Saturday, November 27, 2010

The Vattel Theory - A Writ of Certiorari

Is the U.S. Constitution the legitimate fundamental law of America? Or has it gone the way of all law when Government corruption prevails? We may now finally see what the Supremes have to say.

By de Andréa
I told you, this is not going away folks… And I bet you didn’t see ‘this’ on the front page of the NY Times.

The blatant violations of Federal and Constitutional law have become S.O.P. in this administration. Why… because the entire Obama administration is founded on criminal fraud. Will this finally be the case that will bring the Obama regime down?

The Supreme Court conferred on November 21, 2010 on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of the New Jersey Kerchner v. Obama case. This is one of the more than 50 cases challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the legal precedent of the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were ‘both’ American citizens. That leaves me out; my mother was not a legal citizen when I was born.

"This case of presidential eligibility is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we have presented an ironclad case.”

We've 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. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else, it is "undisputed fact" that Obama's father was a British subject." Apuzzo said.

The most important part of this suit is that it would grant full disclosure. Obama would be required to disclose all of his documents under the discovery statute. This requires defense attorneys to disclose all documents of the defendant to the court and the plaintiff’s attorney.

The discovery statute is what is keeping Obama from court martialing all those soldiers that refused direct orders on the bases that Obama is not the legitimate Commander in Chief. He would have to prove that he was.

“A hearing on the merits is also a death knell because it would allow ‘discovery’ so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, we don't know what that would show. 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, because he's never been naturalized. We don't even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, so far that's hearsay. We have not seen the root documents.” said Apuzzo.

Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that the discovery order alone would sink Obama's presidency.

"If one court had the guts to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office," Berg said. "We would ask for a lift of Obama's ban on all of his documents, ‘full disclosure’. 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 don't spend 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 eligibility case," Berg added. "If the Supreme Court would decide to hear the case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear the case, Obama would be out of office on the Discovery Statute alone. 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 while living in Switzerland, "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 already addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. Moreover, 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 Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.

Apuzzo also cites the writings 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 decided that 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 constitutionality that would be ridiculous." Then who can…

"My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president," said Apuzzo. "Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients."

Apuzzo said “The founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen. They 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."

THE BOTTOM LINE: If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case or force the New Jersey Federal trial court to hear the case on its own merits no matter what they may be, Obama is toast because of the discovery statute. If Obama had a legal American birth certificate he would have disclosed it along time ago rather than spend 2 million of his own American dollars worth of Federal Reserve Play Money in lawyer fees and bribery payments to cover it up. Or maybe it wasn’t even his own money. Where would he get that much money to throw away?

Can you just imagine the heads that will roll in the State of Hawaii as well as in the Washington Kremlin when, oops, they can’t come up with the goods. Which begs the question of how much ‘mordida’ has been spread around in the Federal Justice system to stone wall this case?

‘Oh’ yeah! Just how far up the ladder does this corruption go??? You guessed it, all the way to the top. The buck stops in the oval office of what has become the U.S. Kremlin. Or the Grand Mosque of the 12th Caliphate I’m not sure which.

Oh boy! I would love to see some Beltway heads roll on this one…

de Andréa

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel, a Swiss philosopher who recommended that every country establish its own state religion, and not the common use of Natural Born at the time, which came from the British common law and the laws of the American colonies.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT),

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)