Obama’s ‘natural born’ problem persists

By Linda Bentley | July 8, 2009

Federal sovereign immunity is a defense to liability not a right to be free from trial

CAMDEN, N.J. – Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., CDR USNR Retired, the lead plaintiff in a pending lawsuit against President Barack Hussein Obama and Congress in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, placed a full-page educational ad in the Monday, June 6 edition of the Washington Times calling Obama a usurper and containing an explanation by his Attorney Mario Apuzzo why Obama is not an Article II “natural born” citizen and, therefore, not eligible to be President of the United States.

If Obama’s father is who Obama claims he was in his book “Dreams from my Father,” then Obama was a British subject at birth, as he has also admitted.

Because Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, an immigrant or a permanent resident alien but a citizen of Kenya, which was under British rule at the time of Obama’s birth, depending upon where Obama was born, he was either a British citizen or a dual national at birth. In either event, he does not qualify under the “natural born” citizen requirement to be President.

According to “The Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, Section 212, “natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

Apuzzo states, “Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship from birth only for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group.”

He said, “It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences, which, because of conflict of conscience, can most certainly taint his critical decisions made while leading the nation.”

Apuzzo says it’s also important to understand naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and, by law, changes that alien’s birth status.

Naturalization, by legal definition, requires sole allegiance to the United States, recreates the individual as though he were born a citizen but only does it by law and not by nature.
“This is the reason the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a ‘citizen’ of the United States and not a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States,” said Apuzzo.

In conclusion, he stated, “The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of survival of the Constitutional Republic, the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free from foreign influence and intrigue. It is the ‘natural born citizen’ clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come.

American people do not have the constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.”

The defendants in Kerchner’s case filed a motion to dismiss, citing the plaintiffs lack subject matter jurisdiction and standing while claiming the congressional defendants are immune from suit via sovereign immunity, absolute immunity and qualified immunity.

Apuzzo noted in his blog update, “The defendants took over four months to file their motion. I was only given two weeks to respond. Given the critical importance of this case, the complexity and novelty of the constitutional issues, and the need to do a thorough job, I sought fit to request a two-week extension of time to answer the defendants' motion to dismiss,” adding, “I realize that by the extension we are losing two weeks, but winning the motion is more important than not losing the two weeks.”

The issue of sovereign immunity, which was also asserted by the Department of Justice in its motion to dismiss the warrantless wiretapping case Jewel v. NSA, should prove to be interesting.

Sovereign immunity is apparently an unwritten carryover from early English law and has been used in an array of situations with rulings that vary widely. However, as some legal sources note, federal sovereign immunity is a defense to liability not a right to be free from trial.

In granting defendants additional time to respond, Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider stated, “Plaintiffs’ complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests,” leaving an impression his court may actually get to the merits of the case.

Kerchner is requesting financial assistance for this lawsuit, asking interested parties to contact:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Ave.
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
e-mail: apuzzo@erols.com
Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com