If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Daniel Webster was a successful attorney who argued cases in front of the Supreme Court between 1801 and 1824

(Nov. 10, 2010 — Daniel Webster, known as the “Defender of the Constitution,” was a famous orator and statesman. He argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, served as a U.S. Congressman, a U.S. Senator, and U.S. Secretary of State. In 1820, what later became known as the State of Main separated from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This development caused the Commonwealth to seek to amend its constitution of 1780. The Commonwealth chose delegates to meet in convention for the purpose of amending its constitution. The town of Boston chose Mr. Webster as one of its delegates.

Mr. Webster served as chairman of the committee which was responsible for determining qualifications for those persons wanting to occupy public office. This committee recommended that “a simple oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth, together with the oath of office, should be taken by all persons chosen or appointed to office. . . . and that a profession of belief in the Christian religion no longer be required as a qualification for office.”

While his position related to retaining a profession of the belief in the Christian religion as a qualification for public office in Massachusetts, Mr. Webster’s statements go beyond just religion and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for they also apply to any qualification that the People may demand that a person meet in order to be eligible for any public office. Here are Mr. Webster’s words in convention as he comments on the committee’s report:

Two questions naturally present themselves. In the first place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security of their government and its due administration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the people had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of the people. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure; and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what conditions they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than the notion that any man has a right to an office. This must depend on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opinions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for office. No man can be said to have a right to that which others may withhold from him at pleasure.

There are certain rights, no doubt, which the whole people, or the government as representing the whole people, owe to each individual in return for that obedience and personal service, and those proportionate contributions to the public burdens which each individual owes to the government. These rights are stated with sufficient accuracy, in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, in this constitution.”  Each individual in society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to the standing laws.” Here is no right of office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for office respecting age, property, residence, and taxation. But if office, merely as such, were a right which each individual under the social compact was entitled to claim, all these qualifications would be excluded. Acknowledged rights are not subject, and ought not to be subject to any such limitation. The right of being protected in life, liberty, and estate is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any, whatever be their age, property, or residence in the State.

These qualifications, then, can only be made requisite as conditions for office on the ground that office is not what any man can demand as matter of right but rests in the confidence and good-will of those who are to bestow it. In short, it seems to me too plain to be questioned that the right of office is a matter of discretion and option, and can never be claimed by any man on the ground of obligation. It would seem to follow, then, that those who confer office may annex any such conditions to it as they think proper. If they prefer one man to another, they may act on that preference. If they regard certain personal qualifications, they may act accordingly, and ground of complaint is given to nobody. . . .

Now, if the people may, without injustice, act upon this preference, and from a sole regard to this qualification, and refuse in any instance to depart from it, they have an equally clear right to prescribe this qualification beforehand as a rule for their future government. If they may do it, they may agree to do it. If they deem it necessary, they may so say beforehand. If the public will may require this qualification at every election as it occurs, the public will may declare itself beforehand and make such qualification a standing requisite. That cannot be an unjust rule, the compliance with which, in every case, would be right. This qualification has nothing to do with any man’s conscience. If he dislike the condition, he may decline the office in like manner as if he dislike the salary, the rank, or any thing else which the law attaches to it.

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. III, pp. 3-7.), accessed at http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=68

Indeed, Webster expresses an opinion that, under a government characterized by popular and elective office, the People have a right to establish qualifications for their elected officials before they may occupy any such office, for such office is “the free gift of the people.” He explains that no man has a right to an office, for the office is granted at the pleasure of the People to those in whom they feel “confidence” and with whom they share a feeling of “good-will” because they believe that person to be both fit and qualified for that office. He adds that the same People can decide at their “discretion and option” to change those qualifications as they deem necessary for their own safety and security.

Mr. Webster than explains how each individual has a personal right to receive protection from his or her government. Mr. Webster explains that each individual in society has in accordance with a legal process a personal right to be protected by the whole People represented by his or her government in his or her life, liberty, and property in exchange for which the individual grants to the whole People and its representative government his or her obedience and personal service. He states that this right to protection “is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any” whatever their condition. He also explains that qualifications for office are for the safety and security of the individual and the nation as a whole. He believes that such qualifications should be retained in the constitution agreed upon by the People so as to provide to them the maximum protection.

This is the same argument that I have made before the U.S. Supreme Court to show that the Kerchner petitioners have standing to pursue their constitutional claims against Obama, Congress, Pelosi, and Cheney, claims in which they demand that Obama conclusively show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Petitioners have a right to demand that only a person who is a “natural born Citizen” occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. As Mr. Webster explains, it is the Kerchner petitioners’ personal right to demand it, for the Constitution has decreed it for the benefit of protecting the life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property of every individual making up the People. Indeed, Obama has no right to the Office of President and Commander in Chief. He can only occupy that office at the pleasure, discretion, and option of the People which includes the Kerchner petitioners. And the Kerchner petitioners, showing that both Congress and the Executive have failed to protect them and their individual rights guaranteed to them under the U.S. Constitution and in their effort to therefore protect themselves, have every right to take their claims to a court of law for the purpose of enforcing their right to that protection.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I believe the consequesces of him continuing to pose as President for another two years would be far greater than just a legacy like that of Jimmy Carter. At least Carter did not aspire to be the worlds dictator. How long do you think we really have until he does away with the entire Congress. I have concluded that the ability of a President to rule the country through Czars and Executive Orders is far too much power to grant anyone. We have apparently been lucky so far, that no other sitting President has abused this power to these extremes. If the 112th Congress does not remove him, I feel sure we are doomed. I have no fairth in the Supreme Court. I will hopefor the best but not expect them to act responsibly or to honor the Constitution unless a majority of them have recognized the threat he poses.

  2. Anybody wanting to pursue criminal charges is free to do so. It has nothing to do with the Kerchner petition for a writ of certiorari.

    The DNA thing is nothing more than an attempt to ridicule the meaning on a “natural born Citizen” under natural law and the law of nations.

  3. This is a little confusing because there is no distinction being pointed out between what is a legal right and what is a natural right. The “free gift” aspect is actually proof that the office of President is a natural right that is inherited and conferred by the society. There is no absolute legal right to be the President if that is what you are trying to relate, then I would agree.

    Your point seems to be that since the office of President is a natural right sanctioned by the people, then it is the people who have the right to determine the legitimacy of the person who occupies the office. No argument from me there. However, does that necessarily imply that the People have a “legal right” to remove the President if he is not legitimate. There is definitely a natural right to realize and nullify Obama’s illegal occupation of the office of President, but is there a “legal right” recognized that allows for this? I would argue that the courts can not determine the qualifications because they are already spelled out in Article II and can not be changed by a judges opinion.

    We have already determined that Obama is committing fraud and criminal usurpation with the help of the CIA, FBI, Military, Congress, News Media, etc. Why is this not just a simple criminal matter? This is just a political issue because the above mentioned agencies lack the political will to do their jobs and enforce the laws. They are engaged in obstruction of justice which is a federal crime. Why not just bring all of this evidence of massive corruption and obstruction of justice to a federal judge and grand jury and just start issuing arrest warrants and round up these criminals? Why do we need the Courts to determine the meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen” when its meaning is already clearly defined by the natural law jurisdiction?

    1. Jed Pauly:

      The Obama eligibility matter is in no way a “political issue” which even the Amicus Brief submitted to encourage the Writ of Certiorari points out very cleary in addition to the legal exposition in the main Petition itself.

      I suggest you thoroughly read those documents as well as the United States Constitution since you seem at sea about the issues involved and wish to divert them to be some other meaningless argument or set of arguments. That’s an old Flying Monkey trick that most on these forums would certainly pick up on no matter how cleverly done.

  4. Mr. Apuzzo,

    If SCOTUS denies you Cert., or “standing”, may I suggest that you and – other plaintiff lawyers – STOP treating these issues as TORTS – for which you need “standing”. Instead, treat all these issues for what they really are; CRIMES / FELONIES.

    Go back to SCOTUS, en banc, and “report” that the Obama Administration and numerous co-conspirators have committed numerous acts of Felony Fraud (under R.I.C.O.) in order to attain the office and power of the Presidency, under false pretenses. They are stealing the People’s property by Plunder, and dividing it among their friends. This isn’t a “political” question, these is open felonies – on an unbelievably audacious scale. This is “betrayal” of the People, and Perjury of Oaths – and other traitorius acts.

    Your authority and obligation to “report” numerous FELONIES (forgery of official documents, interstate wire fraud, and solicitation of funds via presentation of false documents and false claims, criminal conspiracy, just to list a few) comes from:

    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4
    § 4. Misprision of felony
    Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge (in this case SCOTUS en banc) or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    As you probably know, hundreds of complaints have been filed with FBI, DOJ, and many State Governments. Everybody just “sits on their hands” and “passes the buck”. SCOTUS is really We the People’s last resort. If they fail to act, then Mr. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper # 28 may become operative. (#28 is a “call to arms” , for betrayal of the People!!!) You might want to remind SCOTUS, that failure to act, after Official Notification, itself, constitutes Misprison of a Felony.

    1. You are on the right track. This is my argument also. This is just a criminal matter and an obstruction of justice and fraud criminal issue. We just need a special prosecutor and Grand Jury to issue arrest warrants and begin rounding up these criminals for trial. I am a witness against my State Senator’s act of sedition and obstruction of justice. She told me to my face that Obama was qualified by her as if she has the power to override the Constitution and confer the title of nobility upon the usurper. She admits in front of me and my wife that she is engaged in fraud and obstruction of justice. It would be a very simple matter to bring evidence of obstruction of justice. Just go and file a criminal complaint with the FBI and watch what they say and do. They will tell you that Obama was born in Hawaii so he is qualified to be President. Right there you have witnessed fraud and obstruction of justice because your place of birth is irrelevant for Article II purposes. This is the standard government line told by Senators and reported in the CRS memo put out by Congress. What more evidence of massive corruption and obstruction and fraud do you require?

  5. The Constitution protects the unalienable rights of the individual against the political power whims of the temporary political majority. Even if the unalienable rights of one single person has been violated and injured, the Constitution guarantees those unalienable rights to that person. It is the sworn duty of the federal courts to protect protect and defend the constitution and that individual person’s right to protection thereunder against usurpation of the rights of the individual (or a small political minority group of Citizens) by the political majority of the moment. That was the promise of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. And that was the social contract put in place by We the People via the founders and framers in our U.S. Constitution in 1787, i.e., protection of the unalienable rights and freedom and liberty of the individual given to each and everyone of us by nature and nature’s God and fought for in the Revolutionary War and promised in the Declaration of Independence. The U.S. Supreme Court has been presented with this argument in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari for the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit. The Supreme Court has been presented a Constitutional civil rights case, not a case about public policy or statutory law. Will the Supreme Court Justices live up to their oaths to the Constitution and do their sworn duty to support and defend the U.S. Constitution before the eyes of the nation and God? Or will they look the other way while our Constitution and the guarantee of protection thereunder of the rights of the individual to petition the courts for enforcement of those constitutional rights are further torn asunder and we move further and further from a Constitutional Republic and rule of law to rule by a pure democracy and the whims of the simple political majority at the moment, i.e., mob rule. I pray to God they do the right thing on the 23rd of November or the future or our nation and Constitution no longer has any legal protection in the courts not sanctioned by the temporary political winds or by the political majority of the moment and the main stream media. God save the Republic!

    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al

    1. Dear CDR Krechner;

      I hope you have read my article The True Meaning and Interpretation of Article II a Scientific Legal Theory that was posted here and is in The Post & Email archives. I was wondering if you have considered that this is just a criminal fraud and conspiracy and obstruction of justice issue that should just be brought to a federal judge and grand jury for the issuing of arrest warrants and criminal prosecutions. The president should just be arrested for his crime of fraud and illegal usurpation of the government, along with all of those responsible.

      The meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen” is already known and established in the Constitution and does not require a court to determine its meaning. Read my article and you will see what I mean.

      1. Jed Pauly:

        I’ve read your writings and to me they only enforce what I stated in my last post – you are (PERHAPS unknowingly) trying to sidetrack the true issues involved in the eligibility issue. After Certorari is granted and evidence produced and deliberated on, it may very well become a criminal matter but pretending so accomplishes nothing – NOTHING – at this point except to divert attention from more productive issues.

        Certainly you are welcome to think it is a criminal matter and expend the necessary funds to formally pursue that if you wish but your sub-rosa attempt to sidetrack the excellent Constitutional pursuit in a proper legal manner is certainly nonsense and it seems to me you merely to try to fool others rather than accomplish anything productive. Good luck in yout attempts to pay for some legal expertise to take up your criminal case but I’ll surely not hold my breath since you make it clear you are not an attorney.

  6. Just some things to think about. Who is this man setting in the white house? He says his name is Barrack Hussein Obama, how do we know for sure who he really is? Does anyone have any proof that he is really who he says he is? He says his Father is from Kenya Africa, maybe yes, maybe no. Has there ever been anything to confirm this such as DNA? Probably not. It is quite obvious that whoever he really is, he or someone else has went to great steps to insure that no one finds out. Could he have been adopted? If so, is it not the policy of an adoption agency to conceal the identity of the real parents even if they know? I suspect a lot of babies are born without any one present qualified to issue a birth certificate. Is it possible that the reason he refuses to produce a birth certificate is because he just doesn’t have one?

    1. I agree with everything you said except the last sentence which should read: “Is it possible that the reason he refuses to produce a birth certificate is because he just doesn’t have the [RIGHT] one.”

    2. > Has there ever been anything to confirm this such as DNA?

      That would probably be hard to verify as his (alleged) parents are long dead. I’m not a physician but I think as far as parenthood goes, this cannot be verified on bodies that have been dead for quite some time.
      Also, if you want to open that can of worms, the next question would be “are the people buried in the Obama Sr. / Dunham graves really who we think they are” and how would that problem be solved?
      In a way, that could reasoning could be applied to anyone – even someone who is, to our best knowledge, “undoubtedly” a natural born citizen, because we’d have to verify that he is actually the child of his (alleged) parents, if his (alleged) parents actually were those persons who were/became US citizens before said person’s birth and so on.

      So that would be a reasoning that could not only be applied to Obama/Soetoro, but to any candidate for presidency, and if you take the “I don’t believe anything until verified by DNA”, where would you possibly stop? Would that mean only people whose DNA trails can be traced back until the days of the Founders can really be eligible?

      Note I’m not saying such DNA verification might not expose some interesting things, e.g. fraud with regards to Obama/Soetoros true ancestry, but we should not apply this test as something like a “prerequisite for eligibility” for the reasons set forth above.

      1. You have a point Paul. That said, Obama can never prove he is eligible for POTUS and needs to resign immediately. An ultimatum must be put to him.

  7. The standing is there, our rights as citizens, voters, and taxpayers are diminished. The age of government has morphed into the power OVER the people not OF the people. The progress after two years of the liar-in-chief usurping the office is astounding. Documents come out daily of non-vetted barry soetero and his flimsy fill out forms for election. The entire joke is on CONgress, the lame stream media, and ultimately “we the people” for taking the issue in cautious political correctness.

    This site (with others of equal integrity) has been a voice crying in the wilderness. Unless the exposure of barry’s fraud is expedited his term will end and the laws he signed, the policies he corrupted, the economy he drove into oblivious debt will simply be shrugged off as another Carter type pres and the populace saying, “next”.