Indeed, Obama has no right to the Office of President and Commander in Chief. He can only occupy that office at the pleasure, discretion, and option of the People which includes the Kerchner petitioners. And the Kerchner petitioners, showing that both Congress and the Executive have failed to protect them and their individual rights guaranteed to them under the U.S. Constitution and in their effort to therefore protect themselves, have every right to take their claims to a court of law for the purpose of enforcing their personal and individual right to that protection. ~Mario Apuzzo
The central argument used by Obama’s legal defense to prevent questions of his eligibility from reaching the discovery phase revolves around whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring a question before the court, and if the court has the jurisdiction to hear the case. Whether the court has jurisdiction to take a question depends in part upon whether the plaintiffs have presented specific evidence that the injury claimed is ‘concrete and particularized’.
This is the first question presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari submitted by Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Commander Kerchner, which has been distributed to the Justices for conference on November 23:
The Standing Question
Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated its case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.
Obama’s defense team has repeatedly tried to focus on the first part of this precisely articulated question for the Supreme Court. That is, they have tried to isolate ‘standing’ from the context of the case–the Fifth Amendment and equal protection violations by Obama and Congress inflicted upon Commander Kerchner and co-plaintiffs by not assuring Obama is a natural born citizen. Arguing ‘standing’ in the abstract is a straw man argument.
Blocking Kerchner through the standing argument also has prevented addressing the charge that Obama is not a natural born citizen, even if he was born in Hawaii, which is the second question presented to the Court. This is the issue that must be resolved, but can’t be in the Court unless the standing issue is resolved.
So, the question is how to knock the stuffing out of the straw man and reconvene as adults in the Court room where the merits of the case are considered?
The Constitution Protects Individual Rights
The essence of the response to the issue of standing is that the Constitution protects each individual person’s unalienable rights, not the ‘collective whole’ or of the majority. The Constitution recognizes these rights are concrete and real and are in need of protection from government abuses.
In an analysis of Daniel Webster’s writings, Apuzzo notes that a fundamental part of a self-governing people is the right to define the qualifications for office:
…the People have a right to establish qualifications for their elected officials before they may occupy any such office, for such office is “the free gift of the people.” He explains that no man has a right to an office, for the office is granted at the pleasure of the People to those in whom they feel “confidence” and with whom they share a feeling of “good-will” because they believe that person to be both fit and qualified for that office…
“No man has a right to an office” seems to eliminate the idea that the Constitution means “equal opportunity without regard to qualification”
Here is no right of office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for office…
He also explains that qualifications for office are for the safety and security of the individual and the nation as a whole. He believes that such qualifications should be retained in the constitution agreed upon by the People so as to provide to them the maximum protection.
In the Construction of Article II Section 1, the terms ‘natural born Citizen’, and ‘Citizen of the United States’ were used; the Fourteenth Amendment uses ‘citizen of the United States’. If these words did not have specific meaning, they would not have been used. This is supported by a careful reading of the history of the Constitution and the development of our Nation. From Commander Kerchner’s research a plethora of information supporting the plain reading of the Constitution and meaning of its words and phrases arise:
...The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition…
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;… — Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).
Thus, when we consider the history of the construction of Article II, Section 1, understand that we exercised the right to define the requirements of the President such as would best affect the safety and security of the individual and the nation as a whole. John Jay was instrumental in advising George Washington of the need to insulate the office of the President from foreign influence.
It is Commander Kerchner’s right, and our right, to have a person in the President’s position who meets the qualifications specified by the people–especially in the Presidency. From the Petition:
Petitioners cannot rely on Obama, who was born with dual and conflicting allegiances to protect them as a “natural born Citizen” would.
Indeed, what evidence at all do we have that Obama is meeting our safety and security needs individually or as a Nation? He is behaving as a person with multiple
personalities allegiances who can’t make up his mind which citizen he wants to be.
Standing Affirmed by the Constitution
The constitution has specified particular requirements for the office of the president that have specific meaning, and which we the people deemed necessary to protect our individual rights to life, liberty, security, happiness, and property. Ensuring that
When Congress failed to ensure that Obama was a ‘natural born citizen’, yet ‘verified’ John McCain’s status as a natural born citizen, Kerchner’s Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights were violated. These rights were violated again when Congress failed to qualify Obama under Article II, Section I, and the Twentieth Amendment.
These injuries are particularized and concrete especially when seen within the context of the constitutional question being presented.
Kerchner deftly requested the Court to take judicial notice of the case of LTC Terry Lakin, adding another example of a concrete, particular injury resulting to an individual–and our armed forces– from Obama’s ineligibility. The impact of deployment by illegal orders would violate his own oath to the Constitution. Failing to report his specific concerns would be dereliction of duty.
Intending to break the chain of command by trying LTC Lakin only with respect to the Pentagon will result in Court Martial and hard labor.
A Rarefied Moment in History
The Kerchner case is so fundamental to the basis of our Constitution and our liberties, unalienable rights… that one is left speechless, or typeless as the case may be. Lives are at stake, the Constitution hanging by a thread, and courage is in short supply in the Judiciary.
We need to write the end of this story, as a reader here suggested, and let the good guys win.
Commander Kerchner and Attorney Apuzzo return to Revolution Radio Wednesday, November 17, 9pm eastern. Join us for a very interesting discussion!