Tweet
Eligibility Attorney: An Image on a Computer Screen Does not Satisfy “Rules of Evidence”
“YOU HAVE TO AUTHENTICATE A DOCUMENT”
The Post & Email
by Sharon Rondeau
2/9/2017
Excerpt:
(Feb. 9, 2017) — In Part I of The Post & Email’s recent interview with Atty. Mario Apuzzo, he discussed an opinion by a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued in response to his lawsuit alleging that Barack Hussein Obama had not proved his constitutional eligibility to serve as president and commander-in-chief.
Apuzzo, who filed Kerchner, et al v. Obama, et al, in the early hours of Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009, was not the first attorney to challenge Obama’s eligibility. In late August 2008, Atty. Philip Berg filed suit in Pennsylvania alleging that evidence showed that Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii, as he claimed, rendering him ineligible for the presidency.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen.” Because the Framers did not provide a detailed description of what they believed the term of art to mean at the time the Constitution was written, proceeding generations have debated the matter, which still lacks a definitive ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
While some believe that a birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to qualify as a “natural born Citizen,” others believe that the term conveys a higher standard of citizenship extending to the person’s parents.
In a letter to Constitutional Convention president George Washington penned on July 25, 1787, the future first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote:
.................................................. .............................
View the complete article, including image, links and comments, at:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/02/...s-of-evidence/
“YOU HAVE TO AUTHENTICATE A DOCUMENT”
The Post & Email
by Sharon Rondeau
2/9/2017
Excerpt:
(Feb. 9, 2017) — In Part I of The Post & Email’s recent interview with Atty. Mario Apuzzo, he discussed an opinion by a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued in response to his lawsuit alleging that Barack Hussein Obama had not proved his constitutional eligibility to serve as president and commander-in-chief.
Apuzzo, who filed Kerchner, et al v. Obama, et al, in the early hours of Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009, was not the first attorney to challenge Obama’s eligibility. In late August 2008, Atty. Philip Berg filed suit in Pennsylvania alleging that evidence showed that Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii, as he claimed, rendering him ineligible for the presidency.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen.” Because the Framers did not provide a detailed description of what they believed the term of art to mean at the time the Constitution was written, proceeding generations have debated the matter, which still lacks a definitive ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
While some believe that a birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to qualify as a “natural born Citizen,” others believe that the term conveys a higher standard of citizenship extending to the person’s parents.
In a letter to Constitutional Convention president George Washington penned on July 25, 1787, the future first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
.................................................. .............................
View the complete article, including image, links and comments, at:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/02/...s-of-evidence/