What Fresh Hell Is This?

December 1, 2010

Update From Teh Crazie Birther Front

From CNN:
The Supreme Court has again cast aside an appeal that raised doubts about President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a grass-roots legal issue that has gained little legal or political footing, but continues to persist in the courts.

The justices without comment Monday rejected a challenge from Charles Kerchner Jr., a Pennsylvania man who sought a trial in federal court forcing the president to produce documents regarding his birth and citizenship.
And:
Kerchner, a retired military officer who describes himself on his website as a "genetic genealogy pioneer," argues the framers of the 1789 document intended a "natural-born" citizen to mean someone born in the U.S. to parents who were both American citizens.
Needless to say, teh crazies are still pounding away at this "argument":
"I don't think the court helped heal the country," said Mario Apuzzo, the New Jersey attorney who argued the case on behalf of retired Navy CDR Charles Kerchner. "We still don't know Mr. Obama's status. … The court is supposed to take cases that are important, and I can't imagine a case more important than this one."

"You need justice to resolve conflicts between people, and when justice is denied people continue to go after each other in a savage way. We did not get justice, " Apuzzo told WND. "For the court to deny our justice sets the country back terribly."
And from Kerchner himself:
"This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn't," wrote Kerchner Monday morning. "Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else."

"Now it is far worse," Kerchner continued. "The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken."
But this is the part I lo-o-o-o-ve!:
Kerchner v. Obama argued that Mr. Obama is not a "natural born citizen," which article II, section 1 of the constitution requires any U.S. president to be. According to Swiss political theorist Emer de Vattel, whose writings heavily influenced the founding fathers, an American "natural born citizen" must be the child of two parents who were both American citizens. Mr. Obama's father was a British subject, a Kenyan student living temporarily in the United States.
Never mind that the Constitution says nothing about the parentage of a citizen. Here's Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Since when does the wingnut right take the word of a foreigner when it comes to interpreting the US Constitution?

Birther Crazie.

6 comments:

EdHeath said...

What will be interesting is whether the House actually holds hearings on Obama's citizenship/birth status. My guess is they won't, but if things get bad gridlock-wise, all bets are off.

Obama might face impeachment in the House on the grounds of BPWBB - Being Presdient While Being Black.

Pgh_Knight said...

I find it hard to believe that any serious political candidate would be elected to the presidency without the proper documentation.

That said, your 14th Amendment argument is a red herring. That is not applicable to Article 2 Section 1.

gtl said...

However you choose to look at it, Knight, ....If the State of Hawaii issued Barack H. Obama a birth certificate, what other proof is needed to declare him a "natural born citizen?"

Dayvoe said...

Did we already know that Pgh Knight was a birther?

I forget.

Pgh_Knight said...

gtl: I agree.

Dayvoe: I am not, but your 14th Amendment argument is still a red herring.

Pgh_Knight said...

oh, BTW...


I found it telling that you attempted to insult me rather address my critique of your argument.