NJ Obama eligibility case to be heard IN PUBLIC
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/05/26 18:42:23
|
|
|||||
|
89 votes
|
|
64% | |||
|
34 votes
|
|
25% | |||
|
15 votes
|
|
11% | |||
The three-judge panel set to hear an Obama eligibility appeal in New Jersey have changed their minds. They will hear it in public, not over the telephone as they first ordered.
Oral argument in person
Attorney Mario Apuzzo announced
the change of plan yesterday. Apuzzo represents Nicholas E. Purpura
(Wall Township) and Ted Moran (Toms River) in their lawsuit against the
putative President. (Purpura and Moran v. Obama.)
Judges Clarkson S. Fischer, Jr., Linda G. Baxter, and Philip Carchman
will hear the oral argument on Wednesday, May 30, 2012, at 1:00 p.m.
Judge Carchman at first ordered that the argument take place by
telephone. Instead, the court will sit in a regular courtroom and hear
arguments before the public.
The session will take place at:
Superior Court of New Jersey
Hughes Justice Complex
25 W Market Street, 5th Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625-0006
Apuzzo said that he wants as many New Jersey citizens as possible to
attend the argument, “so [they] can learn first-hand” what the Obama
eligibility case is all about.
Obama eligibility issues
Mario Apuzzo walks toward the Office of Administrative Law with his two clients. Photo: CNAV.
On May 18, 2012, Apuzzo filed this brief and appendix
in his Obama eligibility case. Barack Obama’s attorneys were due to
file their response yesterday. Apuzzo did not say whether they had done
so or not.
Former Navy Commander Charles Kerchner points out that US law defines five kinds of citizen. He also quotes Apuzzo in distinguishing between citizen at birth and natural born citizen. The two are not the same. One is a subset of the other. Or as Apuzzo puts it:
Trees are plants, but not all plants are trees.
The point: a natural born citizen is one born in-country to two parents, both of whom were citizens when the child was born. Natural law, not positive (man-made) law, defines this phrase. Citizen at birth is a positive-law concept; it means whatever any country wants it to mean, when it wants.
Purpura and Moran have always argued that:
- Barack H. Obama has still not shown where he was born or even who he is.
- Even if he were born in-country, he cannot be a natural born citizen. The reason: his father was a British colonial subject.
For a map of Trenton marking the address of the Hughes building, see this article.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/05/26...
Top Opinion
-
Arya 2012/05/26 19:09:05Great! Now a court will hear this out in the open.
he was foreigner, exchange student & so Obama can't hold office of the President
because he is not natural born citizen.
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
this is to stupid. hey morons the az sec of state recieved the cert from hawaii, or do you not believe the hawaii is a state. he has looked at it and determent it to real and genuine.
and he is a birther.
Second, this case is not about whether he was born in Hawaii. This lawsuit claims that because his father was a foreign national, he cannot be a "natural born" citizen. http://www.scribd.com/doc/174...
I'm not arguing whether they are correct or not, but it will be interesting to see the result of the case, and whether we end up with a more clear-cut definition of "natural born citizen" afterwards.
so there fore you point is dead and moot. you people are wrong admit and move on.
get rid of this racist birther crap and move on to more important issues.
by the way his mother was an american and born in the us to an american mother
makes him american. this case is dead because it is a fraud at best. it is kept alive
by the idiots that listen to know one. they would be allowed to see the document itself
and then call it a fraud. idiots to the end.
"Late yesterday, our office received the 'verification in-lieu of certified copy' from officials within the Hawaii Department of Health that we requested in March," Bennett wrote. "They have officially confirmed that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for the President matches the original record in their files."
Source: http://politicalticker.blogs....
And the issue has nothing to do with race, it's a mere matter of Constitutional eligibility to the office of President. If a lily white guy was born in Hawaii to a US citizen mother, and a British citizen from London, I'd the the same exact issue with that guy becoming President.
and you are wrong again regarding the constitution, you talking what people's opinion is rather than how the document reads. if the guy was white nobody would
even bring this issue up and you know this.
Calling me stupid is merely an ad hominem fallacy and thus does not help your case.
And I personally would bring this up no matter what the race of the individual is. And so would others. People were questioning McCain's birth as well. I guarantee that had he won, we'd be talking about his eligibility (and he actually does meet the qualifications for natural born).
a dead issue.
number 2 i live in this state and you do not, so please do not even come close to telling me what is going on in state that i have lived in for 42 years.
and you have not.
number 3 nobody has ever questioned mccains birth so do not even go there.
this is racist and you simply will not admit it.
number 4 read the constitution and i mean the real document not what others
believe it should say. those are my four points. sorry to call you stupid but in
this stupid childish issue there are no other words to confer on birthers other than that. these are people that can not even discuss any other issue other
than birther talk, not the economy or war or debt or anything else.
so these are my last words on this subject, you may have the last word if you wish. if you can talk regarding other issues than i will reply but birther nonsense is a no go.
Number 2, It's irrelevant whether you live there. I'm going off of information that was printed in public papers. I already pasted a quote and the link to it. You've given nothing but hearsay.
Number 3, yes, people DID question McCain's birth because he was born at the Panama Canal. http://voices.washingtonpost....
Number 4, I've read the Constitution MANY times. And it says quite clearly that you must be a "natural born citizen" unless you were one of the people who was here when the nation was formed... The definition of natural born is left undefined, but it's been defined in other places.
Finally, I'm not a "birther". I started this by saying that I was not arguing whether he was born in the US or not, but that this is not what this case is in regards to. It is in regards to whether he qualifies as "natural born".
And I talk about the economy, war, debt, frequently in other threads.
not birther nonsense, i am game, but that could be a first, a birther
debating an issue other than birther talk. i have siad before and i will say again, birther talk is complete and total stupidity, it is a non issue.
therefore why debate stupidity, there are other issues out there that are a million times more important.
Of course, if you wish to debate me, you will refrain from ad hominem attacks against me. I have not insulted you, and I expect the same courtesy.
and one can debate in any forum on this website.
as far the birther crap goes you are probably right but the birther talk is so stupid and nonsensical it drive me crazy.
single issue people i have little or no patience for.
If I understand this argument it suggests there are many types of citizens...those born inside the US with 2 citizen parents, those born inside the US with 1 citizen parent, those born outside the US with 2 citizen parents, those born outside the US with 1 citizen parent, and naturalized citizens.
IMO, the founders wrote two documents related to this question; first and most critical is the Constitution. The Constitution identifies two types of US Citizens, Natural Born and Naturalized. It is mute on the other types of citizenship this argument suggests. The writer of this post would have us believe this was an oversight...but I would suggest not. Didn't many of those same founders contribute to the Declaration of Independence which say "all men are created equal". If we further read the Constitution, it is quite clear that the founders were trying to eliminate preferences based on birth rights. They saw, however, a risk that European nobility would try to take control of this democracy...so they prevented 1st generation immigrants from holding the office of President.
So bottom line...IMO there are two types of citizen; Natural Born and Naturalized. ...
If I understand this argument it suggests there are many types of citizens...those born inside the US with 2 citizen parents, those born inside the US with 1 citizen parent, those born outside the US with 2 citizen parents, those born outside the US with 1 citizen parent, and naturalized citizens.
IMO, the founders wrote two documents related to this question; first and most critical is the Constitution. The Constitution identifies two types of US Citizens, Natural Born and Naturalized. It is mute on the other types of citizenship this argument suggests. The writer of this post would have us believe this was an oversight...but I would suggest not. Didn't many of those same founders contribute to the Declaration of Independence which say "all men are created equal". If we further read the Constitution, it is quite clear that the founders were trying to eliminate preferences based on birth rights. They saw, however, a risk that European nobility would try to take control of this democracy...so they prevented 1st generation immigrants from holding the office of President.
So bottom line...IMO there are two types of citizen; Natural Born and Naturalized. Hawaii has stated and Arizona has accepted that Obama was born in Hawaii. If NJ wants to dispute Hawaiian records, it may do so in the Supreme Court....as for a NJ Court attempting to hear arguments about "classes of citizenship" that is simply not the courts jurisdiction. Why is it wasting everybodies time?
http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
The proper process was that pursued by the Secretary of State in Az. The Secretary of State asked the State of Hawaii to certify that Obama was a citizen of Hawaii. Upon receipt of this certification, the Az Secretary of State had two choices, 1) Question the legitimacy of Hawaii's records and ask the Supreme Court to intervene, or 2) Accept Hawaii's assertion.
The State of NJ is free to pursue the same process....conducting a hearing where an citizen sues the President simply ignore due process as defined by the Constitution.
The bottom line....what you believe is irrelevant unless you have standing to bring a lawsuit that will change reality. .... and I don't believe you do.
We call them hatriots.