The U.S. Constitution
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson
to William Johnson, 1823
- cfkerchner said…
- The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/federal-courts-are-committing-treason.html The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”Link to the treason quote in case context:
http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpgLink to Case Summary:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0Link to Full Case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Ret)
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
- October 12, 2009 12:49 PM
- December 12, 2009 2:48 AM
- cfkerchner said…
- The concept of a written Constitution, the whole basis and fundamental law of our nation, does not come from English Common Law. England did not have a written Constitution. Thus even the idea of writing a written Constitution, not just what is contained in it, proves that the founders and framers looked elsewhere other than English Common Law for their sources when creating a new form of government, said new form of government and Constitution said by historians to be a revolutionary new type of government and which has become a beacon and example to the rest of the world. The founders and framers did not find the enlightenment for this new form of government and representative Republic form of government with a written constitution in English Common Law.Emer D. Vattel was indeed one of the key sources and in fact was the major source with his scholarly work, “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law”. In that great legal treatise work of his in 1758 he proposes a new form of government, one in which the People are the sovereigns, and a more perfect form of government, and which has a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. This United States of America was a new form of national government the world had not seen before and it did not come from English Common Law. See Vattel’s, Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1, Chapter III, ‘Of the Constitution of a State, and the Duties and Rights of a Nation in that Respect’.CDR Kerchner
- March 12, 2010 1:12 PM
- cfkerchner said…
- What the newly sworn in President George Washington was doing with the legal treatise and reference book “Law of Nations” in New York in 1789. An account from the times.There was a news account recently that President George Washington ‘borrowed’ the legal reference book “Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” and never returned it to the library in New York and now owes a huge past due fine on that book. This new current events story ties into the importance of that book to George Washington and the other founders. Attached is an image and an the account what the new President was doing with the book in 1789 in New York. The new President was found consulting that book by visitors to his office on his first day in office after the inauguration of him in New York in 1789.http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-nations-book-1st-day-in-office.jpgNew York was then the capital of the USA. See attached highlighted section of the history book, This Was New York, The Nation’s Capital in 1789, by Monaghan & Lowenthal, published by Books for Libraries Press of Freeport NY. I have a copy of this rare book. But it can also be viewed online at Google’s book site.The Law of Nations by Vattel is a very important legal treatise and was very important to the founding of our nation. It was first published in 1758. The Law of Nations is mentioned in our Constitution. The “Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” which is its full name was the preeminent legal treatise of the last half of the 1700s and was depended on heavily by the Revolutionary Patriots in the founding of our nation. Benjamin Franklin cited that it was being heavily used during the Constitutional Conventions when he received three new copies of the newest circa 1775 edition from the editor Dumas in Europe. And John Jay the 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court cited it often. This legal book was cited many times by the various U.S. Supreme Courts in the 1800s and much of it became the common law of our land via Supreme Court decisions citing the wisdom conveyed in this book. And it is this legal treatise by Vattel which defines who the “natural” citizens are, i.e., the “natural born Citizens” of a country, i.e., a person born in the country to two citizen parents of that country. This was the law of nature and Vattel codified it in his book Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. This book was the source of the wisdom which prompted John Jay to write to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, and request that the requirement of “natural born Citizenship” be put into the new Constitution as an eligibility standard for the office of the President and commander of the military, for future holders of that office after the original generation past, to minimize any chances of foreign influences on that singular most powerful office in our new nation. The founders and framers in their wisdom anticipated the day would come when a citizen of the world funded by foreign money would attempt to take over America. That day has come. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA. He was born a subject of Great Britain. He is not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military for exactly the reasons John Jay stated to George Washington in the summer of 1787. Obama is a Usurper in the Oval Office.CDR Charles Kerchner
- April 19, 2010 10:17 AM
- cfkerchner said…
- Indeed, Natural Law and The Law of Nations was the guiding legal work of that era for the founders of our nation to unify the newly freed sovereign states.The 13 original colonies were free and independent sovereign states. The only set of guidance which could unite free and independent sovereign states were the Laws of Nature which are universal truths and as codified in the legal treatise by Emer de Vattel in his legal book, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. The founders looked to Natural Law and the Law of Nations to unify the 13 free and independent states, not to English Common Law which they just threw off. It’s silly that people think our U.S. Constitution was based on English Common Law. How could the common law of one nation, a nation the colonies just rejected, be used to unite 13 newly freed and independent states, each with their own constitutions and laws of citizenship. No to accomplish that, the founders and framers looked to universal law to unite the colony states and form a new more perfect union in the U.S. Constitution. The framers and founders where quite well versed in the Law of Nations and that is what they used to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA.Here are just a few examples of some key founders and framers who depended on Vattel’s “The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law” to guide them in setting up a new form of federal government the likes of which the world had never seen before, and which became a beacon to the rest of the world for centuries.Benjamin Franklin used Vattel’s Law of Nations:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.htmlGeorge Washington used Vattel’s Law of Nations:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/george-washington-consulted-legal.htmlAnd of course, Thomas Jefferson used Vattel’s Law of Nations:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/thomas-jefferson-founder-of-our-nation.htmlThe truth and real facts and the universal truth of our U.S. Constitution will win the day in the end. Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards because his father was not a U.S. Citizen and thus Obama was born with dual citizenship. That is not what the framers intended and what Vattel wrote about who is a “natural born Citizen”. Obama will be removed as being a Usurper.CDR Kerchner
“John Quincy”mockingly wrote in the WND forum:
- How very convenient for you that only in Article 2 does “citizen” mean “subject”, while elsewhere it has its usual meaning. That only in Art 2 must “citizen” be interpreted within the context of English common law.
Are there other places in the Constitution where words have other than their usual meaning? Do tell.Perhaps “nor shall private property be taken for public use” in Amend 7 really doesn’t mean what it plainly says. Oh, that’s right, the Supreme Court told me that “public use” actually means “private use” – nevermind that “public” and “private” are utter opposites – it’s ok, a judge said so so it must be so, -as long as there is “public benefit” due to increased tax revenue: “public use” equals “private use”. But does “public use” really equal “private use”? No. And everyone knows it – regardless of what any robed charlatan proclaims.
Such perversion of language removes the shackles of the Constitution from the government.
There is no good purpose served by twisting other meanings from the usual meaning of words.
The words “natural born citizen” have their usual meaning – Art 2, Sec 1, Cl 5 is self evident.
Flat-earth eligibility theorists, such as yourself, adhere to error even when shown the error. You would prefer to sail off the edge of the earth than admit truth.
Plessy’s requirements were wrong, Kelo is wrong, WKA is wrong. Judges are human – they make mistakes. Judge Gray has been shown to be in error. Error is forgivable. Adhering to error is an abomination.