatives, and the media.
The one case that exposes this truth is the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit, currently on appeal before the Third Circuit Appeals Court in Philadelphia. The Kerchner filings contain the most comprehensive case law history of this subject ever compiled and analyzed. They also expose the shocking, true depth of deception and fraud that enabled the coup resulting in installation of Barack Obama.
Ostensibly, Kerchner’s complaint shows that Obama has not proven himself eligible for the Presidency, and in any case, is not eligible because he is a British citizen by birth. The basis for the clause in Article II describing the requirement that the President be a natural born citizen is presented in the case documents and supplemental information submitted to the Court by Attorney Apuzzo.
Kerchner is arguing that there were other violations of the constitution by members of Congress which surround the placement of putative pResident Obama into the White House. These are the 12 counts.
The 12 Counts
The twelve counts brought against Obama and Congress consist of a violation of three Articles of and five Amendments to the Constitution. Reading the complaint is like a primer on the Constitution, and in this case, just shows how much had to happen to permit this usurpation. Nearly every article in and amendment to the Constitution has been violated by Obama, the socialist democrats, and criminal activity conducted by other agency, party, and media enablers.
Count 1. First Amendment, non-Obama Defendants
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment in part guarantees the right to petition our government for redress of grievances, and in this case, to redress the concern about Obama’s eligibility. Hundreds of thousands of petitions, phone calls,and letters requested Congress to confirm the eligibility of Obama. And the response was *crickets*.
But the Congress has routinely ignored many First Amendment petitions submitted on numerous subjects at least through the last fifteen years. While the First Amendment may have been upheld recently in campaign finance reform laws, the right of the people to petition the government for redress has been denied, even at the Supreme Court level. The government, and government officials basically do not have to respond to the citizens.
This count, and the details described in the lawsuit, show a government so used to ignoring its constituents that Obama could count on no one responding to concerns about his eligibility.
But there had to be another guarantee that no one would respond. What government officials, i.e., democrats in Congress, ensured that the higher than normal volume of petitions and requests coming in from people across the country were completely ignored? Who designed the strategy to have Congress collectively respond to citizens with the preposterous claim that Obama showed his birth certificate on Factcheck.org? I got so many form letters from government officials it’s as if they had an ‘eligibility obfuscation desk’ responding.
Count II: Fifth Amendment -Procedural due process
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Congress deprived plaintiffs their liberty interests by denying citizens due process of a full investigation of Obama’s qualifications for office,under the 20th Amendment. This resulted in a procedural violation of the Fifth Amendment. To understand the significance of this count against Obama and the non-Obama defendants, a ‘liberty interest’ is defined as:
The state of being free; enjoying various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
The idea that the concept of liberty implied certain fundamental or basic rights dates back to the writings of theorists such as John Locke.
Locke postulated that humans are born with an innate tendency to be reasonable and tolerant…that all individuals are entitled to liberty under the natural law that governed them before they formed societies. Locke’s concept of natural law required that no one should interfere with another one’s life, health, liberty, or possessions. According to Locke, governments are necessary only to protect those who live within the laws of nature from those who do not. For this reason, he believed that the power of government and the rule of the majority must be kept in check, and that they are best controlled by protecting and preserving individual liberties.
The concept of due process imposes a fundamental obligation upon all organs of government, including state agencies. At its base, due process means that no person can be subject to an individualized proceeding in which he or she stands to lose one of the protected interests – in the context of administrative law, either property or liberty – without sufficient procedures to ensure that the governmental action is fundamentally fair.
The President is the highest executive officer entrusted with the protection of the life, liberty, and property of American citizens and the Nation. He has interfered with those liberty interests by obfuscating the truth of who he is. We don’t know if our lives, liberty, or property are safe under Obama; the evidence now is that they are not.
Count III: Fifth Amendment–Substantive due process
After violating Kerchner’s procedural due process rights, Obama occupied the White House. This is the substantive violation of due process, whereby Obama ignored the law and physically took the office anyway.
I believe his was a studied invasion and occupation of the White House. Rather than study the Constitution and ways to uphold it, or ‘creating a more perfect union’, Obama seems to have studied how to undermine it, taking advantage of any procedure he could violate.
Count IV: Non-Obama defendants–Substantive due process
Congress also participated in violating Kerchner’s substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by allowing Obama to occupy the White House without proving himself constitutionally eligible for the office. By failing to do their job in ensuring the President is a natural born citizen, heck, even an American citizen, especially in the face of so much evidence that he is not, Congress deprived Kerchner of his liberty interests by denying him substantive due process rights.
Importantly, note that this is where the government’s straw man case comes into play. Rather than defend themselves against the charge, they argue that
no matter what the charge, Kerchner has no standing to demand that his liberty interests be respected.
In very strange fiction, the Obama justice injustice department argues that Kerchner has no standing because he can’t distinguish the harm he suffered from that of all Americans. So, its ok to harm 300 million Americans, but an individual cannot make a claim he is harmed?
This is the essence of protecting liberty interests…the best way to keep government and the majority in check is to protect the individual liberty interests of the Citizenry.
Count V: Non-Obama Defendants–Fifth Amendment Equal Protection
An aspect of due process is the concept of equal protection, which is found in the Fourteenth Amendment, and requires
that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances
By its terms, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the federal government; however,
Actions by the federal government that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment.
In the case at hand, Congress conducted a hearing on certain citizens’ concerns about the eligibility of John McCain, but failed to act on similar citizen concerns regarding the eligibility of Obama. Congress protected some citizens but not others, violating Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights of Kerchner.
Count VI: Ninth Amendment–Rights Reserved to the States v Obama
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Kerchner has a right, as an American citizen, to compel Obama to prove his constitutional eligibility for the office. Kerchner presents substantial and substantive information on the meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’, and has a right to ask the Judicial branch to agree, disagree, or formally define the term as it is meant in the Constitution.
Stepping back even further, do you think the founders intended to require a battery of lawyers and laws to define ‘natural born citizen’? That defies the whole concept of ‘natural’. It was that clear to them what that meant. And with the exception of Chester Arthur (unknown to the electorate at that time and only recently revealed) and Obama, every President has satisfied this requirement.
I would argue that the concept of ‘natural born citizen’ is so ingrained in us that no one ever expected anyone who didn’t have that qualification to even run for President. No one could believe it, the ‘shock factor’ that would disable his opponents.
Count VII: Ninth Amendment–Rights Reserved v Non-Obama defendants
The Bill of Rights, of which the Ninth Amendment is one, is the people’s enforcement mechanism for the Constitution. The basic rule here is that just because the people enumerated the powers of Congress, Congress could not construe those powers to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.
Thus Kerchner has a right to compel the non-Obama defendants to conduct appropriate Congressional investigations to determine Obama’s eligibility, and if found ineligible, to remove him according to constitutional provisions.
This is where Congress tries to evade its responsibilities by first claiming that no language in the Constitution or its Amendments requires them to vet Obama, and then claims that it has already decided Obama is eligible and that the people have no right to question their representatives.
This is ‘construing the Constitution’ to deny or disparage our existing rights.
Count VIII: Tenth Amendment–Power Reserved v Obama
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Under the Tenth Amendment, Kerchner, as a member of “the people” has a right to compel Obama to prove himself eligible for the position he now occupies. He is under affirmative obligation to prove himself even more so because as the Chief Executive, he is charged with faithfully executing the laws of the Nation.
This charge is possible in part due to the timing of the filing of the lawsuit–at 2:50 am on January 20, 2009. At this point, the ‘process’ had been completed, but he had not yet taken the oath of office. Obama was under affirmative obligation to prove himself, notwithstanding Congress’ failure to do so, as the President elect.
Because Obama took the oath(s) of office, he is now even more duty bound to prove his constitutional eligibility. He is placing the entire Nation at risk, and anyone who continues to defend him or knowingly turns a blind eye to this fact is also complicit in a crime against the United States. This is about National Security, the ultimate of protecting our liberty interests!
Count IX: Tenth Amendment–Power Reserved v Non Obama Defendants
Kerchner asserts the right under the Tenth Amendment to compel Congress to do its job and conduct appropriate hearings under the Twentieth Amendment to determine if Obama is eligible for the Presidency, and to remove him from office using constitutional provisions if found to be ineligible.
The Congress arbitrarily chose to honor the Tenth Amendment rights of some citizens to conduct hearings on John McCain’s eligibility; but arbitrarily chose to ignore other citizens’ concerns about Obama. They ‘pre-determined’ Obama’s so-called eligibility without a shred of evidence; one could argue that the democrats prevented Congress from doing its job under the Twentieth Amendment. The power to compel their activity is a power reserved to the states and the people themselves.
The government’s counter is that Kerchner has no standing to bring a suit, and even if he did, his remedy would require one branch of government (the Judiciary) ordering another branch of government (legislative) to do something, violating the separation of powers doctrine. The government further argues that the Twentieth Amendment is only a ‘ministerial duty’, or ‘optional’, thus relegating Kerchner’s argument to the political question, i.e., take it up with Congress in the next election.
Both of these arguments fall flat on their face both in fact and law. These are not ministerial duties or optional activities of the Congress when their actions are described as ‘shall’:
or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify
Congress, pulling out the Constitution, says, ‘its not in the Constitution that WE had to determine if he was qualified’…once again construing the Constitution to deny or disparage our liberty interests and our reserved rights as citizens.
Count X: Twentieth Amendment
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
By failing to conduct any investigation under the Twentieth Amendment, the Congress failed to assure Kerchner, a military officer, and the American public that Obama was qualified for the office. Thus Kerchner’s liberty interests were once again denied by Congress ‘construing the Twentieth Amendment’ to deny and disparage his rights.
Count XI: Quo Warranto v Obama
The Kerchner charge is simple here: Obama cannot and has not proven himself constitutionally eligible for the Presidency, and that therefore the Court has the power to and should remove him. The ability to file Quo Warranto charges outside of the District of Columbia was deftly explained by Attorney Apuzzo in a November 2009 article:
we must understand that a quo warranto action is a direct attack on an office holder, questioning his qualifications to hold an office and therefore his warrant and authority to occupy that office. It does not challenge any action taken by that person while having been in office. This type of action is to be distinguished from one where the plaintiff brings an indirect attack (collateral attack) against that office holder, arguing that some action taken by him or her is invalid because he or she is not qualified to hold the office from which the action is taken.
The direct attack on the office holder prevents Obama and Congress from using the ‘de facto’ office holder defense, and then moving to state that Kerchner’s claim is a ‘political question’ that can be remedied at the ballot box.
The Quo Warranto is also a remedy to the situation of an unconstitutional Obama. But Obama’s defense claims no remedies are available to satisfy Kerchner, so that denies him standing as well.
Count XII: Declaratory Action–All Defendants
Additional declaratory relief is available to remedy the claims of Kerchner: the court could affirm Kerchner’s rights under the Constitution, offer definition of natural born citizen, and advise whether Congress should ‘be invited to’ conduct an investigation of Obama’s qualifications pursuant to the Court-declared definition of ‘natural born citizen’. Obama will be compelled to provide this information or be removed from office.
Truth and Consequences
There is no escaping the truth now, nor the consequences of this most devastating usurpation of the Presidency of the United States. The truth about Obama has been there, and all the mysterious deaths, break-ins, slam dunk legislation, and disappearance of money now form a trail of crumbs too obvious with too many dots not to connect. Even the most ardent obots can’t ignore this.
The consequences of Obama’s lies, key democrat’s fraud, his multiple violations of the law, and the occupation of the White House despite knowing he was not eligible, have put this country in great danger, and heads need to start rolling now. There is evidence of a conspiracy, laid out so well in the Kerchner filings, and given the 12 counts discussed here, much information that confirms Obama could not have done this alone.
This is not a time to sit back and ‘see what happens’…Obama and his cronies are fighting us now, and they have infiltrated all levels of the government. Keeping the pressure up now calls for continuing your generous support of the Kerchner effort; selective civic actions staged at the Pentagon; the White House; the FBI (Justice Department); major lame stream media headquarters, the Congressional and Senate offices; and certain states demanding an investigation.
Is it now time to stop all government activity and legislation until they do an investigation? Is it not now time for the Republicans to also refuse to do business until Obama is removed from office?
Obama is counting on cowardice, lethargy, continued government silence, and fear. Do not let him have it.