Thursday, February 19, 2009

DISCUSSION4: Kerchner et al v Obama et al - Questions About Case & Discussion Thread #4

DISCUSSION4 thread for Kerchner v Obama. Please use this discussion #4 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. You can download a personal copy of the case via the link provided in the right column of this blog.

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] erols.com
Tel: 732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906
Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. For discussion of the case, please utilize the DISCUSSION4 comments thread by [Clicking Here].
####

27 comments:

Puzo1 said...

Copied and moved from Discussion3 thread for continuity purposes:

mtngoat61 said 17 Feb 09:
----------------------------
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
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org

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. :-)
February 17, 2009 4:35 PM
------------------------------

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...

RELEVANT CASE CITE:
United States Code Service
LEXIS Law Publishing
701 East Water Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Lawyers Edition
Issued in May 1998
Cumulative Supplement
28 USCS Appendix
Rules of Evidence for
United States Courts and
Magistrates
Page 216
Note 119. Miscellaneous

District Court did not abuse its
discretion in applying Federal
Rules of Evidence
rather than
Hawaii Health Department rules
and in finding results of intoxilizer test admissible under
public records and reports exception to hearsay rule of
Rule 803(6)(8).
United States v De Water
(1988, CA9 Hawaii)
846 F2d 528,
25 Fed Rules Evid Serv 748.

Please go to the free online law library at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov and read Hawaii Rule 803 and read the entire text to the very bottom and it tells you that Hawaii Rule 803 for hearsay evidence does not meet the standards of Federal Rule 803 for hearsay evidence.

It is very possible that hearsay evidence under Hawaii Rule 803 was used to obtain the COLB after September 11, 2001,
the Terrorist Attack on the United States,
because it is quite clear that Obama received his COLB
after the terrorist attack because it gives a legal notice:
(Rev. 11/01)LASER
which proves that Obama
received this COLB
after the Terrorist Attack, so we need to know where he was that day and what his address and occupation was that day,
and why he needed a COLB at that time when he was already over
40 years old.

Another legal notice on the COLB:
[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]
proves that because HRS 338-13(b) is subject to the requirements of 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18 that hearsay evidence may have been used to obtain the COLB.

Because hearsay evidence may have been used to obtain the COLB, after Obama was over 40 years old,
then these statutes also give a person a right to request an administrative or judicial hearing to determine if the facts on the COLB are in error, and if it should be voided or rescinded or striken from the records.

Because the Office of the President falls under federal law, the administrative hearing or judicial hearing should be held in a federal jurisdiction and Federal Rules of Evidence which preempt or trump Hawaii rules have to be applied.

28 USCS Section 1491
case cite: Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear claims against states or their agencies, EXCEPT where states or their agencies acted as agents of United States. Hassan v United States (1998) 41 Fed Cl 149.

Because Hawaii acted as an agent of the United States Congress and because Hawaii acted as an agent of the Electoral College and because Hawaii acted as an agent to former Vice President Dick Cheney who did not call for objections to the Electoral College vote certification by U.S. Congress, then therefore,
a claim can be filed in the Federal Claims Court because Hawaii acted as an agent of the government of the United States in certifying the COLB.

The cause of action is to seek judicial determination that the COLB should be voided and rescinded because it does not meet Federal Rules of Evidence standards.

smrstrauss said...

You omit to say that Vattel recognizes England (of which we were a part when he wrote) as an exception to his rule. He says:

“Finally, there are states, as, for instance England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.” Book I, Chapter 9, 214.

Now, you COULD argue that Vattel implies that a child of a foreigner born in England or the USA is a “naturalized citizen” and not a natural born citizen. But that is his view, not that of English common law or of our laws. Our laws treat all who were born in the USA as “citizens at birth.” There is no distinction between the class of people who are born in the USA and the class of people who are born in the USA and their parents are citizens.

British common law held that a person merely had to be born in the British realm to be a Natural Born British Subject. Thus Vattel was simply misunderstanding British Common Law when he wrote that a child became “naturalized” by being born in England.

And our Constitution has been amended to eliminate any distinction (if there ever were any) between citizens who are born in the USA and citizens of US parents who are born in the USA. The 14th Amendment says: “ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

It does not say that children who are born of people who are not citizens are “naturalized.” Indeed, it requires that you be naturalized in order to be a naturalized citizen. A person who is born in the USA is a citizen at birth under Title 8 of the US Code.

But, you may ask, is “a citizen at birth” the same thing as a “Natural Born Citizen?”

Well, why not? Can you show that the authors of the 14th amendment intended that there be a distinction between citizens at birth and “natural born citizens?” Can you show that the British Common Law was not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, and hence all who are born in the USA are “Natural Born?”

Why should the model be Vattel and not the British Common Law?

Surely the people who wrote Article II of the Constitution were familiar with the Declaration of Independence, which had the words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal.”

That cannot mean that someone who is born in the USA to parents who are NOT citizens has fewer rights than someone who was born in the USA to parents who ARE citizens. It cannot mean that those who were born to citizens are MORE citizens than those who were born to people who were not citizens.

So, the British Common Law, the 14th Amendment, and the Declaration of Independence all show that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is simply someone who was born in the USA.

Many congressmen and senators who are also lawyers agree. For example: Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who said: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

And:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), who said: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004.)

And here is Lincoln’s Attorney General: Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862)

“The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …

“And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

“If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …

“And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provides that “persons,” (not white persons,) ” persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

mtngoat61 said...

Hi SMRS,

While Vattel cites the British Common Law system (laws made by Judges i.e., men back then) as an example of other man-made laws used in the world to define various types of citizenship, Vattel was not proposing accepting that definition as being of the Natural Law and being what a "natural born citizen" of a nation was. He codified the Natural Law definition of a Natural Born Citizen as being a person born in the country of two citizens of the country (Section 212 of Law of Nations). Natural Law does not need man-made law to instill its meaning to the people. It is naturally obvious and accepted by the facts of nature itself. And that is what our founders intended when they chose Vattel's writings as the inspiratioin for our new Federal Government and Constitutional Republic, and especially to the necessary qualification of the person who can serve as the President and CINC.

Our new system of government was not modeled after British Common Law of the 18th Century. If you are asserting that, then you must be joking. We revolted and threw off that common law and its oppression of us in the colonies. It was not a model for our new nation's FEDERAL government. England did not even have a contitution then. Our new Federal Government was an entirely new form of government. And it was based on the enlightment writings on the Natural Laws of government and writers such as Vattel.

And as to all people be created equal, that does not mean that everyone born equal can qualify for every single job under our system. We are a nation of laws and the Constitution is the supreme law of our land. There are qualifications for various jobs listed in the Constitution and there are others in our civil laws and regulations as to who can get a top secret clearance for example. Born equal in the eyes of God is not the same as being equally qualified per Constitutional standards to become the President and CINC of our military. Thus your populous argument fails under Constitutional standards. We are a Republic sir, not a pure democracy.

Types of Governments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

It is not as simple as you say that all citizens are completely and totally the same under Constitional standards. That is not 100% correct. The one main exception is who can be the President. There are five citizenship terms mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The overall class of citizen which is the one you so describe as to rights and privileges of being a U.S. citizen. But there are subgroups of that overall group mentioned in the Constitution. Two in Article II as to who can serve in that singular and unique and all powerful postition of President and Commander in Chief of our military and the intendant concerns about national security in who has that position ... and then two other subgroups mentioned in the 14th Amendment, which was added to our constitution to clarify the citizenship status of the freed slaves, not to clarify who can serve as President and CINC. Read your history. And the members of Congress who failed us this election cycle should read more history too.

Here is a link to a chart which explains the 5 types of citizenship of the U.S. which are mentioned in our Constitution.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/ And while all have the same protections and rights under our constitution, the Constitution specifically restricts to one group and one group only (which is the largest group of our nation), that is "natural born citizens" who can serve as the President and CINC of our military.

As to a framer of the 14th amendment, read John Bingham. He clearly stated that a "natural born citizen" is a person born in the USA to two parents who held no other allegiances to any other country, i.e., thus a natural born citizen is a person born in the USA to two citizens of the USA. And Obama's father clearly held allegiance to a foreign country, and no allegiance to the USA. In fact Obama's father was not even an immigrant to the USA, nor was he ever a permanent resident. He was here on a temporary visa to attend college and then went back to Kenya, the nation of his soil, blood, and allegiance.

-----------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham
"John Bingham confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:"[4]
“ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . ."
-----------------------

So even the framers of the 14th amendment knew it was clear that to be a simple "born citizen" under the 14th amendment, as is the case in the legal precedence point of the Kim Ark Wong case in CA, is not granting the status of being a "natural born citizen", which is the largest group in our nation, and from whom the President must be chosen, per our Constitution. The national allegiance of the parents of the child who is born in the USA is what determines whether the child is a "natural born citizen" or simply a "born citizen".

M Publius Goat
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org

P.S. And do tell me please, why is Obama not producing the long form original copy of his real birth CERTIFICATE in order to conclusively prove he is even a "born citizen" of the USA, let alone getting to the next step of trying to prove he is a "natural born citizen" of the USA when this case gets to trial in federal court. Can you explain Obama's reluctance to show his original, long-form birth certificate to the world, and to document examiners, to see if he really is a "born citizen" of the USA? Can you imagine going into a passport office and applying for a passport and simply telling the clerk when asked for a copy of your birth certificate, to then point at a computer screen image on your laptop and say, ... here is my proof ... give me a passport? Now translate that analogy to the office of the Presidency. That is what Obama has done ... pointed to a computer image on the screen and said ... here is my proof and that is all I need to show! Don't you agree that is ridiculous on its face to expect a computer image to be acceptable for proof of anything today of great importance, especially when the image and the underlying computer printout used to make the image (which was not a birth certificate) has been questioned as being altered.

The Natural Law makes clear what the term "marriage" means. And it makes clear what the term "natural born citizen" means. The only way the other side, Obama and his supporters can win this debate is for them to redefine what "natural born citizen" means in the context of when it was written in 1787. We are all suffering from the liberals and progressives redefining the meaning of words and terms these days to suit their current agenda. Some have even said ... well ... it all depends on what the word "is" means. We all remember that one. :-)

smrstrauss said...

Re: "We are all suffering from the liberals and progressives redefining the meaning of words and terms these days to suit their current agenda."

These guys are liberals and progressives?

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who said: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

And:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), who said: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004.)

Moreover, I should ask why a Swiss theorist, writing theory about the law in about 1750 really was on the minds of the majority of the Constitution's writers. A few maybe.

But here's the rub. The Supreme Court in the Wong case has said that our term "Natural Born Citizen" is the same thing as "Natural Born Subject" under British Common Law, and in that case it pointed out that a Natural Born Subject was simply someone who was born in Britain with two minor exceptions (the children of foreign diplomats and the children of enemies of Britain who were actually waging war against Britain at the time).

So, the Supreme Court seems to have a different definition of Natural Born Citizen than Vattel.

Then there is the interpretation of Bates, Lincoln's Atty General, who wrote: "only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic."

But I am not merely pointing out that there are legal experts who disagree with you. I ask, if the framers knew was possible for "Natural Born Citizen" to be interpreted as merely be a person born in the country, why didn't they say: "A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born in the country of two parents who are citizens." Or why didn't they write: "A president cannot have dual nationality at any time in his life" or something to that effect.

I am told that his is called "strict construction," meaning that if the writers of the Constitution meant something, they would have said it.

Now, for the key question. Do you believe that the Supreme Court is supreme in this matter? Because, if you do, you have to figure whether you have five votes. And, if you don't, then you have to consider other measures, which the vast majority of us would oppose.

Do you think that you can get five votes? Two of the Conservative justices had fathers who were born outside of the USA. I believe, though I am not sure, that both of these fathers were naturalized before their sons were born.

If so, fine. But the sons are practical men. Don't you think they will ask the practical question: Does it really make any difference that my father was naturalized before I was born rather that after? Would I really be more loyal? Are my friends, some of whom had parents who were naturalized after they were born, any less loyal citizens than the ones who had parents who were naturalized before they were born?

It takes seven years to be naturalized, I believe. Should someone practice birth control for seven years to give the kid a fair shot at the Presidency? Or, can they just go ahead and consider that their kid, born in the USA, is just as good as any other kid born in the USA?

smrstrauss said...

Re: "And do tell me please, why is Obama not producing the long form original copy of his real birth CERTIFICATE in order to conclusively prove he is even a "born citizen" of the USA."

I thought we were discussing the Natural Born Citizen question.

However, since you ask. There is a simple explanation. Hawaii sends out ONLY the Certification of Live Birth, which is the document that Obama posted.

How do I know? I asked. You can check, by asking your own questions by e-mail at vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov.

So all the questions about why doesn’t he post the long-form birth certificate have two simple answers:

(1) The Certification of Live Birth is THE official birth certificate, it shows that he was born in Hawaii, and it is legally sufficient to prove it; and

(2) Unless he has kept the original birth certificate and not mislaid it, all that he can post is what Hawaii will send him, which is only the Certification of Live Birth, which is what he has already posted.

mtngoat61 said...

Hi again SMRS:

You totally ignored the quote from John Bingham a framer of the 14th Amendment which you touted and asked about so loudly in your prior postings. How convenient of you to ignore facts which define the term "natural born citizen" as used in our Constitution. I'll repeat it for you again.

---------------------
As to a framer of the 14th amendment, read John Bingham. He clearly stated that a "natural born citizen" is a person born in the USA to two parents who held no other allegiances to any other country, i.e., thus a natural born citizen is a person born in the USA to two citizens of the USA. And Obama's father clearly held allegiance to a foreign country, and no allegiance to the USA. In fact Obama's father was not even an immigrant to the USA, nor was he ever a permanent resident. He was here on a temporary visa to attend college and then went back to Kenya, the nation of his soil, blood, and allegiance.

-----------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham
"John Bingham confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:"[4]
“ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . ."
-----------------------

So even the framers of the 14th amendment knew it was clear that to be a simple "born citizen" under the 14th amendment, as is the case in the legal precedence point of the Kim Ark Wong case in CA, is not granting the status of being a "natural born citizen", which is the largest group in our nation, and from whom the President must be chosen, per our Constitution. The national allegiance of the parents of the child who is born in the USA is what determines whether the child is a "natural born citizen" or simply a "born citizen".
---------------------------

And as to Obama not being able to get a copy of his real, long-form, original birth certificate, ... that is total bull-cr.. on your part. He certainly can get a certifified copy of the original by going there directly, in person himself and requesting one, or have his attorney's do it for him. He has the right to get a copy of the original. In fact under the Hawaiian Homelands program a person must produce a copy of that original long form birth certificate, the computer generated certification type form is not considered reliable enough by even the Hawaiian government for its own Homelands program. So again, what you are saying that no one can get a copy of their original long form, real BIRTH CERTIICATE, is bull-cr...

All of us also have the personal right and ability to request and get a certified copy of our original document from the state one was born in, if they were really born in that state. In fact you need such a copy now to get a passport, the Certification form is insufficient to get a passport since 911, and the proliferation of identity theft.

You, whoever you really are, are here spreading false information in this blog now. Your comments about "birth control" are specious and an attempt by you to make a mockery of this forum and to trivialize the discussion here about what is and how natural born citizenship is attained in a nation, and in the situation at hand ... Article II natural born citizenship. That makes your purpose of being here very obvious ... and posting here suspect, imo. You seem very interested in ignoring facts in answer to your questions and red-herring arguments in a prior post, and then go on from that point to posting false and misleading information in subsequent posts. You have revealed yourself and your motivations, imo.

M Publius Goat
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org

Zapem said...

"So all the questions about why doesn’t he post the long-form birth certificate have two simple answers:

(1) The Certification of Live Birth is THE official birth certificate, it shows that he was born in Hawaii, and it is legally sufficient to prove it; and

(2) Unless he has kept the original birth certificate and not mislaid it, all that he can post is what Hawaii will send him, which is only the Certification of Live Birth, which is what he has already posted."

====================
SMS, who told you that what was presented was "legally sufficient"? Then explain why others are able to get their hands on John McCain's long-form birth certificate, which proves he's not eligible, and no one is "allowed" to see Barack Obama's?

Then explain to me why it is that everyone else in history has had to prove their qualifications, but come 2008, Factcheck.org is all you get?

I find it preposterous that a double-standard now exists where it concerns one candidate and not others or others throughout history. NOT ONE person was given a hidden pass to the White House EXCEPT for Barack Obama and you can't tell me to just get over it.

Of course you accept what they tell you. He's obviously who you wanted in office. This is the same attitude even the republicans chose to stand on when it came to Romney, McCain, Kissinger, etc. But I notice that when it came to those cases, it was the democrats to scream first.

You forget here, the first lawsuit filed in an eligibility case in 2008 was Hollander v. McCain and the RNC. It's very telling how the democrats somehow got ahold of McCain's long-form BC, but everything is hidden when it comes to Barack Obama.

Sorry, what goes around comes around. You can't deny there hasn't been a double-standard here including illegal activity in the Senate to cover it up, of which both John McCain and Barack Obama were a party to.

The Hawaii Health Dept. makes no claims as to what is on the document in the vault; only that it's there. You show me where they provided any details to the contrary.

Barack Obama is not entitled to privacy when it comes to his qualifications to be POTUS. The Constitution says he must qualify. There is no privacy rights in that regard and anyone who claims such is not interested in the security of this country.

MIDDLE CLASS GUY said...

smrstrauss,

Your info regarding obtaining a long-form BC in Hawaii is incorrect. I spoke yesterday to Hawaii officials at the DOH. They said that their standard procedure is to send the computer generated COLB. However, by special request the long-form BC can be obtained. They prefer to send the COLB because it is less effort. A special request must contain an explanation as to why it is being requested. To establish qualification for the office of POTUS would not be a problem. The requests are granted for reasons of much less importance.

Thanks, Ken

ubi re vera said...

And as far as the means of obtaining A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, factcheck.org is absolutely guilty in perpetuating the lie that the HI Dept of Health does not give out the document. There is a section on the request form which asks the applicant to specify the REASON for the REQUEST. It is in this box that one indicates the need for the original certificate. Since the Hawaiian Homelands program requires this cert, they explain how to obtain it. It doesn't require a lawyer and it doesn't require going there in person.

John Greschak said...

Goat,

[This is in response to your messages in "Discussion Thread #3" from February 15, 2009 1:27 PM and February 17, 2009 4:35 PM, which begin "What is very clear about the natural law definition of a natural born citizen" and "I see you are giving this a lot of thought.", respectively.]

Let us pursue this approach of interpreting the phrase "natural born Citizen of the United States" by composing the meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen from the meanings of the three constituent words. For the moment, let us suppose we have come to an agreement that, here, the word "born" means "from birth" (and for now, let us ignore the issue that I have written "from birth", which is distinct from "since birth").

All that remains is to interpret the meaning of the word "natural" in this context (i.e. in the context of John Jay's letter to the George Washington from July 25, 1787, and in the context of the United States Constitution).

You wrote:

"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 you wrote:

"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."

I disagree. I do not believe the meaning of the word "natural" in the phrase "natural law" and the meaning of the word "natural" in the phrase "natural born Citizen" are the same. I believe two different senses of the word "natural" are being used here.

Two dictionaries that I have used for this purpose are: (1) Noah Webster's "An American Dictionary of the English Language", published in 1828 (available at http://1828.mshaffer.com), and (2) "Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary." (available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary). I use these particular dictionaries because: (1) these are dictionaries of American English, rather than British English; (2) the Merriam-Webster's dictionary is a direct descendant of the Noah Webster dictionary, and consequently, there is a close relationship between the senses provided for a given word in these dictionaries; and (3) Noah Webster was an American lawyer who was 28 years old when the United States Constitution was written, so his American English would be that of the time period in question.

Loosely speaking, I believe a "law of nations" is a system of laws pertaining to the interactions between nations. It is my understanding that a "natural law of nations" is a "law of nations" that has been deduced using "reason", which is also called "human reason", "man's natural reason", or simply "natural reason". In the phrase "natural law of nations", I believe the word "natural" is an adjective. Thus, I believe the sense of the word "natural" that is being used in the phrase "natural law of nations" is:

(1) number 8b of Merriam-Webster's dictionary: "formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights>, and

(2) number 7 of "An American Dictionary of the English Language", "Discoverable by reason; not revealed; as natural religion."

A "natural born Citizen of the United States" is a type of person. Here, I believe the word "natural" is an adjective that denotes a particular type of "born Citizen". As people are not "formulated by human reason", I do not believe the meaning of the word "natural" in this phrase matches that of the word "natural" in the phrase "natural law".

John Greschak

mtngoat61 said...

Hi John,

I respect your arguments and as I read you, we end up agreeing that natural born citizens are a group of the citizens of the nation, i.e., the largest group. However, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the source of the word natural in that term. I do believe that the word "natural" in the term natural born citzen is from the Natural Law, and specifically from Vattel's codification of the definition of natural born citizen in section 212 of the Law of Nations. Part of the Law of Nations is who is a citizen of what nation and per what law and thus who (what nation) has claim on that person. A person born of two citizens of a country on the soil of that country, "naturally" is a citizen of that country and no other country, prince, king, or potentate can claim anything of that person per the natural law. That is the essence of natural law. And Vattel was explaining that because of that type of citizen, a natural born citizen, there is no doubt to anyone to whom he owes his allegiance to at the instance of his birth and which sovereign power has claim to that child's allegiance. And that is the type of wisdom, the natural law teachings, is what Vattel was encouraging nations to adopt for their interreationships, and also to better govern their own citizens. The citizenship of a natural born citizen is totally and 100% decided by nature, not man, and by the natural events and circumstances of the birth of that person. No man-made law is necessary to clarify it. Thus, I believe Jay got the term "natural born citizen" from his readings of Vattel. Jay mentions his concerns in his letter to General Washington about foreigners some day becoming the President and Commander of the Army and foreign influence on a future President. Jay was very concerned about the future national security of our nation once the founders were gone and the allegiance of any future President and that it be by nature and the events of his birth to only the USA, and via citizens of the USA, and that no foreign power have any claim via any man-made law to that person's allegiance. Vattel in section 212 of his book Law of Nations in which he defines the concept of natural born citizenship also mentions foreigners and allegiance concerns when a child has one or more parents who are not citizens of the country where the child was born. It is intuitively and naturally obvious to me that Jay was using concepts and writings from Vattel in help to write the Constitution for our new FEDERAL system of government and in particular in his wanting that term natural born citizen inserted as a NECESSARY qualification to serve as President and CINC of the new nation, the USA. Jay used Vattel extensively as did other founders and framers such as Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. And like I said before, I believe that Jay and Franklin used the original French version since they were fluent in French and were both diplomats to France during the Rev. War.

So we'll agree to disagree on the source of the word natural, in the term natural born citizen. But I think we agree that to be the POTUS and CINC of the USA one needs to be born of two U.S. citizens and born in the USA.

Best wishes,

M Publius Goat

Puzo1 said...

Hi John Greschak:

I must respecfully disagree with how you arrive at your conclusion that "natural" in "natural born Citizen" is not the same word as "natural" in "natural law." The reason for your conclusion that the two terms are not the same is: "As people are not 'formulated by human reason,' I do not believe the meaning of the word 'natural' in this phrase matches that of the word 'natural' in the phrase 'natural law.'"

Your are correct that "people" are not formulated by human reason. But that is not the issue here. Rather, the issue is how did the Founders formulate a person's citizenship status. I believe in answering that question the Founders decided to formulate that status by the laws of nature,i.e., laws that exist in the contemplation of man's reasoning as opposed to his revelations (using your definition). Hence, man's reason is not creating "humans," but rather man's reason is creating humans' citizenship status.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Zapem said...

Mr. Apuzzo, I have an article from the NY Times dated July 11, 2008, where Tribe and Olson, the attorneys who wrote a brief in defense of John McCain being a natural born citizen back in April of 2008, are noted.

You will remember the rebuttal presented by Professor Gabriel Chin entitled, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship" which refutes what Tribe and Olson had argued before the Senate in support of S.R. 511.

Well it turns out that Tribe and Olson did a retraction of sorts when confronted with Professor Chin's essay.

"In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Olson, whose firm represents Mr. McCain in the New Hampshire lawsuit, said Congress could not have intended to leave the gap described by Professor Chin."

Yet, the gap is there and it's law. I also note that Olson neglected to point out that gap and so did Tribe.

"The 1937 law, Mr. Olson said, was not a fix but a way to clarify what Congress had meant all along."

That may very well be, but Congress should have thought of closing that gap before Mr. Olson assumed it was a gap after Professor Chin's response and realized he just got caught in a legal faux pas. It's Congress' responsibility for these nuances. It is not Mr. Olson's job to dismiss the laws passed by Congress. Likewise, it's not the SOS, the Electors or the Congress' job to dimiss laws when it came to qualifying Obama either.

"Professor Tribe agreed. Reading the “limits and jurisdiction” clause as Professor Chin does, Professor Tribe said, “is to attribute a crazy design to Congress” that “would create an irrational gap.”

Here we see Mr. Tribe agreeing with Mr. Olson and using the usual, "but it's stupid!" excuse.

To coin a phrase from Justice Scalia:

"Stupid, BUT constitutional."

Here Scalia is noting that while it may be stupid, it's the legislative branch's job to make the laws.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=%22natural+born+citizen%22&st=nyt

John Greschak said...

Mario and Goat,

[This is in response to your defenses of your beliefs that "the word 'natural' in the term natural born citizen is from the Natural Law".]

Perhaps the root of our disagreement, or more specifically, the root reason why I have raised this point of disagreement is that I suspect, that in this discussion we are having concerning the meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen of the United States", Vattel's text is a red herring.

Here would be yet another example of why I would believe that to be the case. It has been stated that Vattel's text was quite significant to the Framers. Also, it has been mentioned that Vattel's text was read aloud in the Constitutional Convention. Yet, when one examines "Records of the Federal Convention of 1787", by Max Farrand (1911), one does not find much evidence to support those statements. Farrand's three volume work, which consists of roughly 2000 pages, is the most comprehensive source we have of what actually happened at the Constitutional Convention. In Farrand's books, there are only four pages on which the word "Vattel" occurs and all of these instances pertain to three different accounts (by Madison, Yates, and King) of the same event in which a "Mr. Martin, the attorney general from Maryland", spoke for roughly 3 hours on the subject of proportional representation. During that speech, it is reported that he read passages from Locke, Lord Somers, Dr. Priestly, and Vattel.

Also, there were no occurrences of the following alternate spellings of Vattel: vatel, vatell, vatelle, vattell, vattelle, vittel, vitel, vitell, vitelle, vittell or vittelle; or Vattel's or Vattels.

I should also note that the phrase "natural law" was mentioned only once in all of Farrand's three volume work (on page 452 of Volume 3, in "James Madison: Note to his speech on the right of suffrage").

While the phrase "law of nations" occurs at least 30 times, in all instances that I have examined, this phrase is being used as a generic term rather than one that refers to the specific system of laws that are Vattel's "Law of Nations".

John Greschak

mtngoat61 said...

Hi John,

Re. Vattel's influence on our founders.

I don't know if it because you have just not studied the influence of Vattel on the founders and framers who created our Federal System of government, or that you have just missed it in history like so many others have, but the influence was there, and heavily so with many of the key founders such as Jay, Franklin, and Washington. Vattel's influence is a forgotten chapter in the history of the founding of our country. But the influence was there and in a major way. Here are a couple quotes about two other key founders of our country who were also key framers of our Constitution:

Re. Benjamin Franklin:
"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"
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html

Re. General and President George Washington:
"The pages of Vattel, Law of Nations, lay open to the President's scrutiny, but it is not to be hastily assumed that he found in them an answer to his problem. He was learning to be President, and at long last the Republic was a going concern."
This Was New York, the Nation's Capital in 1789, Monaghan and Lowenthal, page 138

I have no doubt in my mind that the term "natural born citizen" suggested by Jay to Washington came directly from the writings on the Natural Law, and the Law of Nations, Section 212, (in the French original edition since Franklin and Jay were fluent in French as diplomats to France during the war). And it meant to Jay and Washington exactly as Vattel defined it ... born in the country to two citizens of the country. The French and French speakers helped win our freedom as a nation in more ways than one. General Lafayette, the French Navy arriving in the Chesapeake Bay just in time, and the writings of Vattel the French speaking scholar and philosopher of Switzerland.

Respectfully, I think you should reconsider the influence that Vattel had on Jay, Franklin, Washington, and other founders of our new nation and the Federal System of government, i.e., a Constitutional Republic.

M Publius Goat

Troy said...

Mr. Appuzo, I want to start by saying, that I agree, that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to hold the presidential office...I believe the framers of the constitution did provide a grandfather clause for themselves as mere "citizens" to be eligible at the time of the adoption of the constitution, but not for mere "citizens" in the future. They instead made their wishes clear that future presidents would need to be "natural born citizens", born to two US citizen parents on US soil....I feel that Mr. Donofrio's research clearly showed this to be true and his case deserved to be heard on it's merits, as does yours....With this being said, I'm going to move on to the reason for my commenting here on your site.

I hope that you will hear me out and read everything that I am presenting here....Assuming that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, which I have some doubts about, and his Indonesian citizenship did not render him ineligible, which I also have some doubts about, then it all boils down to the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1.
***********************************
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;
***********************************
The intent of the language should be clear, but it isn't...PLEASE hear me out now....The sentence is broken up into four segments by the use of commas...Actually this is an overuse/misuse of commas which causes the statement to be completely ambiguous....The above statement, in it's original construction, could be construed to actully allow for both
"citizens" and "natural born citizens" at the time of the adoption of the constitution to be eligible....Read it again carefully, and then read it here with the second comma omitted, as it should have been constructed.
***********************************
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;
***********************************
Written this way there is absolutely no ambiguity and it reads crystal clear and reflects that a "citizen" is eligible ONLY at the time of the adoption of the constitution....There are different types of commas and the ones used in Article 2 are what is called "Restrictive" and Non-Restrictive" commas.
http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/Commas.html
http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/restrnonradjc03.htm

Article 2, Section 1 is not the only place in the constitution plagued with this problem...Here are more examples...Start reading on page seven (7).
http://xml.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/site/articleIDs/63B6C5E2ABB6A511CA25714C000CFF37/$file/syntactic.pdf

Did you know the the Michigan State Constitution had to be rewritten, because of the misplacement/misuse of a single comma?...The original wording inadvertently legalized slavery and by simply moving a comma from one place to another, slavery in Michigan was forever abolished.
***********************************
More important issues than money can hinge on a misplaced comma. Michigan recently discovered that its state constitution inadvertently legalized slavery. Section 8, Article 2, read: “Neither slavery or involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of a crime, shall ever be tolerated in this state”. Technically, this says slavery will be tolerated for the punishment of a crime. It was decided to move the comma from after servitude and place it after slavery (Bernstein, 1965 p. 360). Bernstein offers another example of how a comma can change the meaning of a sentence:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:9OFFi8VsYgcJ:www.uhh.hawaii.edu/academics/hohonu/writing.php%3Fid%3D82+why+michigan+had+to+rewrite+it%27s+constitution+because+of+a+misused+comma&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
***********************************
Mr. Apuzzo, the reason that I am presenting all of this to you is because I want to do my part in making certain that you are prepared for this incase it gets thrown at you by the opposition. If I were a defense attorney, I certainly would not rely on this as the core of my case, but if all else failed and I were about to be ruled against I would certainly make an argument with it...Prior cases have been won and lost due to ambiguous text in legal documents...The first time that I read Article 2, Section 1, this problem jumped off the page right at me...I wonder if the SCOTUS justices have already encountered this conundrum and have argued it amongst themselves. It would have been nice if they would have actually prsented a written ruling on previous eligibility cases intead of simply denying without comment...At least then we would have an idea on what grounds they are basing their decisions to deny these cases.

I wish you the very best of luck Mr. Apuzzo, because I sincerely believe that Barack Obama is a danger to this country.

If you feel that the info I have posted here has merit and would rather the opposition not see it, then I understand if you do not post my comments.

My very best wishes to you, Sir.

John Greschak said...

Goat,

[This is in response to your message in which you discuss the influence that Vattel had on Franklin.]

I do not question whether or not Franklin had a copy of Vattel. However, one can question the impact that it had upon him, especially in regards to the matter at hand (i.e. eligibility requirements for officers of the government).

Vattel is quite clear on how he feels that nations must be independent. He writes at length about this in the Preface to his book. From the 1797, English translation we have:

"Each fovereign ftate claims and actually poffeffes an absolute independence on all the others." (page xiii)

and

"...independence is even neceffary to each ftate, in order to enable her properly to difcharge the duties fhe owes to herfelf and to her citizens, and to govern herfelf in the manner beft fuited to her circumftances." (page xv)

However, here is what Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention (according to Madison's notes) in response to the proposal that Senators be required to be residents for 14 years.

Concerning Govr. Morris' motion to raise the residency requirement for Senators from 4 years to 14:

"Docr. Franklin was not agst. a reasonable time, but should be very sorry to see any thing like illiberality inserted in the Constitution. The people in Europe are friendly to this Country. Even in the Country with which we have been lately at war, We have now & had during the war, a great many friends not only among the people at large but in both Houses of Parliament. In every other Country in Europe all the people are our friends. We found in the Course of the Revolution, that many strangers served us faithfully - and that many natives took part agst. their Country. When foreigners after looking about for some other Country in which they can obtain more happiness, give a preference to ours, it is a proof of attachment which ought to excite our confidence & affection."

I believe he did not believe 14 years was a "reasonable time". Further, I suspect he would have rather had no residency requirement in this part of the Constitution. After motions for 14 years, 13 years, and 10 years were all voted down (each by 7 to 4), we have:

"Dr. Franklin reminded the Convention that it did not follow from an omission to insert the restriction in the Constitution that the persons in question wd. be actually chosen into the Legislature."

Remember, we are talking about a time when there would be far fewer Senators than today, and thus each would be far more powerful.

Finally, a motion for 9 years was accepted (6 yes, 4 no, 1 divided). Franklin was a delegate from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania voted "no" on each of these motions.

When you find a quote that directly connects Vattel and any of the Framers with their position on the specific issue at hand, then you might have something significant. Personally, I have stopped looking for such a thing, for my instincts suggest to me that it is not there to be found.

John Greschak

Puzo1 said...

My Dear Dr. Conspiracy:

Let us stay "on message" (I am sure you know how to do that) rather than argue the little stuff the need for which is created only because Mr. Obama refuses to meet HIS burden of proof to provide "conclusive" (putting an end to debate or question) evidence that he was born in the United States. The first issue can be resolved rather simply with any future cases raising the same issue being precluded from being filed. Mr. Obama produces "conclusive" proof he was born in the United States and there is no need for you to defend him on this issue. Just think of all the hours of work that you will saved by not having to attack every little detail that exists on the internet against Mr. Obama regarding whether he was born in the United States. Would not that make you so happy, knowing that the Obama place-of-birth issue is quieted and dead?

On the question of what is an Article II "natural born Citizen," so you do not like Vattel. Then I suggest that you study a little more what the common law that existed at the time of the writing of Article II of the Constitution said about what is a "natural born Citizen."

On those Rule 11 sanctions, I can see Mr. Obama being slapped with them if he pleads that he was born in Hawaii if he was not.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

Dr. Conspiracy:

The motif, the raison d'etre of your blog is conspiracy. But I am missing something. Can you please explain to me where the conspiracy is in someone asking that Mr. Obama produce to a competent public authority conclusive proof of his being born in Hawaii and that Mr. Obama also show that he is an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

John Greschak said...

According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, one of the senses of the word natural is: "marked by easy simplicity...". Ironically, some of the other senses of the word natural are among the most complex of any word in the English language. This is the case for the particular sense of the word natural that I believe is used in the phrase natural born Citizen of the United States. For this reason, I think it might be helpful for me to provide some explanation of the interpretation that I have put forward in my essay What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?.

At the core of my interpretation of the word natural (in this context) are two "e" words: essence and expectation. These two words are connected by the process called human reason; in understanding the world, and in particular, in developing a sense of what are the natural things in the world, we work to determine the essence of things, and deduce expectations from that knowledge. That is, we deduce expectations that are in accord with our understanding of the essence of something. In some cases, our reasoning leads us to expect that a particular kind of thing will be the usual, ordinary or average kind. We refer to this particular kind of thing as a natural kind of thing.

For a concrete example, consider the escape strategy of the wild turkey. Turkeys can fly. But, given one's understanding of the essence of a turkey (a large slow-moving bird, with large slow-moving wings, that spends most of its time on the ground), one would expect the turkey to run from danger long before danger is nearby (rather than fly away only when danger is imminent). One would expect this to be the turkey's usual escape strategy. One could call this the natural escape strategy of the turkey.

John Greschak

fracpilot said...

Did you ever consider having a Podcast? It's getting really tough to find some good ones while working out. G Gordon is great but boring sometimes. How 'bout it?

Zapem said...

I don't know what kind of game you're playing here, Dr. Conspiracy, but I found your blog: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/ and I found your comments.

You seem to think it's funny to say that you came here and chided Mr. Apuzzo and then run back to your hole where you ridicule him and make false statements such as he's a "birther" or that Mr. Donofrio said the court erred in Wong Kim Ark, which was never said, etc., etc.

The game is up. It's extemely immature and childish the game you're playing with the public. This is a legal issue that has NEVER been decided by the United States Supreme Court as to the definition of "natural born citizen". I don't see where YOU feel that your word is "supreme" that you feel you have the right to smear those that don't agree with your position and make false allegations against them.

This issue is not about a birth certificate per se, inasmuch as that only reflects the absurd notion that candidates can now be legitimized via pictures taken by Factcheck.org and thrown up on the internet, while the Secretaries of State, Electors and Congress deny that it's their job to be doing. That's the absurdity of this so-called birth certificate.

There's also the British Nationality Act, a foreign father, citizenship laws and various other factors of the law you seem to shy away from completely. But that's no surprise since Mr. Obama has done the same by parading that BC around so no one asks the real questions they should be - regarding the LAW.

Mr. Apuzzo invited people here to ask questions about why he was doing this. Instead, you felt the need to go back to your blog and smear him.

That's something you might want to look into about your character, not his.

Mr. Apuzzo specializes in citizenship and nationality law. You could have asked him what his specialty was before trying to smear his good name with the description you put up and I hope Mr. Apuzzo has time to take a good look at what you wrote, because it's bordering defamation at this point.

Puzo1 said...

To smrstrauss February 19, 2009:

YOUR COMMENT: "British common law held that a person merely had to be born in the British realm to be a Natural Born British Subject. Thus Vattel was simply misunderstanding British Common Law when he wrote that a child became “naturalized” by being born in England."

MY RESPONSE: Study English common law better. You will learn that what Vattel says regarding a "natural born citizen" is the same as what English common law says.

YOUR COMMENT: "And our Constitution has been amended to eliminate any distinction (if there ever were any) between citizens who are born in the USA and citizens of US parents who are born in the USA. The 14th Amendment says: “ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'”

MY RESPONSE: The 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause did not amend Article II's "natural born Citizen" clause. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment did not expand or reduce the meaning of what a citizen is let alone change the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." The 14th Amendment was not needed to establish that persons born on U.S. soil and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens. That was always the law. What the Amendement did is make sure that States did not deny such citizens privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen. More important, however, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with Article II, which specifies the qualifications to be President. I challenge you to find one quote from the debates on the 14th Amendment or any other evidence that in any way shows that the framers of that Amendment amended or even intended to amend the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen."

YOUR COMMENT: "A person who is born in the USA is a citizen at birth under Title 8 of the US Code."

RESPONSE: The Constitution gives Congress the power to naturalize people. It does not give Congress the power to create a "natural born Citizen." Hence, Congress does not have the Constitutional power to make a person a "natural born Citizen." The word "natural" clearly tells you that, for the status of "natural born Citizen" cannot be created by law but only by nature. Hence Title 8 does not and cannot create a "natural born Citizen" nor does the statutory language indicate that it intends to. If anything, it can only confirm what a "natural born Citizen" is. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment did not in any way touch upon an Article II "natural born citizen."

YOUR COMMENT: "But, you may ask, is “a citizen at birth” the same thing as a “Natural Born Citizen?'”

MY RESPONSE: No. All "natural born Citizen" are necessarily "citizens at birth" but not all "citizens at birth" are necessarily "natural born Citizens."

YOUR COMMENT: "Why should the model be Vattel and not the British Common Law?"

MY RESPONSE: They are the same when it comes to defining a "natural born subject/citizen."

YOUR COMMENT: "Surely the people who wrote Article II of the Constitution were familiar with the Declaration of Independence, which had the words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal.”

That cannot mean that someone who is born in the USA to parents who are NOT citizens has fewer rights than someone who was born in the USA to parents who ARE citizens. It cannot mean that those who were born to citizens are MORE citizens than those who were born to people who were not citizens."

MY RESPONSE: The Framers felt that the President and Vice President were so unique that those offices could be filled only with a "natural born Citizen." These two offices were the only exception, for all other offices could be filled with "Citizens." The Framers felt that given the amount of power that a President wields, the national security of our country deserved such a special distinction. This is their wish and command. If we as a society do not like what the Framers commanded, then we have to formally and legally amend the Constitution.

YOUR COMMENT: "So, the British Common Law, the 14th Amendment, and the Declaration of Independence all show that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is simply someone who was born in the USA."

RESPONSE: Wrong. See above.

YOUR COMMENT: "Many congressmen and senators who are also lawyers agree. For example: Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who said: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

And:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), who said: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004.)

MY RESPONSE: With all due respect, these Senators do not know what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.

YOUR STATEMENT: "And here is Lincoln’s Attorney General: Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862)

“'The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …

“And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

“If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …

MY RESPONSE: If the Constitution, in using the term "natural born Citizen," only recognized and reaffirmed the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, then it recogninzed the principles of the Roman law, civil law, English common law, and Vattel that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in a country of parents who are its citizens.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Mick said...

Hello Mario,
It is always maddening when tricks are used to ascertain the meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen by those with an agenda. It is rather obvious that the focus on National Security and allegiance was the driving force for the POTUS qualification for NBC. Logically therefore, it would be impossible to even consider that the Framers would think an anchor baby could be POTUS! The dihonest phrasing of the question by those with an agenda as to the definition is, "whom, in other words, is a citizen of the US at birth?". The question should be "whom. at birth, is a citizen of the US and no other foreign power?"

Puzo1 said...

THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED.

Please continue questions and discussion using the DISCUSSION5 thread.

For questions and discussion of the case, please utilize the DISCUSSION5 comments thread by [Clicking Here].
####