ARGUES IN KERCHNER VS. OBAMA APPELLEE BRIEF THAT U.S. CONSTITUTION IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND
Legal Analysis by John Charlton
(March 9, 2010) — Many U.S. Citizens have not awakened to the fact that the U.S.A. is no longer a Constitutional Republic, but a tyrannical state, overthrown from the very day Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath of office to the ineligible candidate, Barack Hussein Obama II.
Those in denial of this bitter political reality need look no further for the evidence of the paradigm shift in the minds of lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice than the opposition brief filed by Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Paul J. Fishman, U.S. Attorney, and Mark B. Stern and Eric Fleisig-Green, of the Appellate Staff Division of the DoJ, before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Kerchner et al. vs. Obama & Congress.
The core of the Department of Justice’s argument manifests in the clearest terms that they no longer hold the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, but rather consider it merely as a theoretical construct, the violation of which harms no one in particular, on pp. 9-10 (Bold Face added):
Plaintiffs suggest that their injuries are analogous to those of states affected by global warming or individuals injured by government displays of religion. See Pl. Br. 39 (citing cases). But none of plaintiffs’ cited cases suggests that a mere interest in the proper application of the law, unaccompanied by more concrete consequences particular to a plaintiff, can serve as the basis of Article III standing. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007) (reinforcing that under Article III “a litigant must demonstrate that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent”); Suhre v. Haywood County, 131 F.3d 1083, 1086 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[A] mere abstract objection to unconstitutional conduct is not sufficient to confer standing.”) (cited at Pl. Br. 39).
As a sworn upholder of the Constitution, Commander Kerchner is no longer a private citizen-per-se, but a Constitutional officer who is bound to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Considering that Obama holds foreign citizenship and has used his claim to U.S. Citizenship to enter into an office for which he is not eligible by the mere fact of holding British Citizenship from birth (cf. our article, 4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen” ), he is rightly considered both a foreign and a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution.
Considering that Commander Kerchner is duty-bound to defend the Constitution against such an enemy, his case and his appeal are perfectly lawful, right, and just, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has a constitutional duty to hear the appeal and overturn the anarchical decision of Judge Jerome B. Simandle, who dismissed the case.
Furthermore, Kerchner, in being forced to accept an ineligible Commander-in-Chief by the action of the Joint Session of Congress on January 8, 2009 when they selected an ineligible candidate to be U.S. President, is harmed directly and most intimately in his adhesion to the very Armed Forces which is duty-bound to uphold that Constitution.
If the violation of the U.S. Constitution’s explicit, facial obligations for holding the office of the U.S. President is a crime which harms no one in particular and which thus presents no basis for a judicial review, then the Republic has been overthrown by the Chicago Mob, and there is no recourse left but ballots and armed counter-revolution.
By claiming such violation is no grounds for a case in Federal Court, the Department of Justice has publicly admitted that it accepts a political theory of usurpation and tyranny whereby a small coterie of individuals, controlling both parties, can overthrow the constitutional order of our Republic and nullify any constitutional restriction as long as they, and they alone, are unanimous in their action.
In other words, the Department of Justice has just confessed and admitted a theory of dictatorship of the few over the democratic rule by the People. And that is the Politics of Tyrants.
The Third Circuit Court would be well-advised to consider that without a U.S. Armed Forces bound to a constitutionally eligible and respectful Commander-in-Chief, once they refuse to uphold the rights of members of the U.S. Military to contest the claims of such an illegitimate commander, they expose themselves to become the next victims of the use of such military force against the other branches of government: for if you render the military oath of no force or value before your court, you have declared that the armed forces are no longer are bound to uphold the U.S. Constitution in any term or obligation which that document declares.
It’s a simple choice then: the Constitution or tyranny; liberty or death!
@Jim,April 5 7:07- Yeah.
With the NDAA, an official declaration of war on American citizens, we better come up with something quick. We’ve all seen how well “peaceably assembling to redress our grievances” works; it’s time for plan B. Ya see, the whole problem with declaring war on Americans in America is, we know where they live. We know where they work. We know. They will have maybe 4 or 5 thousand protectors; we will have millions of pissed-off Americans. And they ain’t going to bomb us when we’re in their front yard, or living room, or bathroom.
William Penn said it all: “If man is not governed by God, he will be ruled by tyrants.”
John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.–John Adams
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical Thomas Jefferson
“The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.” – Tacitus
James Madison said, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow.”
It is too late!!!!
i do belive we still hang traders
Traitors, you mean?
i want to see them hauled out in cuffs. every damn stinking one of them.
the constitution is not the law of the land? since when? i really dont think they want to go there. i think there are about 300million people who will have something to say about that. holder needs to go! now! yesterday! these dems have compleetly gone mad if they think americans are going to put up with that for one second.
John,
You see what I see. Many of our fellow Americans are blind or mislead by a prejudicial media. My fear isn’t just Obama, but consider the disaster that lurks if the next administration is more corrupt than the current (you bring a knife and I bring a gun).
November 2010 will be a litmus test for Freedom and Constitution. The test fails, expect violence next.
Pete
That the people know the conduct of their rulers is of the greatest importance. Those who regard the sharing of information by alternate means than what was once thought to be the best avenue, television, are not only prudent but indispensable in the dissemination of facts and objective opinions. The events that are seemingly disconnected are rapidly congealing into an unmistakable event defined as a coup. One need only read the Declaration of Independence to discover there is a method for the people to throw off a government which is despotic but conversely know that a despotic government can form from the people. The protections against such a thing are many, or were many until the courts apprehended all but two. Those are now the states rights and the original right to keep and bear arms. Federalist 28 explores the response to usurpations by the national government and although it does not define the exact method it does define the response as legitimate. While cloaking their usurpations behind legal argument they are no closer to concreting their usurpation than the constitution itself is in preventing their attempt. The one thing they must know is the penalty for doing such an act requires their complete allegiance to the end they wish to achieve. That end is marked by contempt of the law and the positioning of a series of powers and bills readied for law or even assembled from long passed but un-enacted laws such that they may all at once be brought to bear against the patriotic defenders of the union. The process of passing such laws is now open for all to see as the push to pass health care legislation with the expressed intent of writing all damning parts of the law post process. Nancy Pelosi herself calls this “kicking down the door” for other legislation, which is at the ready, to follow in rapid succession. That is more akin to a plan of attack on a battlefield than any political process performed by a representative republican form of government the constitution allows for.
Arguments to prove what everyone knows. Obama is not a natural born citizen. He wrote it in his book. I bet he laughs every day at our lack of resolve.
Very good legal paper on STANDING, INJURY IN FACT, AND
PRIVATE RIGHTS
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/Hessick.pdf
Indeed, John, I DO believe (in the words of Prof. ‘iggins in My Fair Lady), BY GEORGE YOU’VE GOT IT!!!
Seems our government attorneys now believe that they are paid those outrageously high salaries to attack and subvert the United States Constitutions … and mayhap they are …
… but the game’s still afoot …
Oh, and John – lest you wonder – I use the words “United States Constitutions” advisedly as plural since the DOJ seems to be reading from a U. S. Constitution different from any that I have ever read.