The case was brought by Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. It names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Apuzzo told WND that Congress last year raised the issue of whether McCain was a "natural born" citizen, a requirement set out in the U.S. Constitution for the president, because of his birth to U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone.
According to a report in the Washington Post, the Senate unanimously declared McCain to be a "natural born" citizen, meeting the demand of Article 2 of the Constitution, which states, "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president."
The report, however, pointed out that such a statement was opinion only, and the constitutional question actually isn't so simple. It quoted Catholic University associate law professor Sarah Duggin saying the document is ambiguous.
"Ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution," she told the newspaper, saying a constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would be the way to reach a determination.
However, even though his clients wrote to Congress requesting a similar review of Obama's birthplace, they were refused.
"The question is: Why do you do it for McCain, but not Obama," Apuzzo told WND.
More specifically, those who doubted McCain's eligibility had an opportunity for a review but not those who doubt Obama.
That violates a liberty right for his clients, he said, because as members of a republic, they have a right to know that their president is legitimate.
"What I'm arguing is that Congress and President Obama have violated my clients' due process under Article 5 [of the U.S. Constitution] ," Apuzzo said.
Already; Congress held a responsibility to make certain Obama is qualified for the post, he alleges. And the public outcry, evidenced by the dozens of lawsuits over the issue, should have prompted due diligence on the part of members of Congress, he said.
Obama, meanwhile, has refused to hand over "sufficient documents" to verify his "natural born" status, Apuzzo said.
He said the Constitution specifically raises the scenario of a president who has been chosen for office but has failed to qualify.
"Even though you ran, everybody loves you, you still have got to qualify under the Constitution," Apuzzo said.
Further, the lawsuit explains, not only are there legitimate questions about Obama's birth, and therefore eligibility, he might not even be a U.S. citizen at all.
"There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien," the lawsuit said. "Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States. [Further], Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen at the time of Obama's birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his father."
The lawsuits over Obama's eligibility, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "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."
No comments:
Post a Comment