Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court for Kerchner v Obama

The threat to petitioners’ life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property is actual and concrete rather than merely conjectural or hypothetical. The Declaration of Independence recognizes these rights as “unalienable” and as having been endowed upon an individual by his or her “Creator.” The Constitution recognizes these rights not as being abstract or theoretical rights but rather as concrete and real and needing protection from government abuses. It recognizes these rights as the essence of a person’s being. Petitioners sued Obama after he assumed the great and singular powers of the Executive. Obama was not a mere candidate with no power. Obama has had and continues to have executive and military power to harm the petitioners. He actually exercises those powers on a daily basis. Petitioners cannot rely on Obama, who was born with dual and conflicting allegiances to protect them as a “natural born Citizen” would. The United States Supreme Court has recognized the problems presented by dual nationality and has stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and that a person with such dual nationality “may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952). But because Obama has yet to and because he cannot conclusively prove that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his conflicting natural allegiance and loyalty, plaintiffs are not constitutionally expected to nor do they trust him to protect their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property as would a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who is a “natural born Citizen.” Petitioners must therefore be allowed to challenge Obama in order to protect these concrete rights.

CONCLUSION

The United States faced a heavy burden in establishing its entitlement to a preliminary injunction enjoining Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070. The United States fell far short of meeting that burden. The district court’s finding that the United States is likely to prevail on its claims that sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6 of S.B. 1070 are preempted failed to apply the correct standard for the United States’ facial challenge to these provisions, failed in its analysis of Congress’ intent, and erroneously accepted at face value all of the United States’ factual assertions. The serious errors in the district court’s preliminary injunction order require that the order be vacated.

US v Arizona SB 1070 Appellant Brief

Sonia Sotomayor Senate Confirmation Hearing Transcript

The procedural history of this case is a fascinating expose of political maneuvering by vested interests in many tiers of the justice system.  In the end, it seems more than serendipitous that Donofrio succeeded in getting his case into an initial review today by the Supreme Court.  Hopefully, the Constitution will be justly served by the Court.

Donofrio v. Wells, Application to the Supreme Court for Emergency Stay

See a copy of Donofrio’s blog text at: Natural Born Citizen Blog text for his thorough description of the procedural history.

Four Out Of Nine Ain’t Bad

Because finding the liberal answer is more important than finding the right answer.  Of course, if the correct liberal answer is already known (as the author implies) why even bother with the Supreme Court?

When liberals are in the majority:

“The Court follows the approach of cases in which objective indicia of consensus demonstrated an opinion. . .” KENNEDY v. LOUISIANA

When conservatives are in the majority:

“In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.” DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

Two Supreme Court rulings issued one day apart, the first creating law out of thin air, the second, interpreting law from the Constitution. Do you feel more secure when the law of the land can be manufactured at will? Or do you feel more secure when the law must be derived from the Constitution chosen by our ancestors, and sworn to be upheld and defended by public officials ever since? Can the liberal method even qualify as a “rule of law?” Isn’t it really a “rule of perceived consensus?”