One of the many cases brought against Barack Obama challenging his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States has a U.S. Magistrate, Judge Joel Schneider of Camden, N.J. describing the dispute as a “serious” constitutional issue. The Judge is now adding letters of comment from the public to the court record.
The report of this action by Judge Joel Schneider is made by Attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the Kerchner vs. Obama case, which Apuzzo filed in January, 2009.
Attorney Apuzzo filed the lawsuit, naming as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Dick Cheney.
This case alleges failure of the Congress to follow the Constitution, stating that the Constitution “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”
“There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified,”
The suit further says “Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them,” continuing with, the defendants “violated” the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements,”
“Plaintiffs’ complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests. Given the high ranking positions of the defendants, the decision as to who will represent them in this case is not simple and straightforward,” the Judge indicating that this is indeed serious enough he feels that Obama, the Congress, the Senate, the House, Pelosi and the rest need sufficient time to get their representation lined up.
Before and after the election there were dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some questioned whether he was actually born in Hawaii If he wasn’t and was born out of the country, then the lawsuit asserts that Obama’s mother was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law in effect at the time.
Other suits were focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan, subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, making him a dual citizen. Those cases contend the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, still other lawsuits question his citizenship based upon his attendance in Indonesian schools, at which time his school registration records indicate Indonesian citizenship [religion Muslim?], all this during his childhood. In later years there is the question – on what passport did he travel to Pakistan? If it was the Indonesian passport, Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship [2006 Indonesia enacted a law which allows for children of mixed nationality parents to hold “dual citizenship”, they can then apply for citizenship] prior to 2006, any child of an Indonesian father, natural or adopted, is Indonesian.
Indonesia law is that the child’s nationality/citizenship “follows” the father. If the mother were Indonesian and the father foreign born, upon divorce or separation, the child would become the nationality/citizen of the fathers country, and the Indonesian mother was/is required to apply for a Visa each year allowing her child to stay with her in the country. If there had been any question that Obama was not an Indonesian citizen, he would not have been granted an Indonesian passport with which he travelled back to that country 30 years ago. Again, this would indicate that if Obama travelled to Indonesia on an Indonesian passport, he was [and would still be] an Indonesian citizen.
Increasing the suspicion is Obama’s obstinate refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of so many lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. Although his supporters cite a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, this should not be confused with a “Birth Certificate”. The first simply acknowledges that the baby was a “live birth”, not that the baby was born in the state of Hawaii. Most critics point out the “Certification of Live Birth” actually was issued for children not born in the state.
Quoting a state official, Hawaiian Health Director Chiyome Fukino, “I, and Dr. Alvin Onaka have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” So, does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it simply generated after the Obama family registered a foreign birth in Hawaii?
Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, to further confuse the issue has indicated two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama might have been born.
So the questions remain: Is Obama a natural born citizen? If so, why hasn’t documentation been provided? There is the possibility it is simply another “ploy”, a “distraction” to occupy those who desperately want Obama out of the oval office, to waste their time, their resources, their money and most importantly, their credibility. If he forces the American people to sue him just to get the verification that the Constitution requires, he shows his contempt for not only the Constitution, but also for the people of the United States, ALL the people he is supposed to represent. After all, he is not the president JUST for those that voted for him, he is supposed to be everyone’s president, whether we voted for him or not, whether he likes us or not.