by Knocking down another attempt to question President Obama’s legal right to be the President, the Supreme Court completely dismissed Charles Kerchner Jr.’s appeal.Kerchner labels himself as a “genetic genealogy pioneer” and is trying to force the courts to release Obama’s documents attesting that he was born in the U.S. to American citizens. It is unclear if the debate is about the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution or about Obama’s documentation.According to the Constitution “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” (Article II, Section I)Kerchner believes that “natural born Citizen means not only that the person was born in the U.S., but that both his parents were also U.S. citizens. In Obama’s case his birth certificate attests that he was born in Hawaii, a recognized part to the U.S. However, only one of his parents was a citizen; his mother is from Kansas but his father was from Kenya.There is also a claim that Obama was not truly born in Hawaii and that the documents are forgeries. Birthers holds that Obama was really born either in Kenya or Indonesia and therefore is not a “natural born citizen.”The courts have without exception dismissed these claims due to the inability of the appeals to show that they have a “standing” to bring such a lawsuit. This means that in order for an individual to file such a suit he must prove that he suffered personal ‘harm’ or ‘injury’ due to Obama’s being the president. Without such proof, appeals such as these are doomed to failure.
