The "Certificate of Live Birth" document released by the White House today, if authentic, assures Americans that their president was born in Hawaii as he has said, according to two participants in a lawsuit who challenged the president's tenure in the Oval Office.
But they say it also proves he's ineligible under the Constitution's requirements to be president.
According to Mario Apuzzo, the attorney who argued the Kerchner vs. Obama case, and the lead plaintiff, retired Navy Cmdr. Charles Kerchner, the documentation reveals that Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, was the father when Barack Obama Jr. was born.
That, they say, would disqualify Obama because of the Founders' requirement in the Constitution that a president be a "natural born Citizen," commonly understood during the era of the beginnings of the United States to mean a citizen offspring of two citizen parents.
The Kerchner vs. Obama case, as have some others, challenged Obama on two grounds: that he had not proven his U.S. birth and that even if that was documented, he stilled needed to meet the requirements of being a "natural born Citizen."
"They are going to have to face the music on this at some point," said Kerchner, whose allegations never were decided on their merits after the courts created a roadblock by determining Americans don't have "standing" to demand the Constitution's requirements be followed.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo agreed.
"Assuming that it's valid, that he's born in Hawaii," he said, "It confirms who his father was. His father was not a citizen."
He said in American jurisprudence "there is not one case that says being born to an alien parent creates a natural born citizen."
But Apuzzo said the White House simply wants to ignore the Constitution's demand.
"It doesn't say born," he said. "They want to steamroll over 'natural born.'"
He said the problem, however, is getting a court to decide the dispute he raised. The seven or eight dozen cases brought so far largely have been turned back without a review of their actual merits.
Courts decided that plaintiffs don't have "standing," or an injury or possible injury from a violation of the U.S. Constitution, so the cases are thrown out.
Apuzzo said, however, with the flood of state proposals being considered at the legislative level, at some point a law specifically will give a plaintiff standing, and then a dispute could be argued in the state courts.
Kerchner also said it is inevitable that the courts will have to make a ruling on the arguments.
"The legal definition of the legal term of art will have to be litigated because of all the confusion that Obama and the Progressive/Socialists have introduced into that term," he told WND. "It will take a Supreme Court decision, a congressional investigation and hearing under oath, or both, to settle it. I gave the Congress the chance and asked for congressional investigations. They ignored me. I sue[d] Obama and the Congress and the courts ducked the issue. But they are going to have to face the music on this at some point."
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292441#ixzz1KlyDr0q0
