Monday, February 9, 2009

Second Amended Verified Complaint for Kerchner v. Obama Filed Feb. 9, 2009

I am pleased to announce that early this morning, Monday, February 9, 2009, I filed a Second Amended Verified Complaint in the Kerchner et al v. Obama et al case. To get a copy of this amended pleading, go to:

Scribd.com:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

or CountryFirst.BraveHost.com:
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=2569#p10244

Feel free to comment in general on this amended pleading and the main issue, the lack of Obama having Article II natural born citizenship, under our constitution. However, please note, I cannot comment of the specifics of the case and/or tactics and strategies as to how I will argue specific points in the case in coming hearings or trial of this case. A public blog is not the place to prematurely show one's "hand" and to argue a case.

If you can offer assistance for this case in any way, including historical research, constitutional research, legal research, etc., and/or have the desire to help this case in some other manner, feel free to write me or contact me at the below postal and email addresses and let me know what you can do to help.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
Tel: 732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906
Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

22 comments:

MIDDLE CLASS GUY said...

Without giving away any strategies and / or confidential info what is the portion of the filing that was amended?

What is the status of this case?

Thanks, Ken

Puzo1 said...

The new pleading includes claims under the 5th Amendment against Congress, Obama, and others involving

(1) procedural due process (given the people's and plaintiff's petitions and questions that existed regarding Obama's Article II eligibility to be President, Congress et als. violated their constitutional (20th Amendment) and statutory duty (3 U.S.C. Sec. 15) to properly investigate and conduct a sufficient confirmation hearing on Obama before confirming him to be President);

(2) substantive due process (Obama says even though I want to be President I do not have to prove to plaintiffs and other concerned Americans that I was born in the United States and that I am an Article II "natural born Citizen," and Congress says it is not our constitutional duty to confirm or we do not care about confirming whether President Elect Obama was born in the United States and whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen");

(3) equal protection (Congress investigated McCain's Article II "natural born Citizenship" status and protected the liberty interests of those who challenged that status but they did not investigate Obama's Article II "natural born Citizenship" status and thereby similarly protect the liberty interest of plaintiffs who similarly questioned Obama's status); and

(4) how that constitutionally deficient procedural and substantive due process severly and negativley impacts upon plaintiffs' liberty interest derived from being members of a representaive form of a democratic Constitutional Republic, with the inalienable right as explicilty expressed in Article II of the Constitution to know whether their President was born in the United States and that he is an Article II "natural born Citizen."

The pleading was also "cleaned up" and made factually stronger.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

MIDDLE CLASS GUY said...

Thank you for the explanation. Good luck with your case.

Thanks, Ken

Zapem said...

I signed up for your forums, but no activation e-mail was sent. I told it to resend it again and still nothing.

Just a heads up that you may have to manually activate people in order for them to post there. It happens on the forums we use sometimes too. I have no idea why. It could be pre-flagged as spam by some providers is all I can think.

mtngoat61 said...

Article II Natural Born Citizenship

There are five types of citizens of the U.S. mentioned in the Constitution. Two were mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Two were mentioned in Article II, Section I, Clause 5. And the general named type is citizen, which is the fifth type mentioned, is the all encompassing group of which the others are subsets, is mentioned many places in the Constitution.

All citizens of the U.S. are citizens of the U.S. but not all Citizens of the U.S. are born citizens, not all are naturalized citizens, not all are natural born citizens, and not all born citizens are natural born citizens, and no citizens remain were the original U.S. citizens when the Consitution was adopted, for which the Constitution provided a grandfather clause for the original citizens. And only the subset who are "natural born citizens" can serve as the President and Commander in Chief of our military.

Natural born citizens of a nation innately by the nature of the events of their birth have the strongest natural allegiance to their nation, by being born on the soil of America and via the blood of two other American citizens. They will have the least familial influence from foreign individuals or other foreign influence on them, since they are 2nd generation American via both parents being citizens when their child was born in the USA.

This is what our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution intended. Only a natural born citizen shall be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. This was a national security concern of the framers and is why John Jay recommended to General George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, that the clause be added as a necessary qualification for future presidents of the United States. And that group of citizens, natural born citizens, would not be, and is not a small group of people to choose from. In reality it is the largest subset of overall citizens. Those born in the USA to two parents both of whom were citizens at the time of the child's birth is the largest group of citizens in our country. That is what the framers intended for the future pool of candidates who could serve as President. And it was for national security reasons, and independence from foreign allegiance concerns, that the framers wanted this and only this group to be the one that could serve as President and Commander in Chief of our military. They did not want a "citizen of the world". They wanted a person born in the USA to two people who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth, i.e., a 2nd generation American by both parents.

See my chart which shows the five types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution in table form:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/

Look over the chart at the link above which details the five types of citizens mentioned in our U.S. Constitution and the legal and historical reference to same. Print it out and study it over a bit.

I hope this helps and informs regarding the central issue of this case, i.e., that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA. There were and are many questions as to where he was born and the necessary and sufficient credible evidence to prove where he was born ... AND ... his father was NOT and never was U.S. citizen, and in fact was not even an immigrant to our country and never was even a permanent resident of our country. His father is a foreigner in the truest sense of that word as used by John Jay. Thus Obama cannot be a Natural Born Citizen. He refuses to provide the necessary and sufficient evidence and proof and that he is a natural born citizen under questioning of that constitutional requirement by 100s of thousands of Americans via letters and petitions to Congress and that Congress unconstitutionally confirmed him without the necessary, credible, and sufficient evidence and proof that he was Article II natural born citizen eligible to serve in the office of POTUS and CINC, under the Constitutional standards.

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

John Greschak said...

Mario,

I have examined those instances where the phrase "natural born Citizen" is used in your Second Amended and Verified Complaint. I appreciate the labor that is required to assemble a document of this scale. Please take no offense at my criticisms. My only agenda is to distinguish that which is reasonable from that which is not. Here are my thoughts.

All my comments pertain to Endnotes 14 and 39.

Endnote 39: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens (emphasis supplied). E. de Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212 (1758).

Vattel's book was published in French in 1758. This particular English translation of Vattel, was not published until 1797. It is the first known English edition of Vattel's book that used the phrase "natural-born citizens". Therefore, I believe it is misleading to not indicate that this quote is from 1797 (rather than 1758). (Note: There is a missing quotation mark at the end of the quote.)

Endnote 14 (Sentence 1): The origins of the term "natural born Citizen' and inclusion in the Constitution can be traced to a 1787 letter from John Jay to General George Washington.

As this is written, I believe it is misleading. It suggests that the origin (as in "first use") of the term "natural born Citizen" was Jay's letter. The term was used in several places before Jay used it (e.g. Quintilian 1774 and many Massachusetts naturalization acts). I understand that, here, you might have been trying to say that it is likely that Jay's letter was the impetus for the use of this phrase in the Constitution. With that I would agree. (Note: The quotation marks on the phrase "natural born Citizen" do not match.)

Endnote 14 (Sentence 8): He [Jay] was not concerned about the loyalties of existing "original citizens" of the new country because they had openly fought for independence.

Perhaps, "less concerned" would be more accurate than "not concerned". Although it is possible that Jay was not concerned about such "original citizens", there is evidence that there were Framers who did not share this belief. In debating residency requirements for Congress, we have the following (from Madison's notes): in response to an attempt to limit the proposed residency requirement for House of Representatives members to persons who are not now Citizens, Rutlidge responded, "The policy of the precaution was as great with regard to foreigners now Citizens; as to those who are to be naturalized in the future". (see: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s2.html)

Endnote 14 (from Sentence 12): the delegates agreed and approved it

You might mention that this was done, without dissent (by Madison's notes).

Endnote 14 (Sentence 14): Jay would have obtained the term "natural born Citizen" from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212.

While he might have obtained the notion of a class of citizens who are born on the soil, of parents who are citizens, he could not have obtained the term "natural born Citizen" from this source (because it was not written in that source until 1797).

John Greschak

mtngoat61 said...

Hi John,

You said:
----------------------
Endnote 14 (Sentence 14): Jay would have obtained the term "natural born Citizen" from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212.

While he might have obtained the notion of a class of citizens who are born on the soil, of parents who are citizens, he could not have obtained the term "natural born Citizen" from this source (because it was not written in that source until 1797).

Endnote 39: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens (emphasis supplied). E. de Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212 (1758).

Vattel's book was published in French in 1758. This particular English translation of Vattel, was not published until 1797. It is the first known English edition of Vattel's book that used the phrase "natural-born citizens". Therefore, I believe it is misleading to not indicate that this quote is from 1797 (rather than 1758). (Note: There is a missing quotation mark at the end of the quote.)
__________________________

I will defer to Atty Apuzzo on his answers to your questions, but it is my opinion that the original English translation was too literal and a bit wrong as to the meaning when read by a legally trained person fluent in French at that time and that the full meaning of the relevant French term to convey its true meaning legally in English was "natural born citizen", which imo was the reason the 1797 translation to English clarified that. This is sort of like re-translations of the Holy Bible, etc.

John Jay could read and speak French since he was of French Huguenot heritage and had served our nation in France, living there during the Rev. War, and then later to negotiate various matters including treaties. As a legal scholar, he would have likely have read Vattel as soon as the French version became available in the original French language version and did not have to depend on the later English translation. Also, as a brilliant mind and legal scholar he would likely have preferred to read Vattel in the original French version to avoid any translation issues by reading the original verions in the original language. Thus he requested that General George Washington add the term, or concept as you call it, because of his ideas and concerns about a future President having foreign allegiances which was expressed so well in Vattel's writings. Thus I believe John Jay got the concept and the visual very words "natural born citizens" from Vattel's writings when he read Vattel's, "The Law of Nations", published in French in 1758. And that is how he conveyed the meaning in English to General George Washington.

Respectfully, out of curiousity, if John Jay did not get it from Vattel, which was the legal hot treatise of the time as to the nature of government having its roots in "natural law", then where do you suggest that John Jay got those words or concept as you called them, "natural born citizen". Obviously the English translator of the later English version in 1797 translated the French to include the English words, "natural born citizens". It was probably done to clarify the true legal meaning of the French version for that sentence in Vattel as Vattel intended to mean it. Thus a person fluent in French in 1787, as Jay was, could have read the French version the same way and that is what he conveyed to General George Washington, Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, to ameliorate his and others concerns about the future national security issues for our new nation that would be raised if a non-natural born citizen would ever become the President and Command in Chief of the Army (military).

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

mtngoat61 said...

All:

Translations and meanings of words.

Since we are wondering here about where did John Jay get the words "natural born citizens", I was wondering if anyone visiting our blog would know where and how Obama and his supporters got the word "birth certificate" off the document image that he proffered in June 2008 online which is clearly titled, "CERTIFICATION of Live Birth" and not "CERTIFICATE of Live Birth".

Just poking a little intellectual fun at the O-Bots (not you John) who hang on every slightest meaning of or nuance about a word that could hurt their Messiah's case, but then totally ignore the rock in their own eye in what they use for words to describe what they consider sufficient evidence to prove Obama was born in Hawaii, not to mention his father was NEVER a U.S. citizen, not even a permanent resident.

Thus, in the grand scheme of things wherever or however the words go into the Constitution, they are there in Article II, and Obama has chosen to trample on them.

Citizenship Terms found in the U.S. Constitution - a chart:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/

M Publius Goat

34N2NbcXqoLW4.tgDhgVNWvVq08XIw-- said...

MtnGoat61 and John Greschack
This might be of interest. http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/4393418?n=1&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25
Horace Binney/Alienigenae of the United States, 12/1,1853. It is an interesting and informative discussion of natural born citizen and citizen.Also a good discussion as to common-law principle, actually lack of, as relates to children born in foreign countries of an American father or mother.

John Greschak said...

Mario,

[Note To Goat: You posted your response to my previous message before I posted this message. This is a follow-up message to my previous message, which I wrote before seeing your response. To be clear, this is not a response to your message. I shall need some time to consider the points you raised in your message before responding to that.]

I can see the potential advantage of mentioning Section 212 of Vattel's "The Law of Nations" in an argument where one claims the phrase "natural born Citizen of the United States" implies "born in the United States, of two parents who are citizens", However, I believe the following disadvantages outweigh any advantages.

1. The phrase "natural-born citizens" was not used in "The Law of Nations" until 1797.

2. The "key" sentence uses the word "parents", which is ambiguous (for grammatical reasons). One will need to answer the charge that it is possible that, here, Vattel meant one parent (specifically, just the father).

3. In the "key" sentence, Vattel only discusses the place of one's birth and the citizenship of one's parents (we assume, he meant at birth, only). I believe there may be other necessary conditions for one to be a natural born citizen. For example, I have mentioned the possibility of a condition for lifelong legal residence. In addition to that, I am considering the following: "The person has never acted voluntarily with the intent to do any of the following: (1) retain citizenship of any country other than the United States, (2) gain citizenship of any country, or (3) lose citizenship of the United States."

I believe it is not necessary to invoke Vattel's passage. Thus, I believe Points 1 and 2 (from the top of this message) are unnecessary distractions, and Point 3 places unnecessary restrictions on the meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen". In place of invoking Vattel, one could broaden the argument related to Jay's use of the term. For example, here is a passage (consisting of 2 paragraphs) that would be along those lines:

On July 25, 1787, while the United States Constitution was being written, John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington in which he expressed his concern with the possibility of a foreigner being eligible to be Commander in Chief of the American Army. To address his concern, he put forward the requirement that the President be a "natural born Citizen". Weeks later, when delegates at the Constitutional Convention debated the eligibility requirements for Senators, (from Madison's notes, we know that) others (e.g. Morris and Butler) echoed Jay's concern regarding foreigners. One side argued that Senators should be drawn from those who had never belonged to a foreign country; the opposition argued that Senators should only be required to be Citizens and inhabitants, with no concern for one's past attachments to a foreign country. As a compromise, a residency requirement was used. After rejecting proposals of 14, 13 and 10 years, it was agreed that a 9-year residency in the United States would be adequate for one to reduce their foreign attachments. This was seen as appropriate, since previously it had been agreed that a (lesser) 7-year residency would be required for House of Representatives positions, which were viewed as less powerful. Weeks later, they would consider a proposal for the requirements for President that incorporated Jay's suggested "natural born Citizen" criterion. By Madison's account this was passed without dissent.

In the years since, there has been much debate on the matter of what are necessary conditions for one to be a "natural born Citizen of the United States". Various approaches have been taken; various conclusions have been drawn. However, the merit of any proposed interpretation of the phrase "natural born Citizen" must be judged according to the degree to which that interpretation is consistent with the Framers' intent. Clearly, there are some born Citizens of the United States who have substantive foreign attachments that might disqualify them from being considered natural; for example, those who are born outside the United States, or those who have a parent who is not a Citizen of the United States would be in that category.

Note: Some of what I have written here is based on the book "Constitution Making: Conflict and Consensus in the Federal Convention of 1787" by Calvin C. Jillson (available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=73OR1HSv0_kC). I have not yet verified that what is stated in this book is consistent with Madison's notes of the Convention.

John Greschak

mtngoat61 said...

Hi all,

News coverage about this case and the new filing by Atty Apuzzo was published at WorldNewsDaily. There is also a list of other cases still pending in the courts on Obama's citizenship status provided in this article.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88566

Nothing in the MSM, of course. As was the typical modus operandi of the Main Stream Media (MSM) for this whole election cycle with the MSM being an enabling contributor to this hoax and fraud on the Constitution and the American people perpetrated by Mr. O and his Chicago mafia and subversive type handlers and supporters, and in covering up for Mr. O, the Main Stream Media (MSM) continues their cone of silence on these cases. JMHO.

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

Zapem said...

Dear John,

Did you know that Vattel along with other writers of the time were read from at the original constitutional convention? That's the reason for the inclusion. Because the references they cited were the actual terminology used in the Constitution.

I can give you the reference if needed. See: Constitutional debates; the writings of James Madison and latter works transcribed by Thomas Payne. Those are writings the Duggin conveniently leaves out of her law review. One has to question why she did that when she definitely knew better.

Zapem said...

See also: The Founders' Constitution Volume 3, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, Document 2
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_5s2.html
The University of Chicago Press

Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.


§ 1473. "It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.

...

But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections..."

What do we see with Obama? We see a man who calls Kenyans his "brothers and sisters" and calls for the United States to form a partnership with them. This is apparent foreign influence at work here. His own books prove that he has psychological issues drawn to his father and his father's heritage. He isn't favorably drawn to Americans. He chastises white people from the one half of his bloodline and reaches out to Arabs which is the other half of his bloodline with no such criticisms. He's only 6.9% African and shares nothing of their struggles. He likes using them for votes, though. He led a very good life despite the lies he told. I've seen the houses he lived in. What was this foodstamp stuff all about? His mother wanted for nothing, that's a fact.

If we are to determine his loyalties, one need not look any further than Obama's own statements which chastise Americans and reach out to foreigners, especially those of his father's homeland.

This is in direct conflict with what the framers were talking about. If a president were to be tested by words of intent alone, Obama would never pass the smell test. He called himself a "citizen of the world", remember?

How can anyone of sound mind excuse the language he used that in my mind, was nothing more than shaming America?

Well you know what? I'm tired of being told I should be ashamed of being American. I didn't do anything to deserve that label, MR. OBAMA!

Zapem said...

With regard to the amended complaint and S.R. 511, it should be added that despite this non-binding resolution, which was only made as an attempt to fool the public FIVE WEEKS after S. 2678 failed to be passed (see: http://zapem.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/obama-knew-he-wasnt-eligible-for-potus/):

Did you know that S.R. 511 is recognizing that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when his long form birth certificate states he was not? That makes S.R. 511 pretty moot regardless of their ILLEGAL activity in the Senate in February and April, 2008.

But one thing it does show is that there CAN be a contradiction between a short-form BC and a long-form BC. That contradiction is proven with John McCain! Look at the two forms closely.

The presents an even bigger problem for Obama, doesn't it? Because if there CAN be a discrepancy between the two forms, you ARE entitled to see BOTH.

Tell the courts who don't know what to do with these cases to chew on that one.

mtngoat61 said...

Bravo Zapem!

Very well said. And right on point with this usurper, Mr. O.

And thank you very much for the historical information regarding the constitutional writings during the convention. This is the type input that is needed.

I will check out your suggested readings. And send/post more if you have them. I am sure Atty Apuzzo will appreciate any such tips and suggestions as to historical, constitutional, and legal writings which support this case.

The full 2nd Amended Complaint can be viewed and down-loaded at:

Scribd.com:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

Again, bravo Zapem. Well said!

M Publius Goat

MIDDLE CLASS GUY said...

If you can answer these questions without jepardizing or compromising your case I would like to know:

Have the defendants been served yet?

What is the status of this case?

What is the next step in the process?

Thanks, Ken

John Greschak said...

Goat,

[This is in response to your question concerning my thoughts on the origin of the phrase "natural born Citizen". Please forgive the tone (or voice) of this message; I wrote this as a draft that might ultimately find a home in my essay.]

Most often, the meaning of a word or phrase is established through usage. While there are instances where a word or phrase is invented by some individual, or group of individuals, who provide a clear definition at the time at which the word is introduced or first used, these cases are the exception to the norm. Usually, a new meaning or sense of a word emerges gradually as a consequence of that word being employed in a new context. The new meaning becomes more well-known as its use becomes more widespread.

Let us consider the origin of the phrase "natural born Citizen of the United States". In the 1750's, many people living in the British Colonies of America would have been familiar with the terms "subject" and "natural born subject". For example, persons residing in Massachusetts Bay Colony would have known that a "natural born subject" meant a "natural born subject of the crown of England."

Gradually, the word "Citizen" became a more fashionable alternative to the word "subject", especially in circumstances where the rights of men were the focus of one's discourse. Between the time of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the time at which the United States Constitution was written (1787), in some places (e.g. Massachusetts), the words "subject" and "citizen" were used interchangeably. This usage is consistent with the following from Noah Webster's "An American Dictionary of the English Language" of 1828: "Men in free governments, are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens, they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects, they are bound to obey the laws." Consequently, the phrase "natural born citizen" began to be used as an alternative (equivalent) for the phrase "natural born subject". Here, a person seeing the phrase "natural born citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" might translate that as "natural born subject of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts", and might in turn, transfer to this phrase the meaning that they knew for the phrase "natural born subject of the crown of England" by substituting "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" in place of "crown of England".

It is in this environment and time that John Jay writes a letter to George Washington in which he uses the phrase "natural born Citizen". There he expresses his concern with the possibility of a foreigner being permitted to be Commander in Chief of the American Army. He addressed his concern by proposing that the President of the United States be required to be a "natural born Citizen". This recommendation, which was made while the United States Constitution was being written, was incorporated into that document (without dissent) by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, who, to varying degrees, shared Jay's concern regarding foreigners. Some who encountered this new use of the phrase "natural born Citizen" (in the Constitution) might have resolved its meaning in the same way they had understood the phrase "natural born citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts". However, despite this, I believe Jay's use of the phrase "natural born Citizen" in his letter, and more importantly, the subsequent use of this phrase in the eligibility requirements for President, which are specified in the United States Constitution, marked the beginning of a new, independent, sense of the phrase "natural born Citizen". I refer to this sense as "natural born Citizen of the United States".

Due to the fact that the phrase "natural born Citizen" was used in the United States Constitution in this particular way, the meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen of the United States" (as distinct from the meanings of analogous phrases such as "natural born subject of the crown of England" or "natural born citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts") is inextricably constrained to the clear and well-known intent for which it was used; namely, to prevent a foreigner from becoming President of the United States. (Only a Constitutional amendment can break that link.) The crown of England was at liberty to label anyone they chose as a "natural born subject of the crown of England". Likewise, prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts could have labeled anyone they chose as a "natural born citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts". (The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did not stipulate that their governor or other officials must be natural born citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) However, after the United States Constitution was adopted, legislators in the United States, at both the state and federal levels, lost this liberty. They are bound by the United States Constitution. They are not free to label, by resolution, act or law, any individual they wish as a "natural born Citizen of the United States". Specifically, they may not declare any individual who is a foreigner (i.e. one who belongs or has belonged to, or owes or has owed allegiance to, a foreign country), to be a "natural born Citizen of the United States", because any such declaration would be unconstitutional, in that it would be in nonconformance with the intent of the Constitutional requirement that a President must be a natural born Citizen of the United States. (Perhaps the United States Naturalization Act of 1790, which called for children of citizens born outside the United States to be considered as natural born citizens, could have been challenged on these grounds [had this act not been superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, through which the phrase "natural born" was removed from this context].)

John Greschak

Puzo1 said...

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.

Zapem said...

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.

John Greschak said...

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

John Greschak said...

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: http://books.google.com/books?id=DZADAAAAQAAJ):

"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

Puzo1 said...

NOTICE TO ALL. END OF THIS THREAD.

This Kerchner et al v. Obama et al "2nd Amended Verified Complaint" thread is now closed. I have started a new Discussion #3 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.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/02/discussion3-kerchner-et-al-v-obama-et.html

Thank you,
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.