Saturday, February 14, 2009

DISCUSSION3: Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - Discussion Thread #3

NEW THREAD: I have hereby started a new discussion thread (#3) for Kerchner v Obama with this posting. Please use this new thread for the continuing discussion on the ongoing issue of "natural born citizenship" as per the Constitutional standards and the intent of the founders and framers. Also, please use this thread to ask questions or post comments about Kerchner v Obama. For your convenience, I have provided a link below to the Amended Complaint posted at There you can read and download it to aid in discussing the case.

Case Doc Link:

The Rules: Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in the case threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this case. Unsubstantiated statements which I determine are false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts of this case, repetitive, argumentative, personal attacks, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics of the case as to my planned tactics or strategies for pursuing this case. That will be only be revealed at the appropriate time in subsequent court filings and in the hearings or trial. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on this case, it may be several hours to 1/2 a day at times before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Thank you for your kind consideration of the purpose of the blog posts about Kerchner v Obama and for your comments.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: appuzzo [AT]
Tel: 732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906


Puzo1 said...

Copied from previous thread to this thread for continuity and to start of this new thread:

Puzo1 said on 12 Feb 09:
To: John Greschak:

I agree with you that we should look for the meaning of "natural born Citizen" by looking at the Framers not wanting a "foreigner" in the Presidency. I had come up with the same conclusion. But what historical evidence can we cite that shows that the Framer's decided that they would keep a foreigner out of the Presidency by not relying upon the single-factor English common law (jus soli) but rather the double-factor requirement of jus soli and jus sanguinis (Vattel)?

Is there any evidence that the English common law when deciding whether to grant "natural born subject" status on a child, made some exception to jus soli, like if there was a question of the allegiance of the child because of the citizenship of his/her mother and father? Under such exception, the English common law would no longer be a single-factor jus soli test and would actually then resemble Vattel's "natural born citizen" concept. Do you agree that "natural" in "natural born Citizen" means that the sovereign has absolute power over the individual? How else to have absolute power over an individual but by acquiring power over that child at the time of his/her birth through the circumstances that the child was born on the sovereign's soil to two parents who had the same allegiance as the sovereign at the time of the birth?
I will appreciate your thoughts on these points.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 12, 2009 10:11 PM

Puzo1 said...

Copies here from prior thread for continuity:

Zapem said on 14 Feb 09:
To: John Greschak,

I have read articles similar to your argument -- that John Jay was responsible for sending George Washington a letter with his concerns and upon receipt, 2 days later the phraseology was used in the Constitution.

That idea was expressed by Michael Meyerson, author of Liberty's Blueprint, in an article submitted to the NY Times.

However, Mr. Meyerson errs in his summation. It was not John Jay who originally expressed the concerns of foreign influence in the constitutional debates.

It was probably one of the MOST discussed issues and began on day one of the convention. The debates then ran heavily in the direction of appointments, especially term limits. It was only then, that John Jay reminded George Washington of the importance of remanding back to the original concerns of the people and offered his presentation, to which George Washington offered, verbatim, to the convention.

In any event, I think if you read the debates, you will clearly see the discussion and revisits to that discussion, concerning how to protect against foreign influence, especially where it concerned the election of the executive office. The sole office of the presidency was held to a higher standard and the reason was to ensure that there would be no dual-loyalties or hints of any loyalty, to any other country other than the United States.

I believe if you look at Obama's own speeches, he has failed that test. The framers were correct in their assumption. Mr. Obama has a strong nostalgia and yearning for his father and his father's homeland. He doesn't even salute our flag, made excuses for not doing so, and was shamed into wearing a flag on his lapel. He feels the constitution is "flawed".

That should have been the first sign this country should have noticed. But instead it will take bankrupting this country before people can appreciate the framer's intent.

February 14, 2009 1:35 AM

Puzo1 said...

Copied here from prior thread for continuity:

John Greschak said on 14 Feb 09:
To: Zapem,

[Mario, here I am also responding to your question: "But what historical evidence can we cite that shows that the Framer's decided that they would keep a foreigner out of the Presidency by not relying upon the single-factor English common law (jus soli) but rather the double-factor requirement of jus soli and jus sanguinis (Vattel)?"]

Thank you for your suggestions concerning the debates at the Constitutional Convention. I assume you are drawing from material in Madison's notes concerning the Convention. We are in agreement. From Madison's notes, we see that there were some delegates who were concerned about foreigners. For example, from Max Farrand's transcripts of Madison's notes (August 9 and August 13, 1787), there is the following concerning the House of Representatives eligibility requirements: "Mr. Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives." The word "native" occurs multiple times in the notes for these two days. (The phrase "natural born citizen" was not used here by the delegates.)

In a previous message, I suggested that the word "native" was a synonym for the phrase "natural born citizen". There is evidence of this in at least three works: Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (see Book the First: The Rights of Persons; Chapter the Tenth: Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives.), translations of Quintilian's "Institutio Oratoria", and the 1797 English edition of Vattel's "The Law of Nations".

One could try to argue that each time the word "native" was used at the Convention, the speaker was thinking of the particular "key" sentence of the English translation of Section 212 of Vattel's "Law of Nations" which uses that word (remember at that time the phrase "natural born citizen" had not been used yet in that text). If one can defend that claim, then one has established that the speaker was thinking (at least) "born in the United States of parents who are citizens".

Later, when the eligibility requirements for President were considered, it contained the phrase "natural born citizen" (perhaps because that is the term Jay, who was not a delegate at the convention, had used in his letter to Washington). Madison's notes do not indicate any debate on this requirement. He writes that it was approved "nem con", which is short for "Nemine Contradicente" (Latin: without objection).

Next, one could claim that upon seeing "natural born citizen" here, the delegates thought of the synonym "native", and in turn thought of the specific characteristics of "natives" listed in Vattel (namely, "born in the United States of parents who are citizens"). Also, to be thinking the same thing, one could claim that Jay had affixed the phrase "natural born citizen" to the concept given in Vattel's Section 212 that was labeled "native" (i.e. what Vattel had labeled in French as "Naturels"). (Goat presented an argument for this part a few days back.)

I have some problems with this line of thought; there is quite a bit of speculation here.

John Greschak
February 14, 2009 6:01 PM

Puzo1 said...

Copied here from prior thread for continuity:

John Greschak said on 14 Feb 09
To: Mario,
This is in response to your question: "Is there any evidence that the English common law when deciding whether to grant 'natural born subject' status on a child, made some exception to jus soli, like if there was a question of the allegiance of the child because of the citizenship of his/her mother and father?"

From Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", there is this:

"When I mention thefe rights of an alien, I muft be underftood of alienfriends only, or fuch whofe countries are in peace with ours; for alien-enemies have no rights, no privileges, unlefs by the king's fpecial favour, during the time of war."

Also, from the same source, there is this:

"THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally fpeaking, natural-born fubjects, and entitled to all the privileges of fuch."

Here, Blackstone qualified this statement with "generally speaking". Perhaps the children, born in England, of aliens whose country was at war with England, were not considered natural born subjects.

There is some support for this on page 413 of "New Commentaries on the Laws of England" by Henry John Stephen and James Stephen (at:

"But if a man be born within the realm, of parents who are alien enemies (as may be the case in the time of foreign invasion), or born of whatever parents, in a country not parcel of the British dominions, even though belonging to the sovereign (as may be the case in Hanover), he is at common law, and subject to the exceptions to be presently noticed, an alien."

Since the Stephens' book was published after 1787 (I believe in 1841), one would need to verify that what they have written here was true in times before 1787.

John Greschak
February 14, 2009 6:41 PM

mtngoat61 said...

Hi all,

If you have not seen this 10 minute educational video about "The American Form of Government", you may wish to watch it. It is very good and well produced.

The American Form of Government:

M Publius Goat

Anonymous said...

Dear John,

I share your frustration. However, I take heart in the fact that ours is not the first generation to endure it. Every generation since the convention has been in the same boat.

People complain that the current Supreme Court refuses to hear a case and make a determination. Well, welcome to the club, because previous Supreme Courts have "punted" for 200 years.

Obviously, every generation for that many years, and I've researched it that far back, cannot be labeled as "the tin-foil hat" crowd. No, there is a problem and it has nothing to do with the scheming games people have played with labels in order to get others to backdown from their point.

You're quite correct that many cited English Law in their arguments to define what the framer's meant by "natural born citizen". I'm just not sure how a court of competent jurisdiction could make a court ruling consistent with another country's rule of law. Especially when that was the country they were trying to get away from. It's almost an oxymoron if you think about it.

John Bingham and others were convinced the framers' intent was absolutely of one regard, distinct from English Law. Then we see the congress' Bingham debated in, arguing the complete opposite, consistent with English law. It's quite the conundrum. But I can appreciate why they came to that conclusion - they came from English law so they couldn't fathom it to mean anything other, despite the slight variation in wording. They didn't understand any other concept and history shows that, you are correct in pointing that out.

But what's happening because of it? We see politicians taking advantage of that murky loophole of debate and using it in their political biases and self-interests. The activity in the Senate just this past year in attempting to tamper with the Constitution illegally, was inexcusable. That's where the problem lies. We need to get rid of these people, not re-elect them and we need to close that loophole in history, once and for all. I'm afraid that's exactly what this is going to come down to. But it requires the public to be educated and the media has failed miserably in that regard.

Perhaps it is time to define the terms causing such a ruckus. If that determination is not acceptable to secure our liberty, especially after 9/11, then it's time to pass additional legislation that will ensure our security. That should be the primary focus and goal and I appreciate those people, like Mr. Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner, who do see that for what it is. We rely on that security. Thank God, for people like them that see the bigger picture, absent of political gain.

The naysayers contend we are discriminatory if we are too stringent in our selection process. But what other country has the leniency that the United States offers "foreigners"? NONE. I fail to see how anyone would be able to criticize any measures we took to protect our own interests when the laws of those countries are 100x more discriminatory.

Perhaps these cases will force the court to make the needed ruling. And if they conclude the English Law perception, so be it. It is what it is. The Constitution then allows the next step, to provide new laws that will protect this country with added tests, especially for those who seek to hold the highest office in the land, as it should be.

So, the Constitution is not "flawed", as Obama contends, because it does afford the opportunity to meet these new challenges.

Right now, we see politicians abusing that loophole and refusing to provide their credentials. Did the Constitution intend for them to do that? I seriously doubt that! Such was the case though, with both John McCain and Barack Obama and should not be tolerated in a day and age where so much is at stake.

Puzo1 said...

Copied this comment from the MommaE Radio show thread below to continue the discussion of Obama's exact citizenship status and lack of willingness to provide sufficient proof of same:

Johann said on 15 Feb 2009:
The Commons Sense Test:

What would have happened in the early days of the United States if President George Washington were succeeded along the presidential line by a hypothetical son of Major-General William Howe who commanded the British forces in the Battle of Bunker Hill and a hypothetical American citizen mother?

After the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the American Revolution, do you think that the American Constitution would have considered the aforementioned hypothetical son of General Howe and his hypothetical American wife a Natural Born Citizen?

This is a good way to portray Barack Obama II’s citizenship being born to a British father and an American mother, regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.

February 15, 2009 4:27 AM

Puzo1 said...

I have copied/moved these comments from the prior location to facilitate and provide continuity of discussion for the Kerchner v Obama case and the exact citizenship status of Obama and his reluctance to reveal his original records.

Ubi/Janet said on 15 Feb 2009:
Mr. Apuzzo, I hope you will have time to respond to these questions.

According to your comments, you stated that anyone has the right to run for office but it is Congress's job to qualify the president-elect. Is it unconstitutional for states to ask candidates to verify their eligibility in any way in order to be on the ballot in the first place?

It seems that you primarily base your questions about BO's birth certificate on error by the issuers. Do you have evidence that these types of errors commonly took place at that time or is there precedent for this as a reason to demand an original birth certificate?
Do you know for sure what the filing date on the COLB refers to?

As to your equal protection argument I would just like to comment that I faxed the majority and minority offices of the Sen judiciary committee and the individual members of the specific subcommittee concerning some of the fallacies of resolution 511 and asking them to revisit the issue (at some point prior to the inauguration). No response.

February 15, 2009 9:51 AM

Blogger mtngoat61 said...
Hi Janet/Ubi,

I saw your question to Atty Apuzzo. Let me take the liberty to provide you with some information as to how lax the Hawaiian birth registration system was in the 60s and before. Anyone who desired a Hawaiian birth certificate, foreigner or otherwise, could get a birth certificate issued for them as being born in Hawaii. All that was needed was for someone to swear the person was born there with no independent verification, investigation, or confirmation required, and the state would issue the person a birth certificate, no matter where the person really was born.

Here is an example of a Chinese native, one of the founders of the Republic of China, who was born in China getting a Hawaiian birth certificate for his deceptive personal uses and devices in China.

The wide open and total laxness of the Hawaiian birth registration laws and just this one example is the reason why it is critically essential to see the actual original document(s) on file in the vaults in Hawaii and have them examined by independent expert document examiners. Given that Obama has been so extremely reluctant to release those original, long-form, birth registration documents, and any other documents about his life such as his Occidental College records, is all the more reason to get access to them. He is hiding something extremely damaging to his self-proclaimed U.S. citizenship. This is a matter of our national security to be sure the person sitting in the Oval Office and Commander in Chief of our military is a constitutional standards Article II natural born citizen, and/or to determine whether he is even a citizen of the U.S. at all. The future of our nation, our constitution, and our national security depends on this.

M Publius Goat

February 15, 2009

mtngoat61 said...

Hi all,

What is very clear about the natural law definition of a natural born citizen, codified by Vattel in 1758, is that when one is born of the absolute full citizenship blood and the soil of a nation, i.e., of two parents who are citizens of that nation and the child is born on the soil of that nation, then "there are no exemptions" under any man-made laws or rulings. At the time of such child's birth to two citzens (whether born or naturalized citizens) of the nation on the soil of the nation, that child is a Natural Born Citizen of that nation. The child's citizenship is 100% certain to all at birth and is naturally obvious to anyone in the world. That is the essence of the natural law and the term "natural born citizen", wherein the word "natural" is derived from and in reference to the natural law [not a "C" section or other meaning of that word natural ;-) ].

And it should also be noted that this group of citizens, the natural born citizens of a nation are by its very nature, the largest group of citizens in the nation. They are in effect what defines the very nation and its people. Thus when picking someone to be your President and Commander in Chief of your Army to gain maximum allegiance and national security and trust with that person, and reduce any influence of foreigners on such a chosen key national leader, one would not look to a foreigner for your leader, or to a person with some foreign claims to him or her at birth, or to someone who has immediate and recent close familial relationships to a foreign nation. One would look to a natural born citizen, born from two citizens and on the soil of the nation, to get someone as a leader so as to gain the maximum trust from the people of the nation and to have maximum national security from any other allegiances and/or claims on him or her.

The writing of Vattel and Locke and others on the natural law, which our founders and framers read extensively when discussing breaking away from King George and when creating our new form of federal government, simply codified what was naturally intuitively obvious and completely understood by all of man no matter where he was, no matter what culture, etc., that such a set of birth facts existing for the child which were given at birth by nature at birth, then no man-made laws or further clarification was necessary to determine the child's allegiance and the sovereign's claim of jurisdiction on that child when they were born. These natural laws and/or our rights under them were inalienable, and were not given by one man to another man, or a King to man, but by nature to man, ... or as our founders declared given to us by our Creator.

M Publius Goat

bryan.olson said...

Question: Why does the amended complaint still seek to stay the inauguration and enjoin Supreme Court Justices from administering the oath of office to Obama? If I'm understanding correctly, you amended the complaint twice since the inauguration.

I'm not a lawyer. Are you not allowed to remove these items from the prayer for relief? Or is there some benefit to leaving them in, even when they seem obviously moot?


mtngoat61 said...

Hi All,

Here is a quote from a letter written by Benjamin Franklin of his having a copy of Vattel's "Law of Nations" and using it frequently as well as other members of the sitting Congress in 1775.

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting."
—Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775"

As this article mentions, it was available in the colonies in both the original French version and the early English translation.

M Publius Goat

Pam said...

To Attorney Apuzzo:

Heard your show on 2 Cents MomE great show thank you for your Public Service. A Caller mentioned an Bill/Resolution originaly introduced by McCaskell regarding children born over seas NBC(caller said it was scrubbed from the net)
This may be it:
To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible....

Also Congress did address obam's possible citizenship issue as a supposition and perhaps indirectly,
certainly not to the forthright and deliberate extent as they did McCain:

"And Senator Barack Obama
was born in Hawaii on August
4,1961—not long after its admission to the
Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator
Obama would have
been ineligible for the Presidency
had he been born two years earlier".

And the legal scholars slip an acknowledgement(innuendo?) to obama's British Subjectness:

Premising ‘‘natural born’’ citizenship on the
character of the territory in which one is born is rooted
in the common-law understanding
that persons born within the British kingdom and
under loyalty to the British Crown—
including most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the
American colonies—were deemed
‘‘natural born subjects".


However Obama, by his own admission was a 'British Citizen' at birth not a British Subject.

"In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being...

And lastly Once a Brit always a Brit according to the Kenyan Constitution of 1963 :

If Born In Kenya(birth):
will be Citizens of the UKC on Dec11,1963.

If Born Outside of Kenya(descent)
will be citizens of UKC on Dec.11 1963, clearly states Obam's father was a British subject
and cannot confer British citizenship to his son but can confer his "subjectness".

"Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948"

"force in any country mentioned in subsection (3)of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject".

Since Obama Sr was a Subject, when Kenya was liberated, Sr. became a Kenyan citizen(automatically according to factcheck): Kenyan Constitution

Born in Kenya(birth)
British Protected Persons become citizens of Kenya on the 12 of December 1963.

Hope the links are helpful

ubi re vera said...

To M Publius Goat:
Why not sue Nancy Pelosi for certifying that Obama is eligible for President based on the signed and notarized statement made to the state of Hawaii, as required uniquely by HI law, after the DNC to allow him on the November ballot?

Anonymous said...

Mario, Goat, and others,

[Before continuing our discussion on the meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen", I thought this would be a good time to recap some of what has been considered thus far. As is often the case, what I have written here is a draft of something I plan to include in my essay.]

Numerous individuals have interpreted the phrase "natural born Citizen" as used in the context of the United States Constitution, referred to here as "natural born Citizen of the United States". The approaches taken in these analyses are based on one of the following two notions: (1) the meaning of this particular use of the phrase "natural born Citizen" may be derived from the meaning of one of the phrases "natural born citizen", "natural-born citizen", "natural born subject" or "natural-born subject", that had been used elsewhere, prior to the time at which the Constitution was written; or (2) the meaning of this particular use of the phrase "natural born Citizen" must be composed from the meanings of the three constituent words.

Within these two classes of methodology, different approaches have been proposed. Here are some recent, well publicized examples (labeled 1a, 1b, 1c and 2a), along with what I believe are their shortcomings.

Approach 1a. This approach is based on the following claim: the meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen of the United States" may be derived from the meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject of the crown of England" (e.g. see analyses by Tribe and Olson, and Solum). I see at least two problems with this approach. First, and foremost, this line of thinking leads to a situation whereby the criteria for one to be eligible to be President of the United States are dependent upon the laws of England. I do not believe this would have been the intent of the Framers of the United States Constitution. Second, shortly after the Constitution was adopted, the laws of the United States concerning criteria for one to be considered a natural born Citizen of the United States differed from comparable laws of England concerning criteria for one to be considered a natural-born subject of the crown of England. For example, according to the United States "Naturalization Act of 1795", and subsequent acts that superseded this, children of citizens of the United States who are born outside the United States (and consequently, children of natural born citizens of the United States who are born outside the United States) are to be considered "citizens", rather than "natural born citizens". (In this context, the phrase "natural born citizens" had been used in place of "citizens" in the previous (and first) naturalization act from 1790, which was superseded by the act of 1795.) Conversely, during that time period, according to Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England": "all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whofe fathers were natural-born fubjects, are now natural-born fubjects themfelves, to all intents and purpofes, without any exception; unlefs their faid fathers were attainted, or banifhed beyond fea, for high treafon; or were then in the fervice of a prince at enmity with Great Britain." Similar language is used in the "British Nationality Act of 1730". In the United States, analogous children would be considered "citizens", not "natural born Citizens".

Approach 1b. This approach is based on the following claim: the meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen of the United States" may be derived from the meaning of the phrase "natural-born citizen" as used in English translations of Vattel's "Le Droit des Gens", which are titled "The Law of Nations". A problem with this approach is that the phrase "natural-born citizen" was not used in the original French or in any English translation (of which I am aware) until 1797, which was ten years after the United States Constitution had been written. Where Vattel used the phrase "Naturels, ou Indigènes" (in his book published in 1758), from 1759 until 1797, English translations used the phrase "natives, or indigenes". In an English edition from 1797, this was changed to "natives, or natural-born citizens".

Approach 1c. This approach is based on the following claim: there are only two types of citizens of the Unites States: (1) naturalized Citizens and (2) Citizens who are not naturalized Citizens, which are referred to as "natural born Citizens". A problem with this approach is that it ignores the clear and well-known intent for which the phrase "natural born Citizen" was used in the United States Constitution: to prevent a foreigner from becoming President of the United States. Because of this intent, the phrase "natural born Citizen of the United States" cannot be defined in any way whereby a foreigner would be considered a "natural born Citizen of the United States"; I believe any such definition would be unconstitutional. There are many Citizens of the United States who are not naturalized Citizens, but are foreigners. For example, under certain conditions, an individual born in the United States for whom only one parent is a Citizen of the United States, will be a Citizen of the United States. But, at the same time, it will be likely that they will also be a born citizen of that foreign country to which their non-Citizen parent belongs. Such an individual is a Citizen of the United States, who is not a naturalized Citizen; (if they are to be a Citizen of the United States) they would be so as a consequence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that "All persons the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States". But they are also foreign, in that they belong to (or have belonged to) a foreign country.

Approach 2a. This approach consists of the following claim: the phrase "natural born Citizen of the United States" means "born Citizen of the United States". One problem with this approach is that it requires one to believe that the Framers wrote a word in the Constitution that is unnecessary, and may be removed without changing the meaning of the Constitution. I believe this is unlikely, especially since this particular word was used in a relatively critical context: the eligibility criteria for the President. One argument made by those who take this approach is that the phrase "natural born Citizen" is analogous to the phrase "natural-born fool". In Noah Webster's "An American Dictionary of the English Language" (from 1828), the definition for the word "fool" contains the following: "Some persons are born fools, and are called natural fools; others may become fools by some injury done to the brain." Thus, one may say a "natural fool", or a "born fool", but to say a "natural-born fool" would be equivalent to saying a "born-born fool". I believe the phrase "natural-born fool" is a colloquialism: a phrase that would be more suited to informal writing than to the Constitution of the United States.

John Greschak

mtngoat61 said...

Hi John,

I see you are giving this a lot of thought. I have too. One thing I should point out. When I put the French phrase "Naturels, ou Indigènes" into my power translator software package that I use, I get in return the following in English, "Natural, or Indigenous". Thus my argument is that the original English translation done in London and reprinted in the colonies was not completely correct, which is why it was corrected (reinforced) in the 1797 translation to convey the true menaing of Vattel in French, to us English only speakers. I also maintain that people who used Vattel's work were fluent in French, i.e., Jay and Franklin (they were both diplomats to the French royal court during the Rev. War) and thus could easily understand and grasp its true meaning, by reading the French original version. And scholars always choose to read the original version in the original language when the have the ability to do so. I don't know if George Washington was able to read French, but he too used Vattel and was seen referring to it on his first day in office as the new President and CINC of the USA.

Again, to repeat, my French translator sofware says the meaning of the French phrase is the "naturals or indigenous" citizens and when you finish on with the rest of that sentence in Vattel in the legal reference book "The Law of Nations" it is very clear that he considered and defined the naturals, the indigenous, citizens to be those born in the country by two citizens of the country. That is the essence of "natural law". And that is where I believe the word natural comes from in the phrase "natural born citizen". It is referring to the natural law. Such a natural born citizen person being born to those set of facts is naturally a natural born citizen through the events of his birth and nature. No man-made law or exception needs to be applied. That is what Vattel meant. I have no doubt.

The key to understanding what Vattel meant is for an objective set of legal scholars, fluid in French of that time period, to read that sentence in Section 212.

But again, I have no doubt what the natural law says a natural born citizen is. A citizen who is naturally obviously a citizen with no foreign allegiance on claim to them by the very nature of the facts and events of their birth and not any man-made law.

And since the issue of concern to Jay when he had George Washington put the term "natural born citizen" into the criteria to be the POTUS and CINC of the U.S. was national security and aversion of foreigners serving in that office and of foreign influences on the person in that office, the wisdom of Jay and Washinton is even more meaningful today. The wisdom of the writers of the Constitution is profound. Every word they put in there was for a specific reason as you say. And I believe the word natural refers to the natural law as codified by Vattel in that sentence in Vattel in defining the "naturals", of the soil and of two citizens, as being the only type of citizen who can serve as our POTUS and CINC of the U.S., i.e., a person who is born under a set of facts of nature which innately defines his total loyalty to the nation and that no other nation has any man-made claim on that person, when that person was born such that the people who put him in that high office have no doubt or questions as to his citizenship and allegiances and loyalties to the USA first and only, and no other country, or for example thinking of one's self as a citizen of the world.

Only the largest group of American citizens, those born in the country and of two citizens of the country, the "naturals" aka the "natural born citizens" can serve our country in the singular high office or POTUS and CINC under Constitutional standards as imposed by Article II.

M Publius Goat

P.S. I sure wish the difference between a "certification" document in HI and a "certificate" document in HI was debate as much as the NBC term has been. If that was the case, Mr. O would likely not be in the Oval Office. :-)

Anonymous said...

Previously, I had posted that we were researching the debates over the 14th amendment in the 39th Congress, and that we were doing this due to the responses we had received from the electors, congresspersons and senators that Obama qualifies under the 14th amendment. I requested that you let us know via ur blog if you wished for us to continue with this research. As our question was neither posted or responded, we will cease our research. We wish you and ur client success with this matter.

mtngoat61 said...

Hi 34N2Nbc,

I am sorry to hear you are disgruntled. Not to speak for Atty Apuzzo, but maybe he has been so busy with preparing this case to be served that he got distracted. This case is too important to let a mis-communications issue interfere with getting all the help the country and our Constitution needs. Why not send him a private email about this. That would be the better way to resolve things rather than on a public blog, if there has been some mis-communication. His email address is at various places in this blog. But I'll re-type it here for you:

apuzzo [AT]

I do hope you will reconsider and still continue with your offer to help. Give Atty Apuzzo an email and work out how to do that directly with him. Have you left an email address in this blog for him to contact you. I don't remember seeing one. Just trying to help.

M Publius Goat

Dr. Conspiracy said...

I think that Zapem's comment about foreign influence being foremost on the people's minds at the start of the constitutional deliberation is spurious.

The first draft of the Constitution, that produced by the Committee of Detail, had no language about "foreigner" or "natural born citizen" in it.

The most likely reason we have the "natural born citizen clause" is that the Constitutional Convention proceeded in secret, leading to the spawning of rumors that they would draft some foreign royal (and names were suggested) to come to the US to be president. The NBC clause was inserted to meet this possible objection to ratification of the Constitution.

Puzo1 said...

Dr. Conspiracy:

By your name, I do not know whether you are a conspiracy buster or promoter. Regardless and giving you the benefit of the doubt, would you cite some source so that we can verify what you say.

What is the basis of your theory that the Framers while meeting in secrecy were discussing the possiblity of importing some "foreign royal" to be President?

What is your opinion on why the Framers in the end inserted the "natural born Citizen" phrase in Article II?

Finally, what do you think (and provide references upon which you rely) the Framers meant when they wrote "natural born Citizen" in Article II?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

J. Wolsey Riggs said...

Response to:

[Why not sue Nancy Pelosi for certifying that Obama is eligible for President based on the signed and notarized statement made to the state of Hawaii, as required uniquely by HI law, after the DNC to allow him on the November ballot?]

At this time, a civil lawsuit is being prepared to do just this. Here's the link:

I would be interested to hear Mr. Apuzzo's initial thoughts on the merits of a case such as this. As a non-lawyer, it is baffling to me that we can't take this document and require Ms. Pelosi to provide the evidence which she based her determination on. Perhaps someone can explain why this isn't possible?

Puzo1 said...

To J. Wolsey Riggs :

The Kerchner lawsuit already names Nancy Pelosi as defendant. I also state in the Second Amended Complaint how the DNC (with Pelosi's signature) certified in the Hawaiian nominating document called, Official Certification of Nomination, that Obama was legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution and that she so certified without having adequately verified the truth of such a statement. See Paragraphs 85 to 91 and Endnote 16of the Second Amended Complaint which you can access via the link on this blog.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Cris Ericson said...

We, the People, v President Obama
We, the People v President Obama

Puzo1 said...

This Kerchner et al v. Obama et al "DISCUSSION3" thread is now closed. I have started a new Discussion #4 thread above to continue these discussions of the case and the "natural born citizenship" debate. Please post your comments and questions about this case and continuation of these discussions at the new post. I will post replies to any still unanswered questions and comments you posted in this thread in that new thread. But please do not post any more new comments or questions here. Click below to go directly to the new discussion thread for the Kerchner v. Obama case.

Thank you,
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.