Thursday, January 8, 2009

NATIONAL SECURITY SHOULD DRIVE THE MEANING OF AN ARTICLE II “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

A would-be President in order to be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II of the Constitution has to be born on U.S. soil (or what is deemed equivalent under military circumstances) to two parents who were U.S. citizens (by birth or naturalization) at the time of his/her birth. Obama cannot be a natural born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii (which is still in dispute) because, while he was born to a mother who was a U.S. citizen, his father was a British citizen at the time of his birth. See E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations Sec. 212 (1758); July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington; Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution; Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat.103,104); Naturalization Act of 1795 (1 Stat. 414) (children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States as opposed to natural born citizens); 14th Amendment; Rep. John Bingham of Ohio speech on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898); Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408 (D.C. Cir. 1938), aff’d 307 U.S. 325 (1939); restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org.

In defining what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, we are attempting to define what the standard to be President of the United States is as envisioned by the Founders of our nation and the Framers of the Constitution who had just fought a revolutionary war against a foreign power. That standard has to be an exacting one. We are not talking about the requirements to hold any other political office, to be a judge, or to be an ordinary citizen. We are not referring to a citizen defined in the 14th Amendment or by a Congressional Act. The Founders in their wisdom recognized the importance of the highest office in this country and for national security reasons singled it out in Article II, limiting it to individuals who have no conflicts in allegiance to our nation. The President alone has great power which is not the case for any Senator, Representative, or Judge who may not act alone but rather acts as part of a collegial body. The President may act alone, despite surrounding himself with a Cabinet and other political advisors. A non-Article II U.S. citizen (born on U.S. soil regardless of parental citizenship status or naturalized [14th Amendment citizenship] or born abroad to one or two qualifying U.S. citizen parents [Congressional Act citizenship ] is eligible to serve as governor, senator, representative, judge, mayor, etc. but not President.

The question of what is a "natural born Citizen" must be answered not only with the thought of what is "fair," "popular," or "politically correct" in our immigrant America, but also with what makes sense from a self-survival standpoint. Perception of how safe our world is today is not relevant in this analysis. When analyzing the national self-survival factor, we have to assume the most extreme examples, existing not only in today's world but also in that of the future. If there is any doubt on this issue, we must err on the side of national security and not on the side of a liberal philosophy espoused to please all people.

© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

January 8, 2009

Jamesburg, New Jersey

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Among the reasons why you cannot be taken seriously:

Over on Taitz's blog, some genius writes:

"Im now considering commencement of a recall petition for the Congressman from my district"

to which you, Mario Apuzzo, Esq., reply:

"The recall petitions sounds pretty interesting."

Yeah, those recall petitions would be pretty interesting BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HAPPEN.

Members of Congress are removed through expulsion proceedings.

Try, for once, actually reading the U.S. Constitution. It couldn't hurt.

hurst198 said...

Mr. Apuzzo is correct in his analysis and his citations. When discussing the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, many writers give their own definition, or quote a website or a congressman. It should be remembered that the only people entitled to define the meaning of words in the Constitution are the justices of the Supreme Court.

Thus one should at the very least attempt to discover how the Supreme Court has defined the phrase in the past, because this sets a precedent for future decisions. Writers, whether bloggers or journalists, should ask themselves how their personal definition of the phrase can be reconciled with the definition in three cases: Minor v. Happersett (1875), U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Perkins v. Elg (1939).

Those concerned citizens with lawsuits on this important issue of whether our president-elect is a natural-born citizen would do well to make reference to these three Supreme Court decisions in their suits.

Puzo1 said...

To Anonymous:

1. "Members of Congress are removed through expulsion proceedings.Try, for once, actually reading the U.S. Constitution. It couldn't hurt."

Recall or expulsion, common sense tells you what is intended. Also, I do not have the time to go researching every tangential issue that pops up in this debate. I do not make my living on politics like it appears you do. I am not a political animal like it appears you are. I work very hard for a living and to take care of my family and my time is limited. Also, I am not getting paid (one cent) for any of this. Can you represent to me that you are also not being paid for your time in responding to the Obama challenge? I find it hard to believe that you would be ready to fire your bullets so quickly at every little comment that is made all over the internet without somebody paying you for your time. An honest response (without your usual sarcasm) will be valued.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Katie said...

Mario - typical Obot tactic from "anonymous". It's the Obama way. Deflect and deny. Your post is about Natural Born Citizen and national security. And "anonymous" (aren't they all?) attacks you because you wrote on another blog that you find something - of a completely unrelated subject - 'interesting'. Deflect and deny. What an utter waste to choose to live in a mind like that...

Thank you for your insightful blog.

BerlinBerlin said...

Katie,
I would really like to get once (!)an answer from an Obot about the actual fact.
Never happens.
Question: Why is Obama hiding his records?

Answer Obot Style: You are a racist.
He doesn't have to.
Get over it.

And of course trying to attack You personally.
Do they ever wonder why he does that?

When I first saw Obama being really arrogant towards Hillary Clinton in the primaries, I knew he has poor character.
When I heard him talking about Hope and Change I knew he is an agitator that has no real answers to the problems.
Of course we knew he has friends in high places when the whole MSM tried to smear Sarah Palin.

When You read the comments of Obots, You really know that they are (often) of poor character and have no answers.

Ted said...

The nation owes more than thanks to three unlikely modern day patriots: professional poker player, musician, and retired attorney, Leo Donofrio; life long Democrat and former Pennsylvania assistant attorney general, Phil Berg; and Soviet emigree and attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz (she’s also a dentist).

While Mr. Donofrio painstakingly established the airtight case that BHO could not be an Article II “natural born citizen” (at BHO’s birth, dad was British/Kenyan, not American, citizen) Leo’s Stay of the 12/15/08 electoral college vote was denied by SCOTUS as procedurally unripe.

Nevertheless, since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress — rendering moot the Berg and Taitz (Lightfoot) cases — Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the Friday 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference Friday 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case Friday 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.

Now that BHO is in checkmate and cannot be POTUS, he can be a patriot as well. He need not subject the nation to the expense and trauma of requiring SCOTUS to overrule his ‘Presidency’. BHO can and should voluntarily step down with Biden becoming Acting POTUS under the 20th Amendment, and under the agreement all potential claims by the Government for itself and on behalf of others against BHO are released.

Anonymous said...

Could it be that the DNC did NOT even verify that Obama was a natural born citizen? With the Constitution being trampled on, maybe they just figured whatever they wanted, they would get? Can't imagine someone on the committee did not have enough sense to verify that ONE thing. The Constitution is very clear that you are not a "natural born citizen, unless you are born in the USA, of parents that are US citizens". Does it now? Only his Mother was a citizen, NOT his Father.

Katie said...

BerlinBerlin - I couldn't agree more. Wanna have some fun with Obots? Ask them to tell you three reasons WHY they voted for Obama. AND do it WITHOUT using the words "hope" or "change". Can't be done - which shows you how much they've been brainwashed.

And all you Obots getting ready to write a response, don't bother. Taking the time to write it out doesn't count. For this experiment, you'd actually have to use your brain. The one you had before you OD'd on the KoolAid .

Puzo1 said...

The easy case to decide regarding eligibility is if Obama was not born in the United States, for his father was not a U.S. citizen and his U.S. citizen mother was not old enough to give him U.S. citizenship under the applicable Congressional Act. Under this scenario, Obama could actually be an illegal alien.

The more difficult case is if Obama was born in the United States only to one U.S. citizen parent (his mother). This scenario would require the U.S. Supreme Court to tell us the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." Will the Court say that a child born in the U.S. must be born to two parents who are also both U.S. citizens at the time of his/her birth or would the Court accept just one U.S. parent (Obama's mother)? Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any Congressional Act define what a "natural born Citizen" is. In fact, these source only address what a "Citizen" is and not what a "natural born Citizen" is. Hence, the Court would have to rely on other law. Since there is no U.S. precedent on the subject of what is an Article II "natural born Citizen," the Court would have to look to any other source that may have influenced the Framers when they wrote the Constitution, i.e. English common law and tradition, political and philosophical treatises that the Framers may have relied upon, etc. From what I have read on the subject, it is my opinion that to be an Article II "natural born Citizen," both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth in the U.S. Every one of our Presidents and Vice Presidents born after the Constitution was passed (except Chester Arthur who hid from the public the fact that his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time he was born) met this requirement.

Anonymous said...

Mario,
Have you seen this?
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=785
I think it is a really good idea to sue congress. They have completely sold out. If I know how I would do it. Will you be willing to write up the case or know some attorneys who will be willing to do so?

njresident

'Urgent - ATTORNEY NEEDED IMMEDIATELY, PRO BONO, to file a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Posted on January 17th, 2009 by David Crockett
Ms. Cris Ericson in a comment on this site published the following request for assistance. Please spread this message as wide as any way possible.

ATTORNEY NEEDED IMMEDIATELY, PRO BONO, to file a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST the
UNITED STATES CONGRESS for FRAUD IN A FIDUCIARY CAPACITY AGAINST TAXPAYERS for FAILURE to to do their DUTY to FIRST SUBPOENA BARACK OBAMA’S ORIGINAL LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE BEFORE CERTIFYING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES, and for not doing their duty at all to subpoena his original long form birth certificate, which is fraud in a fiduciary capacity against taxpayers who had a reasonable expectation and a CONSITUTIONAL RIGHT to have material facts to be certain that the Electoral College Vote is not a product of breach of informed consent and a fraudulent conveyance.

LEGAL STANDING FOR TAXPAYERS AND REGISTERED VOTERS:

28 USCS Section 1491 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE: RULE 803 (8),(11),(12),(13),(16),(19),(23)Public Records for Birth Certificates.

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: Rule 12; Rule 19 JOIN ALL PLAINTIFFS IN ALL ACTIONS CURRENTLY IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, INCLUDING ACTIONS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT because it saves all Courts time and money to JOIN all plaintiffs into one action, and because a Class Action Lawsuit, once file, preempts and trumps all other cases where plaintiffs seek Barack Obama’s original long form birth certificate.

Rule 23 CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT puts an end to all other lawsuits seeking the same legal remedy.'