Thursday, April 23, 2009

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth


Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship
and Sole Allegiance At Birth
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.

Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel's, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.

Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate's character and qualifications to be President.

Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers' meaning of what a "natural born Citizen" is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.

The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the "natural born Citizen" clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

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

####

For more about what Obama wants to hide about citizenship laws and his citizenship issues see:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

####

60 comments:

Joe said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

I just thought I would add the most obvious....

The mere fact that the President of the United States is unwilling and refuses to present his qualifications to the Citizens of the United States proves that he is not loyal to the United States.


Please post as soon as you get the response today!!!

Doublee said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

I just recently came across S. 2128, which was introduced in the Senate on February 25, 2004. Its stated purpose is “To define the term ‘natural born citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.”

>Begin quote
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'.
(a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen' in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means--
(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States--
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or
(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.

(b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States', when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
>End quote

Although the bill never got passed, its existence offers an additional opportunity to understand the Constitution and the role of Congress and its relationship to the Constitution.

I believe the bill is based on a false premise, which is that Congress has the power to arbitrarily define the meaning of words in the Constitution. At least that is how I read the wording in the bill. Congress cannot define the meaning of natural born citizen; it can only discover the meaning in consultation with the best historians and Constitutional scholars.

The bill also claims that Congress has found and can now declare what natural born citizen means. If Congress declares a meaning of natural born citizen contrary to its constitutional meaning, then Congress is in effect amending the constitution without going through the amendment process.

Furthermore, there is that troublesome phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. What do the authors of this bill mean by the phrase? Do they mean “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States and not subject to any foreign power”?

Is my understanding correct that only a court can determine the meaning of the words in the constitution and that S. 2128 is an unconstitutional bill?

Joe said...

who introduced it? who were the co-sponsers?

good find!

it is my understanding that congress can't do that BUT they can do anything they want as long as no one is watching.

it should be illegal to knowingly obstruct or pass unconstitutional laws but they do it all the time.

Doublee said...

S. 2128 was sponsored by Senator Don Nickles [R-OK]. Co-sponsors were Senator James Inhofe [R-OK] and Senator Mary Landrieu [D-
LA]. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128Yes, it should be illegal to knowingly pass an unconstitutional law. I have become very cynical about Congress. This bill reveals one or more of the following about members of Congress.
1. Whether or not a bill is constitutional doesn't even enter their minds.
2. They are uninformed about the constitution.
3. If they are informed about the constitution, they don't care whether they follow it or not.

I present as evidence all the inane, uninformed, and dismissive comments contained in their responses to constituents regarding Obama's eligibility.

Also, look at the ridicule that was directed at Rep. Bill Posey [R-FLA] for introducing a bill that requires a presidential candidate document his eligibility.

tiger said...

Here's another principle for the children in Indonesia during the law of UU no.62 Tahun 1958 (Indonesian Immigration law) was applied and as far as I know still applied even with the new law of UU no.12 Tahun 2006 in which shall not nullified whatever had been decided by UU no.62 Tahun 1958 before the year 2006. So in the case of Obama, he still the subject of the law of UU no.62 Tahun 1958.*(lathough this rule is reverse using the law of uu no.12 tahun 2006 but the nwe law cannot renounced enything that being decided in the past using the law of uu no62 tahun 1958, the new law can only being used on the present time at the moment the new one is implemented and cannot revoked all decision that had happened in the past. And so on until another new law is billed the nwstill cannot
As for children, especially minor and not reach adulthood yet according to Indonesian law (below 17 years old) and still single they must follow the direction of their parents or their guardian for their nationality, welfare, etc unless they already married or reach adulthood (17 years already). To get their vote count they also needed the same requirement.
And as you can see below, (in Indonesian, you could watch either this one is picture that minor nationality can be revoke their nationality by the parents for the law in Indonesia. If they said the law of UU no.62 Tahun 1958 only said the children under 5 years old that can change his or her nationality, then they were wrong, for if the parents decide to change his or her nationality before reaching adulthood then the child nationality on this case shall follow the nationality of the father even he is an adopted father. Now if you truly aimed on this one if I were you his Achilles heel lies on Maya Soetoro Ng (half sister, for if she is born in Jakarta, then she is had the nationality of Indonesia, once you get her vital record then you can see the pattern of BHO mother IMO to make sure that he can be President of the USA. Beside the UU no62 Tahun 1958, we also had another law that rule the implementation of UU no 62 Tahun 1958 in which are UU no.67 Tahun 1958. Translate your self, good luck and good hunt.
PS Indonesian law principle don't acquired retroactive principle and minor as I said again always follow the parents or their guardian decision on their nationality and other civil right until they reach adulthood according to Indonesian law or getting married regardless their age.

John Greschak said...

I have published a major revision of my essay What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?.

In this version, I have added the following: (1) an interpretation and definition of the phrase Citizen of the United States, as it is used in the United States Constitution; (2) a revised interpretation and definition of the phrase natural born Citizen of the United States that is based on the notion of an expectable kind; (3) a proposed Natural Born Citizen Amendment to the United States Constitution; (4) an analysis of the Supreme Court opinion in the case Perkins v. Elg; (5) a justification for why it is not necessary for the parents of a natural born Citizen of the United States to have been born in the United States; (6) a clarification of the meanings of quantifiers such as most, almost all and practically all, which are used throughout my analysis; and (7) numerical probabilities for many of the expectations upon which my conclusions are based.

Here is my proposed Natural Born Citizen Amendment (Note: I believe that this proposed amendment is consistent with, and may be deduced from, the existing United States Constitution.):

No person shall be a Citizen of the United States who is not domiciled, either by choice or dependency, in the United States. A native born Citizen of the United States is a person who was born in the United States, and has been a Citizen of the United States, since birth. A natural born Citizen of the United States is a native born Citizen of the United States, born of Citizens of the United States.

For those who were familiar with the previous version of this essay (which was published on March 18, 2009), here is some information that will help you locate the sections that have changed:

1. The following material is new: the paragraph that begins with "First, let us attempt to establish the meaning of the word Citizen", through the paragraph that follows it.

2. The following material has changed substantially: the paragraph that begins with "This synonym study states that", through the paragraph that begins with "In this interpretation".

3. The following material is new: the paragraph that begins with "Next, I would like to compare the definition of the word Citizen", through the paragraph that begins with "Thus, I take the word Citizen to mean".

4. The following material has changed substantially: the paragraph that begins with "Next, let us apply the interpretation", through the end of the essay.

5. End notes 24 and 27 are new.

Also, a good place to get started would be the updated synopsis available at: Synopsis.

John Greschak

mtngoat61 said...

Hi John,

Re. What is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.? Synopsis by John Greschak

http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/synopsis.htmOverall, your research and work is excellent and outstanding. However on one point, if and when your proposed definition would get wider coverage I think you need to add the word "two" to your definition to avoid the claimed ambiguousness of the word "citizens". The Obot side has argued that the word Citizens as you have used it could be interpreted as being in the singular sense or generic sense, i.e., "she is one of the Citizens of the USA ... in regards to his mother", etc., instead of being in the plural sense, i.e., both or two parents must be Citizens. This was brought up by the Obots in the Vattel definition of Natural Born Citizen found in The Law of Nations, published 1758, 1797 English translation, section 212. Adding the word "two" in front of Citizens would forever prevent such an argument as to the author's meaning of your definition and findings of your research. So I respectfully suggest you change your definition for Natural Born Citizen to read:

"A natural born Citizen of the United States is a native born Citizen of the United States, born of two Citizens of the United States."

If you are going to propose a Constitutional Amendment as your writing mentions, then you must be absolutely sure that your proposed definition is explicitedly clear in the law and to ordinary citizens of this country. We must be sure to eliminate any ambiguity that could be used by a future candidate to confuse the electorate that they are qualified when they are not.

With that change, I could even see your research being suggested by me for inclusion in an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court someday for the Kerchner v Obama case.

However, if you are intending to imply that only one parent needs to be a U.S. citizen, then I cannot support your definition.

Thus explicit clarification is necessary in your choice of wording. Adding the word "two" in front of Citizens does it. There is obviously other phrasealogy of that definition that you could consider too. But I definitely think you need to be more explicit for current and future readers, especially if it ever becomes a suggested Constitutional Amendment, and I ask you to add that specific emphasis to your published suggested definition now in both the synopsis and main paper.

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

John Greschak said...

An Interpretation.

In the most recent version of my essay What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?, I have put forward the following interpretation of the phrase natural born Citizen of the United States:Interpretation. The natural born Citizens of the United States are the born Citizens (of the United States) of the particular expectable kind that is considered by the United States as belonging to the United States to a maximal degree, where here expectations are in accord with the essential nature of the United States.

In this interpretation, there are two opposing constraints. On the one hand, the defining characteristics of a natural born Citizen of the United States must be sufficiently common that it would be expectable that a given born Citizen of the United States would have such characteristics. At the same time, these characteristics must be sufficiently restrictive so that the natural born Citizens will be only those select born Citizens of the United States that are considered as belonging to the United States to as great a degree as possible.

The first of these two constraints (i.e. that natural born Citizens be an expectable kind of born Citizen) is a consequence of my interpretation of the word natural, in this context; the second constraint (i.e. that natural born Citizens must be those born Citizens that belong to the United States to a maximal degree) is a consequence of the reason why the phrase natural born Citizen was used in the United States Constitution, as well as the structure of the phrase natural born Citizen.

Here, by expectable, I mean probable. One might ask "To what degree must one be confident in a given thing to consider it probable?" There is no generally accepted threshold for this. However, in many applications, the word probable is taken to mean "a 75 percent chance or more". In my essay, I have used various quantifiers as follows: practically all means "more than 95 percent"; almost all means "from 90 percent to 95 percent"; and most means "from 75 percent to 90 percent". So, one may say that a given kind of born Citizen of the United States will be an expectable kind, if and only if it is expected that most, almost all, or practically all of the born Citizens of the United States will be of that kind.

To gauge the degree to which one belongs to the United States, one may use the following six factors that are employed (explicitly or implicitly), for that purpose, in the United States Constitution:

US1. Whether or not one was born in the United States.

US2. Whether or not one is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

US3. The number of years one has been a Citizen of the United States.

US4. Whether or not one's place of domicile is in the United States.

US5. The total number of years one has lived in the United States.

US6. Whether or not one is a member of a specified category of Citizens.

John Greschak

Dan said...

You could contact the Selective Service to determine if the PPOTUS (Presumed President of the United States) ever registered with the Selective Service and under which name. As an illegal he would have no requirement. If he did not register and he is a citizen, then legal action has to be taken as there are penalties for not registering. any comments on this?
Thanks.

C3Fan said...

I applaud the efforts of Mr. Apuzzo and all the others who dare to question the qualifications of this person occupying our highest office. As I've read about and mulled over all the articles that have been written about this and the reaction of this 'constitutional law professor' and his minions, one further thought comes to mind. That is, what about the punishment? This can't be called anything but fraud, along with all who are aware of the facts and have aided it anyway, should be punished by incarceration and disbarment, if attorneys. But...I don't believe the cultists will allow that to happen, frankly.

Mustardseed said...

I would like to know why we can not see the Mombasa Kenya hospital records if he was born in Hawaii?

joesixpack31 said...

These “stonewallers” plus a majority of the Judicial branch have all had far more than their fair share of “due process” in failing to act during the many months of the presidential campaign to “validate” the Obama candidacy and thereby remove any doubt as to his eligibility. They have shown by their failure to do so, that they cannot do so...i.e.,he IS ineligible...and by FAILURE TO ACT TO PROTECT THE US CONSTITUTION from grievious injury by preventing the seating of a “pretender/usurper” they have become collective accomplices in a grievious crime against the United States and its citizens and have demonstrated their CONTEMPT…by God… for the US Constitution its citizens and for the BIRTHRIGHT of our children and grandchildren. There should be mass arrests and prosecutions of ALL Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branch members with any connection to “stonewalling” the Obama validation process. Vice President Dick Cheney who served as president of the US Senate during this time should be considered a primary accomplice.

John Greschak said...

An Interpretation of Amendment XIV, Section 1, Sentence 1.

The first sentence of Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution is as follows:

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.

Most often, this sentence of Amendment XIV is cited when considering whether or not a given newborn is to be considered a Citizen of the United States, at birth. However, this amendment applies to anyone who was born or naturalized in the United States, regardless of their age. For example, at the time when this amendment was adopted, one of its primary functions was to ensure that freed slaves (who had been born or naturalized in the United States, and who were, at the time when the amendment was adopted, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) would be considered Citizens of the United States.

I believe Sentence 1 of Amendment XIV is equivalent to the following statement:

For any given point in time T that is after the time at which Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution was adopted, and for any given person P who was born or naturalized in the United States, the following is true: if person P is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at time T, then person P is considered, at time T, to be a Citizen of the United States, and a Citizen of the State in which they reside at time T.

John Greschak

John Greschak said...

Regarding Perkins v. Elg (1939).

The first sentence of the Natural Born Citizen Amendment that I have proposed in my essay What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?, is as follows (As stated previously, I believe that this sentence, as well as the entire proposed amendment, is consistent with, and may be deduced from, the existing United States Constitution.):

No person shall be a Citizen of the United States who is not domiciled, either by choice or dependency, in the United States.

From this, it follows that (I believe) a minor could lose their citizenship in the United States if their domicile of dependency is moved outside the United States as a consequence of a change in the domicile of the individual(s) upon whom the minor's domicile is dependent.

This possibility contradicts the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Perkins v. Elg (1939).

In the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Hughes wrote: "The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States. Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden, where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922, and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden."

The Court ruled that Miss Elg had not lost her United States citizenship.

In reviewing the opinion of the Court, I find no indication that they considered and dismissed the following notion that I take to be true: in the minds of the Framers of the United States Constitution, persons who are not domiciled in the United States are not to be considered Citizens of the United States. (I addressed this matter in messages that I posted to this blog in late March. To locate the places where I have addressed this in my essay, search for the two occurrences of the phrase "citizen (noun)".) In their decision, the Court considered Miss Elg to be a Citizen of the United States during a period of time when she had been domiciled in a foreign country. Thus, for this reason, alone, I believe the Court's decision was unconstitutional.

Separately, the Court's decision admits the possibility for one who has belonged to a foreign country, materially (for example, one who was domiciled in a foreign country throughout their age of minority, and was raised by parents who had renounced their United States Citizenship, and were Citizens of that foreign country), to be considered a natural born Citizen of the United States, and therefore, be eligible to the Office of the President. Permitting such an individual to be considered a natural born Citizen of the United States would be inconsistent with the Framer's intent for requiring that a President of the United States be a natural born Citizen of the United States; here, their intent was to prevent a foreigner from becoming President. For this reason as well, I believe the Court's decision was unconstitutional.

Finally, in their decision, the Court cited Sentence 1 of Amendment XIV as the Constitutional basis for Miss Elg's United States citizenship. I do not believe Miss Elg was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States during the period of time when she was domiciled in a foreign country. Therefore, (because of my interpretation of Sentence 1 of Amendment XIV, which I presented in my previous message to this blog) I do not believe that Amendment XIV may be used as justification for considering her to have been a Citizen of the United States during that period of time.

John Greschak

suntango said...

To answer "DAN" and his question about Obama's Selective Service registration, he did provide that document but it has been "refuted" as having been "altered".

There is an expert that has determined that the document numbers used at the time he would have been required to register were questionable as is the date that appeared to altered.

Obama is a fake and a fraud and it appears forgery may be in his resume for president.

Ed Sunderland
Flower Mound, TX

Let us move forward said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

Dr. Conspiracy has apparently been concerned with Chester Arthur's status and has posted a scanned copy of Hinman's book.

Chester Arthur was born in the United States to a British father, who was naturalized when his son was 14 years of age, i. e. before Chester Arthur reached the age of majority. The Fourteenth Amendment states that at naturalization, the US citizenship status is retroactive to the naturalized citizen's birth, before his son's birth. Chester Arthur then would have had citizenship by jus soli and a (possibly weak) claim to jus sanguinis by his father's naturalization.

This interpretation would explain both why the popular Chester Arthur did not chose to become the Presidential Candidate (his possibly weak claim to jus sanguinis) and the following interchange presented in Hinman's book:

New York, January 7th, 1881.
Hon. Thos. F. Bayard, U. S. Senator

Dear Sir: -What is the construction of Article II, S I, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States - that "No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc., shall be eligible, etc."***.

Yours respectfully, A. P. HINMAN

-------------------------------------

Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, I881. (just before Arthur sworn in as VP)
A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.

DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant- the term "natural-born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.

Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD. (Democratic VP candidate running against Arthur)

from How a British Subject became President of the United States, A. P. Hinman, 1884, Page 89 with (my notes)

However, this letter does not reveal if Senator Bayard knew for certain the Chester Arthur was born in the United States. If it could be established that he didn't know for sure, that would open another can of worms.

When serving as Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard expressed the opinion that jus soli alone was not adequate for citizenship.

“Secretary of State (T. F.) Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

I would say that Mr. Bayard held that Chester Arthur had a claim to natural born status, jus soli and jus sanguinis.
That would leave Mr. Obama as the only President born after the ratification of the Constitution without a claim to citizenship jus sanguinis through his father.

mtngoat61 said...

My proposed 100% explicitly clear definition for the term "Natural Born Citizen" to Article II Constitutional standards utilizing the terms in my chart of citizenship terms found in the U.S. Constitution and amendments and the concepts of Natural Law codified by Vattel in his treatise, The Law of Nations, Volume 1, Section 212. This definition could be used as terminology in a future constitutional amendment to define what Article II Natural Born Citizenship means in accord with the history of the term as understood by the framers and to correlate it with terminology used in the 14th Amendment which created "born citizens" of the USA by the mere birth in the USA of the child, in light of how Kim Wong Ark is being interpreted today.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/A natural born Citizen of the United States is a born Citizen of the United States born of parents who were both Citizens of the United States when the child was born.

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

John Greschak said...

Goat,

Thank you for your suggestion concerning the word two.

My feeling on the matter is as follows:

In my essay, I have put forward a definition of the phrase natural born Citizen of the United States and a proposed Natural Born Citizen Amendment. The last sentence of each of these is identical (see Synopsis). You have suggested that I insert the word two after the phrase born of.

I believe it would be unreasonable to interpret this sentence that I have written as meaning that a natural born Citizen of the United States need not be born of two Citizens of the United States; if I understand you correctly, you would agree.

In establishing a definition such as this, or in framing a constitutional amendment, I believe one need not corrupt one's writing with presumptions of unreasonable interpretations.

John Greschak

Catherine said...

Thank you, attorney Apuzzo and to your client Mr. Kirchner. What about the Spector change....do you think it would make a difference? Or will the Supremes cut that off and NOT allow any hearing, just a revote as directed using the NBC definition?

mtngoat61 said...

John Greschak wrote:

".... I believe one need not corrupt one's writing with presumptions of unreasonable interpretations."

It is not just presumptions. I speak from personal experience in deciding legally binding cases as a member of a legally binding decision making hearing board. Also I see many lessons in history. An extra comma. A missing comma. A missing word. Oten times this leave an unreasonable interpretation door open unnecessarily that at some point in the future is exploited in the courts.

For example, John Bingham, the primary framer of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution in his ancillary writings about it and its meaning thought no one would misunderstand the meaning of the words used therein when some suggested to him the wording of the 14A could be misinterpreted. But with authors pride, he thought it was quite clear. But years later Supreme Court Justice Grey did just that and muddied up the meaning of the 14A in the infamous Kim Wong Ark decision and also how the 14th Amendment is interpeted today based on interpretations of the 14th Amendment that Bingham never intended.

The meaning of words and sentence structure context can change over time. Adding the word two makes it explicitly clear and it could never be misinterpreted by the electorate even with only a 6th grade education level of English and English grammar.

You are a purist and a believer in the miniumum use of words, as I read your writings. However, I have sat in a judges type chair at hundreds of hearings and heard lawyers argue over the ambiguity of interpretation of words in sentences, singular vs. plural interpretation, etc. Thus I made my suggestion to you to preempt any ability to do that. I think you are making a mistake by not being totally 100% explicit in your suggested Constitutional Amendment wording. It's your article and you can write what you want. I am just suggesting that since you are writing a proposed Constitutional Amendment that you close all doors to any possible misinterpretations in the future so that it can never be opened by anyone, or misunderstood by the poorly educated electorate and a slick double-talking politician and politician's lawyers, by simply adding the word "two" where I suggested ... or change the sentence to say ... "born of parents who are both Citizens of the USA".

Goat

Teo Bear said...

To John and Mountain Goat,

John does write very clearly, when he uses the phrase, born of citizens of the United States to mean citizen in the plural sense. I consider myself a reasonable person and can clearly see with my own eyes what John is conveying.

Yet, after running the site thebirthers.org I can understand Mountain Goat's frustration. Many of the emails I receive from Obama's supporters demonstrate that they lack any grammatical abilities and simply try to make the obvious, obscured. For instance, the words "the Law of Nations" appear in the Constitution exactly as what I have in quotations. The rules of grammar dictate that the use of capitalization in the way found in the Constitution declare it to be a title and not a generic idea. I have received many emails from those wanting to discredit Vattel’s work included in our Constitution. They refuse to see that the Framers of the Constitution inserted "the Law of Nations" as a title to be referred to into the Constitution, because they do not want to deal with Vattel’s definition of a natural born Citizen.

While I do not want to tell John how to write as I do believe he has done a excellent task of clarifying the term, based on the accepted rules of our language of what the Framers intentions were concerning, a natural born Citizen. Still I think Mountain Goat has a point. At the very least as a authors note there should be a statement clarifying his use of the plural so it is not confused. Since John is proposing this idea, it befalls him to clarify the terms he uses as the discourse of conveying this important topic to the masses. Although he does not need to change it, making clear the idea conveyed in his words will serve to enlighten the sadly under educated body politic.

Let us move forward said...

Correction to my post of April 29, 2009 7:53 PM

Forgive me, the 14th Amendment does not state that Naturalization is retroactive to birth. (I was working from memory which is dangerous.)

I remembered reading somewhere that naturalization was retroactive to birth and what I was reading probably referenced the 14th amendment. So, I did a little research about retroactive effects of naturalization.

It turns out that in questions of land ownership, courts have held that naturalization has a retroactive effect.
Governeur’s Heirs v. Robertson, 24 U.S. 11 Wheat. 332 332 (1826) [Retroactive 1 month]
Osterman v. Baldwin, 73 U.S. 6 Wall. 116 116 (1867) [Retroactive at least 11 years]
Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U.S. 505 (1894) [Retroactive less than 7 years]

In Chester Arthur’s time, aliens were not allowed to own land in the United States. If William Arthur (Chester’s father) bought land and needed to protect his claim to the land or just wanted to buy land, he would have needed citizenship by naturalization. By previous court decisions, William Arthur’s naturalization would have been retroactive to at least the date that he acquired the land.

William Arthur moved to Vermont sometime before 1824. The relevant questions for Chester may have been “when did William Arthur buy real estate in the United States” and “was his right to hold that land challenged”? With Arthur claiming a birth date in 1830 when he was born in 1929, perhaps his father acquired land in 1830. Chester Arthur may have felt that by claiming a birthdate in 1830, his father’s citizenship status was covered by the previous court decisions involving land ownership and could claim “native” status.

Chester Arthur’s claim to “native status” could still be seen as weak, as no maximum limit had been set on the retroactive effect of naturalization other than the dates cited in the actual cases. The maximum naturalization extension could possibly be interpreted as only eleven years, but the actual maximum that would have been allowed at that time on this basis was never tested and is an open question.

John Greschak said...

Goat and Teo,

Thank you for your comments concerning the clarity of the last sentence of the definition of the phrase natural born Citizen of the United States and the proposed Natural Born Citizen Amendment that I have put forward in my essay.

I have posted an update to my essay, that contains some small, but significant, changes (relative to the version that I posted on April 25).

In the definition of natural born Citizen of the United States and in the proposed Natural Born Citizen Amendment, I made the following changes: (1) in Sentence 2, I moved the phrase since birth from the end of the sentence, to after the phrase has been; and (2) in Sentence 3, I inserted the word exclusively after the word born.

In the proposed Natural Born Citizen Amendment, I removed all italic formatting.

Also, in the essay, I changed the paragraph that precedes the definition of natural born Citizen of the United States; in the first sentence, I inserted the word exclusively after the word born.

Your comments caused me to re-examine the wording of the last sentence in my proposed amendment. In doing so, I discovered a shortcoming of this sentence that may become relevant in the future.

At the present time, humans are born of two parents. However, I believe it is possible that, at some future time (perhaps in our lifetimes), some societies will permit children to be born who originated from a zygote composed of material derived from more than two humans. Thus, there might be children who have more than two biological parents. So, for example, a child might have three parents, two of whom are Citizens of the United States, and one that is not. In a situation such as this, one might be called upon to determine whether or not the condition "born of Citizens of the United States" is satisfied (in order to determine if that individual is eligible to be President of the United States). From my interpretation of the phrase natural born Citizen of the United States, I do not believe such an individual would be a natural born Citizen of the United States. To remove this ambiguity, I have inserted the word exclusively.

At the same time, in making this change, perhaps I have addressed your concerns as well (i.e. that the phrase "born of Citizens of the United States" might be misinterpreted as "born of the Citizens of the United States", and therefore not imply that both [and now all] parents must be Citizens of the United States).

See: SynopsisJohn Greschak

Puzo1 said...

Dr. Conspiracy argues that the citizenship status of the parents of a child born on U.S. soil is irrelevant when defining an Article II "natural born Citizen." Like Obama (assuming he was born in Hawaii), a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents also acquires by descent the citizenship of the parents. By legal definition starting in 1795, naturalized citizens have allegiance and loyalty only to the United States. Hence, what could make Dr. Conspiracy believe that the Founding Fathers expected a naturalized citizen, who is not eligible to be President, to have greater allegiance and loyalty to the United States than some one who is qualified to be President?

With the Founding Fathers in Article II focusing on the birth citizenship status of the child, does Dr. Conspiracy honestly believe that the Founding Fathers would have allowed an individual born a citizen of Great Britain to be President?

Also, does Dr. Conspiracy really believe that how the Founding Fathers defined an Article II "natural born Citizen" came from the English common law definition of a "natural born subject" who never had a chance to be King? How could the citizenship definition of the two be the same when kings were made by birth to royalty while presidents were made through election by the people and, given the unique nature of the position and the desire to keep out of the Office of President to the greatest degree possible any foreign influence ("a strong check to the admission of Foreigners" into the office of President), needed absolute allegiance and loyal to the nation they would be elected to lead?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

007 Brenda Bond said...

Hi. I'm new...
How did Obama get a passport? Can documents be subpoenaed from the passport department?

Puzo1 said...

Brenda,

You would have to do a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of the State Department and Department of Homeland Security.

John Greschak said...

I have updated my essay What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?Also, I have created an Update Log for this essay to document changes as they are published. From this log, one may navigate directly to the places in the essay that have been modified.

See: UpdatesJohn Greschak

arto said...

Mario, What's new with your. I and 10 friends sent letters to your judge. May 5th was the date for Obama to reply.
In reponse to some of the earlier questions--On his first dat in office, Obama put a freeze on releasing personnal info about him or his staff without his permission. What an upright guy!

Mike said...

In the past there were other cases that made it to the Supreme Court. I think the court refused to hear these cases. In one case someone on a radio gave instructions on how to contact the court to ask that they hear the case. Could you post how one would contact the court and its members to hear a case.My thought is if they were sent millions of envelopes on one case they would see that the people want it herd.

Richard said...

In this day and age of gay marriage I have a question.

What if the natural mother was a US citizen, and the marital partner of the natural mother (another woman) is a US citizen, but the natural father is not a US citizen. Say he's British.

Would the child being born on US soil be a natural born citizen, or only a native born citizen since the natural father was not a US citizen?

Puzo1 said...

The child gets his/her citizenship from the U.S. soil and from each of his/her natural parents. The child would acquire one U.S. citizenship from being born on U.S. soil and another U.S. citizenship from his natural mother. Unfortunately, the child would also acquire the citizenship of the foreign father. The child would therefore be born with dual allegiances. As such, the child is a citizen under the 14th Amendment and Congressional Acts but is not an Article II "natural born Citizen." The marital partner of the natural mother gives no natural citizenship or allegiance to the child. Hence, she is a nonfactor.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Sharon said...

"Furthermore, Hawaii denied that Obama, a family member, or someone Obama personally authorized, ever requested and received a copy of this alleged Certification of Live Birth (COLB) in June 2007 or in any other month of that year."

Mr. Apuzzo,

This issue has been debated on The Right Side of Life. Could you provide some more information about this? Whom did you contact? Was the communication written or verbal? (Can someone back out of having stated that?)

Thanks.

mtngoat61 said...

Hi all,

An online article titled, "Obama Presidential Eligibilty - An Introductory Primer", by Stephen Tonchen.
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
M Publius Goat
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org

Todd Family Times said...

Now the Sotomayer appointment makes sense. If the Supreme Court will be making decision on what a natural born citizen is, wouldn't you want someone who would be very liberal with the term? Like an immigrants child...

mtngoat61 said...

To Todd Family:

It is even worse than that. You see Obama is NOT the son of an immigrant as the press lets people think and as some of his media people and supporters have mislead people to think. Obama's father was NEVER an immigrant to the USA. Obama's father was never even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama's father was merely sojourning here a few years on a student visa studying and then returned to Kenya and his socialist ways there. Thus Obama is NOT the son of an immigrant! And instead of writing of dreams of his American line via his mother he wrote of Dreams From His Father. Obama has deep psychological conflicted loyalties. That is what the founding fathers wanted to avoid when they specified that only a Natural Born Citizen could serve as the President. Obama will the help of an enabling and deceiving press and main stream media has trashed our Constitution to gain access to the Oval Office. He is a usurper. The two political parties made a disgrace of the 2008 election in the violations of our Constitution and laws. Party power and politics now trump even the Constitution unless this wrong is undone.

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

Roger Sharp said...

"We don't have plans to do anything," said Kapiolani Medical Center spokeswoman, Claire Tong, when asked how the center plans to commemorate the soon-to-be 44th U.S. president, who, according to Obama's family and other sources, was born at that hospital on Aug. 4, 1961. "We can't confirm or deny it — even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. And that's because of the HIPA law."

HIPA does not prevent the hospital from disclosing information already disclosed to the public. They can verify that the statement is true or false. This was a very weak attempt to to hide behind a false claim.

Puzo1 said...

Roger,

Thank you for posting that. Can you provide a link to an online news source for that statement from Kapi'olani Medical Center? Thanks.

mtngoat61 said...

A proposed narrative to explain the various seemingly conflicting statements made about Obama's birth in Kenya and Hawaii:

Underage U.S. teenager gets pregnant via a significantly older married man from Kenya. An unusual event in 1961.

Mother of teenager is in total shock over the event as would have been many mothers of teenage girls getting pregnant in 1961 and says to her daughter you have ruined your life and will make going to college much harder for yourself and convinces the teenage girl to go to Kenya in the last month of her pregnancy and give up the baby to the Kenyan natural family of the natural father of the child to be raised in Kenya by them.

The Kenyan grandmother of the child attends birth in Kenyan hospital in Mombasa Kenya and is ready to take custody of the child and raise the child for the foot loose and fancy free natural father with multiple wives ... and the U.S. teenage mother is supposed return to Hawaii leaving the child with the natural father's family and restart her life back in Hawaii minus the child ... and go to college. In 1961, pregnant teenage girls giving up children to restart their lives anew was not unusual.

But nature throws the plan a curve ball. Maternal instincts kick in and mother cannot leave the baby in Kenya, either due to pure maternal instincts or in seeing the conditions in Kenya that her child would be raised in with a mostly absentee father over there. Thus she changes her mom's plan and she takes the baby and birth certificate issued by the Mombassa Hospital to the American Embassy or consulate in Kenya and shows them the Kenyan Birth Certificate for her child and "explains" the baby was born unexpectedly in Kenya while there visiting her "husband's" family. U.S. officials then stamp her passport as traveling with an infant child.

Mother gets on plane carrying the child and flies back to Hawaii and appears at the airport arrival with the new baby in tow, much to the shock of her mother, the child's U.S. grandmother. Baby easily is passed through U.S. entry officials due to embassy stamp on mother's passport and the supporting Kenyan birth certificate showing a U.S. citizen is the mother.

Child's U.S. grandmother is still besides herself at this change in plans by the mother of the child. The child's grandmother then knowing or learning from legal advisers how lax Hawaiian birth registration laws were in 1961, then cooks up a plan and scheme with the child's mother, to lie to Hawaiian officials and swear and sign affidavits at the birth registry office that the child was born in Hawaii at home with no witnesses but them, in order to get the child U.S. citizenship (a highly desirable status) to make future travel and life easier on the family and new child. They did this lie and cover up simply to gain U.S. citizenship for the child a highly coveted status for any child, not knowing that this child might someday grow up and try to become the President and thus risk having their whole plans and lies exposed.

Birth registration office then issues the announcements to the two newspapers, as was the offices custom at the time to send the papers lists of babies born, of the birth event which at its source was only based on the false sworn testimony of the mother. Thus the birth notices in the newspapers are not independent data, they all came from the same source, ... false sworn statements from the mother and/or grandmother that the child was born in Hawaii.

Thus under this narrative the birth records in the vaults in Hawaii may be simply sworn affidavits of the mother and grandmother saying Obama was born at home with no witnesses, all based on lies and fraud, which seems to be a common occurrence with Mr. O's entire life.

A suggested narrative to explain events and facts as revealed thus far.

Goat

Gavin said...

I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually construe the constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" to mean: 1) born in the U.S. to a life-giving mother who, at the moment of such birth, was an unmarried citizen of the United States, or 2) born in the U.S. to a life-giving mother who, at the moment of such birth, was a citizen of the U.S., and was legally married to a man who was also a citizen of the U.S. at the moment of such birth. Based on my research, this definition is fully consistent with the writings of both de Vattel and von Bar.

An illegitimate child has one parent for "Natural Born Citizen" purposes--the mother who bore that child and therefore gave life to that child. The status of the biological father of such a child is of no legal consequence. That is, because there is no legal or legitimate marriage between the biological father and the life-giving, unmarried mother, there is no real mechanism by which the relationship (such as there may be) between the biological father and the illegitimate child can (or should) be recognized by a court of competent jurisdiction. This is the reason why the term 'illegitimate' is used to describe such a child.

If the life-giving mother of an illegitimate child is a U.S. citizen at the moment such child was born, then the child is a constitutionally-valid Natural Born Citizen. In the eyes of the law, there is no reason to continue the analysis.

In the case of a married life-giving mother, the law has reason to look further. A legitimate child has two parents for "Natural Born Citizen" purposes--the life-giving mother, and the man to whom the life-giving mother is married at the moment of birth. It does not matter in the eyes of the law whether the man to whom the life-giving mother is married is the actual biological father of the legitimate child, or not. It will suffice that the life-giving mother was legally married at the moment of birth, and that the man to whom she was legally married at the moment of birth has been identified to the satisfaction of a court of competent jurisdiction.

Barack Obama was apparently born on U.S. soil in the state of Hawaii to a life-giving mother who was a U.S. citizen at the moment of his birth. The question is whether Barack Obama's life-giving mother was legally married at the moment of his birth, or not. If so, the citizenship of the man to whom Barack Obama's life-giving mother ws married at the moment Barack Obama was born becomes important.

At the moment of his birth, Barack Obama's biological father was a Kenyan national (and therefore a British subject) present in the U.S. pursuant to a temporary student visa. Barack Obama's biological father was never a U.S. citizen at any point in time during his life.

If the Supreme Court of the U.S. concludes that Barack Obama's biological father was legitimately married to Barack Obama's life-giving mother at the moment of his birth, Barack Obama's goose is cooked. He is not and never was a constitutionally-valid Natural Born Citizen of the U.S., and will be subject to immediate removal from office. Hello President Biden.

If Barack Obama's life-giving mother was not legitimately married to Barack Obama's biological father at the moment of his birth on U.S. soil in Hawaii, Barack Obama is and has always been a constitutionally-valid Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. No harm, no foul, no President Biden.

Barack Obama happily threw his preacher (still alive) of 20+ years under the bus. He even threw his maternal grandmother (alive at the time) under the bus. If push comes to shove, and Barack Obama finds that he needs to shove his biological father (long dead) under the bus to demonstrate his constitutional eligibility to hold the office of U.S. president, is there any doubt about what he will do, or at least try to do?

From CS_n_LA said...

There would be no question about Obama's eligibility if Judges and Justices would properly do their jobs.

It is their job, when questions are raised, to research the real meaning and intent of the law/legislation. To do otherwise, i.e. interpret it themselves without researching, is a dangerous "mistake".

For if the laws are so changeable they are of no use, and that spells disaster for everyone. Just look at what's been done and the liberties that have been taken under "general welfare".

If you read the "debate" in congress they say exactly what they meant and intended with the 14th amendment. Here is an article written in 2004 about it:
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

IF you want to read the debate yourself , here's a link to the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866):
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=2

And don't forget that the main reason for it at all was because of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)... a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants—whether or not they were slaves—were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.

It is my understanding that Article II Requires that one be a “Natural Born Citizen”, and in terms of the Law as understood by the Framers, anyone with Dual Citizenship could not be “Natural Born”. It does not matter that they no longer hold that Citizenship, they fall into the same bracket as a “Naturalized Citizen” because they have/had Divided Allegiance.

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."~fightthesmears.com

But beyond that is the matter of was he, or was he not, an Indonesian citizen. If he was an Indonesian Citizen he would have to actively repudiate that Citizenship. Did he? Has he? Because if he hasn’t, Obama is Dual National Indonesian at this moment, subject to the Laws of BOTH Countries, equally.

That is true under US Law, Indonesian Law and International Law and until 2007 Indonesia DID NOT Recognize Dual Citizenship. Obama needs to produce his Paperwork, all of it, not just a Certification of Live Birth from the State of Hawaii, but all his other Paperwork too, to be vetted. Vet is a transitive verb defined as "to evaluate THOROUGHLY or expertly".

From CS_n_LA said...

Wow, I messed up that last comment! Sorry...

The debate in congress was for the 14th amendment which some claim qualifies Obama as a "natural born citizen"... it doesn't, but just to prove them wrong, it also doesn't even make "anchor babies" (who we know are born here to non-citizen parents) legal citizens.

If both parents have to be citizens for the baby to be considered a citizen (a regular citizen) then I'm sure only one parent being a natural born citizen doesn't qualify the baby to be considered a natural born citizen. Especially as the qualifications for POTUS were to be much more strict.

Eric Kossian - Leavenworth Ins. said...

How did Barak Hussein Obama (Barry Soetoro) travel to Pakistan in his late teen years or early 20's when at that time no one with an AMerican passport could travel there? The answer is obvious; he travelled on his Indonesian passport because that was his nationality at the time. There is no record of Obama then relinquishing his Indonesian nationality for USA citizenship. Therefore he is not a citzen and ineligible.

nunya said...

I find it hard to believe for one second that the powers that be were not fully aware of the problems with Obama's Status.
I could be totally off base here but wouldn't this constitute Treason to knowingly install a person into the office of the president and then allow him to damage the USA as he has done?
Why can we not simply prevent him from taking any action on the Behalf of the American people until his status is determined?
When Assets are in question the courts Freeze them until a determination is made as to the status of the Case.
if this man signs anything it should be stricken and reversed once he is found to be in violation of the Law.
and lastly what is Obamas liability if he is found to have lied?

if he is not what he says he is what is our recourse?

hmriley said...

June 29, 2009

Honorable Jerome B. Simandle,
U.S. District Judge
United States Courthouse
Mitchell H. Cohen Building
4th & Cooper Streets
Camden NJ 08101

Subject: Kerchner v Obama & Congress case - Article 2 Section 1 US Constitution – Is It Still Valid?

Your Honor,

As a military officer of some 34 years, some of that time in the fox-hole fighting for our nation and Constitution, I respectfully ask you to dig for the truth, wherever it lies.

There is considerable evidence that Barack Obama is not qualified to serve as president of the United States nor as Commander In Chief.

You have an opportunity to set the record straight…I urge you sir, please step up to the plate and stand firm for the US Constitution and our nation.

Respectfully,



Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret
address/ph added to USPS letter

Puzo1 said...

Col. Riley,

I am honored to have you post your letter to Hon. Judge Simandle on this blog. Thank you for all that you have done for our country during your many years of service and sacrifice.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

cfkerchner said...

Copy of my latest email to Glenn Beck:

30 June 2009

Hi Glenn,

There has been important activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case. The defendants' have finally made a motion after over 4 months of stalling and not answer. It is what we expected as the next phase of this case and this will allow the case to get to that next step and beyond the defendants continued stalling phase. Mario is very confident we will defeat the motion by the defendants. Thousands of people are now aware of this lawsuit and have written the Judge personal letters. See link 2 below. This is a very important legal matter about the sanctity and sovereignty of our Constitution and the future of our Constitutional Republic. For more details see the post in Atty Mario Apuzzo's blog, link 1 below:

1. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/06/activity-in-kerchner-v-obama-congress_26.html

2. http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6404

Would you be willing to invite Atty Apuzzo, and/or the two of us, to be a guest on your show to explain the latest activity and our next action?

You can contact him at: "apuzzo@erols.com" or call at: 732-521-3906

He'd be very happy to do a 15 or 20 minute segment with you to inform you and your audience about this case. If interested, please contact Atty Apuzzo and arrange a mutually convenient date and time. He would be happy to appear on your radio or TV show show if you can provide him prearranged time slot. You pick the date and the time and provide the contact number.

Sincerely,

Charles Kerchner
Lehigh Valley PA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

cfkerchner said...

Copy of my latest email to Glenn Beck:

30 June 2009

Hi Glenn,

There has been important activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case. The defendants' have finally made a motion after over 4 months of stalling and not answering. It is what we expected as the next phase of this case and this will allow the case to get to that next step and beyond the defendants continued stalling phase. Mario is very confident we will defeat the motion by the defendants. Thousands of people are now aware of this lawsuit and have written the Judge personal letters. See link 2 below. This is a very important legal matter about the sanctity and sovereignty of our Constitution and the future of our Constitutional Republic. For more details see the post in Atty Mario Apuzzo's blog, link 1 below:

1. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/06/activity-in-kerchner-v-obama-congress_26.html

2. http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6404

Would you be willing to invite Atty Apuzzo, and/or the two of us, to be a guest on your show to explain the latest activity and our next action?

You can contact him at: "apuzzo@erols.com" or call at: 732-521-1900

He'd be very happy to do a 15 or 20 minute segment with you to inform you and your audience about this case. If interested, please contact Atty Apuzzo and arrange a mutually convenient date and time. He would be happy to appear on your radio or TV show show if you can provide him prearranged time slot. You pick the date and the time and provide the contact number.

Sincerely,

Charles Kerchner
Lehigh Valley PA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

cfkerchner said...

Copy of email I sent to the show producer for O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Cunningham, Fox News Specials, and many more:

30 June 2009

Dear Show Producer:

There has been important activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case. The defendants' have finally made a motion after over 4 months of stalling and not answer. It is what we expected as the next phase of this case and this will allow the case to get to that next step and beyond the defendants continued stalling phase. Mario is very confident we will defeat the motion by the defendants. Thousands of people are now aware of this lawsuit and have written the Judge personal letters. See link 2 below. This is a very important legal matter about the sanctity and sovereignty of our Constitution and the future of our Constitutional Republic. For more details see the post in Atty Mario Apuzzo's blog, link 1 below:

1. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/06/activity-in-kerchner-v-obama-congress_26.html

2.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6404

Would you be willing to invite Atty Apuzzo, and/or the two of us, to be a guest on your show to explain the latest activity and our next action?

You can contact him at: "apuzzo@erols.com"
Or call at: 732-521-1900
Or FAX at: 732-521-3906
Blog with my address: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

We'd be very happy to do a 15 or 20 minute segment with you to inform you and your audience about this case. If interested, please contact Atty Apuzzo and arrange a mutually convenient date and time. We would be happy to appear on your radio or TV show show if you can provide him prearranged time slot. You pick the date and the time and provide the contact number.

Sincerely,

Charles Kerchner
Lehigh Valley PA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Rabbi Jacobs said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

I've encouraged you through direct email Now I'm be honored to do so through your blog. I do not think you "need" the encouragement of a simple citizen, such as I. Apparently yours is the courage of those who fight for right and honor.

As an American living in the Middle East for a couple of decades, I've seen up close what other cultures have to offer. I've been an officer in the Israeli army as well as in their prison service (Major).

I have had hundreds of hours of official briefings on the Islamic mind-set. Are we still allowed to use such a term?

In my last position within the Prison Service, I had direct administrative control over two hundred of the world's worst Islamic terrorists. I am no stranger to the mind of men from foreign societies.
(I've recorded much of this in my book: Israel Behind Bars—U.S. Karate Champ Turns Israel Prison Officer, available on Amazon.)

The famous "You Scare Me" letter published on your site by Mr. Pritchett (former VP of Proctor and Gamble!) states the obvious: "Mr. Obama is not culturally American."

In that regard, Mr. Apuzzo, and as someone who IS culturally American I want to tell you that many of our co-Americans living abroad, such as I, are praying for your success in defending the Constitution and our country.

As your article exquisitely describes, there are extremely urgent reasons the founding fathers demanded the President needs to be a Natural Born Citizen. It is primarily an issue of ensuring one allegiance: Specifically to the U.S.A. and its interests.

G-d bless America. And those who keep its morals shining.

Blessings,

Rabbi Fishel Jacobs
Tel Aviv, Israel

Puzo1 said...

Rabbi Jacobs,

I am honored to have your comments on this blog. You are to be lauded for your unfailing courage in combating terrorism where ever it shows its ugly head.

My clients and I greatly appreciate your support for the cause, which is not only our cause but that of so many people that span the whole globe, for America has not only been a driving force throughout its history in working to keep its own people free but also the countless people throughout the world.

May your efforts always be successful and I look forward to reading your comments on this site.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

Duplicated here from another thread in this forum:

The Chief said...
---------------------
Post I of II

The following is an email I recently sent to Byron Dorgan, Senator ND, with a copy to Senator Conrad, Representative Pommroy and Governor John Hoeven.

Byron -- First, your duty is to the State of North Dakota and the Constitution of the United States of American; that you are failing to carry out.

I can appreciate your not wanting to revisit Obama's birthright; but, not doing so makes you complicit in his cover up of his true citizenship status.

You again state that he was born in Hawaii, and therefore he is a "Natural Born Citizen", I disagree, at best he could only be a Citizen of the United States of America, that is NOT a Native or Natural Born Citizens by any stretch of the imagination; from what legal source do did you determine he is in fact a "Natural Born Citizen"?

If you will read Article II of the United States Constitution, and then look at Vattel's Law of Nations which the founding fathers used in their drafting of the constitution you will find volumes on native-natural born citizenship.

To be born a native-natural born citizen it cannot be bestowed on any one by a act of legislation, or a court of law; this can only be by birth to two (2) United States Citizens.

I know you, along with the other members of both houses of congress as still in denial. Your candidate won, but it is not about the issue of candidates or who won it is about the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is being expensively reported that Congress was well aware of the eligibility issue before they ever came to a conformation vote. All 535 of you, because of this knowledge, were in fear of overturning the election because of the riots that would certainly have occurred; and because you did not want to be labeled Racists; while in fact ignoring your constitutional duty.

Dick Chaney was as much to fault for this occurring as was every member of the certifying congress. You all, the entire congress and President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, violated your oaths of office; by basically wimping out when you should have stood up or our constitution. It is part of your oath of office.

Now, read this, Obama, even if he was born in Hawaii, can never be a "Native-Natural Born Citizen" you cannot get there by legislation; it has to be a procreation act by two (2) already United States Citizens; that is a natural act as Vattel describes it in the Law of Nations. Therefore, even if Obama was born in Hawaii only one of his parents could have been considered a United States Citizen; One is not Two (plural). His father was a Kenyan, a British Subject, by Obama's own admission, though well documented in research, therefore there is a missing citizenship link here.

Many will argue that Common Law says otherwise, but remember this, English Common Law had no effect on US Laws or Statutes since the founding fathers did not use English Common Law as a reference tool while drafting the constitution of the United States of America; and guess why, they were throwing of the yoke of British oppression, and the King's Law.

International Law has not place in the United States Legislature or the Judicial System as much as the liberal-socialist-Marxists of this country would like it to be a deciding factor in our legal system.

July 18, 2009 7:09 PM
---------------------

Puzo1 said...

Duplicated here from another thread:

The Chief said ...
----------------------
Post II continued from Post I

By Constitutional Law none of you in congress or Dick Cheney can be held liable for your failures, and cannot be arrested or prosecuted while sitting, going and coming from congress; but you al can be held liable by the people who elect you and that my friend is coming home to roost. Also remember treason is punishable for acts or lack of acts committed in legislative sessions; and is not exempt from being carried out when discovered and prosecuted in the federal courts.

So when you tell you do not want to revisit Obama's ineligibility again, I can understand where you stand on the Constitution of the United States of American; and that you are unwilling to defend it when it does not suit your needs, or the need of the liberal/socialist agenda that has been building over the last 50 years.

For me, I am, 1st a Constitutionalist and, I believe the founding fathers had it right when the held that the legislature would try to meddle in the very constitution they were about to ratify, that they need safeguards, and they were right; 2nd I am a Capitalist/Free Enterprise/Market person; I believe that any thing congress gets there hands on they will screw it up, management by committee never works, I believe that the wealth of the nation is in its people, who when left alone will get it right, and prosper; will they fail at times, yes; but it will be their failure and learning curve; will people get hurt along the way, yes; but again it is a learning experience; will be people get taken advantage of, yes, but that is also a learning experience, and if they learn anything from the experience they won't put themselves in that position again; can the people along the way have a redress to their problems, yes, but they need to take the initiative. Congress reminds me of the father and mother who ride herd over their offsprings to the point of not letting them fail at anything, and therefore direct their entire lives; this is what congress, and the president, are doing today, and have done in the past.

Too big to fail, I don't think so, let the free market place take care of the ills of capital wrongly placed or misdirected.

So will you hear from me again, yes, will I drop the Obama eligibility issue, no; the only way you can shut me up is to restrict my access to your eamil; then I will have to resort to snail mail and pay the postage, which by the way has gone up another $.02; good management by that organization; maybe we should out source this to the United Parcel Service; they have to turn a profit or their shareholders get real excited, I believe they are a little more efficient that the USPS could ever hope to be, even with a change in management; point to ponder.

As always, I am still here.

Jim Buzzell
Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy
313 E Division Street
PO Box 456
Kenmare ND 58746
701-385-4931
402-301-5098
mmcsbuzz@restel.net

July 18, 2009 7:48 PM
--------------------------

Stan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

I have just come across your blog, and I just wanted to appreciate you for your efforts in this particular regard.

I have only recently discovered the full importance of the definition of being a 'natural born citizen', and can only marvel at how this issue has been sidelined, while so much time and effort is going into the question of Obama's long-form bc. THIS is the key issue here; as to the relevancy to our time of the concerns of the day that prompted the Founding Fathers to require clear, unfettered loyalty to the new American enterprise of its president. How foresighted those men (and women; think, eg, of the considerable role of Abigail Adams in our history) were.

We MUST stand for the rule of law in this matter; or we are compromised forever. And the American dream will have been for nought.

This outcome must not stand.

Please keep up your good work.

Dan said...

To Mr. Apuzzo, Esq. and all others:

I read, with interest, your work in this blog. Well written. Clear and concise.

I really like the chart you have included with your work, illustrating a natural born citizen under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.

I would like to, however, point out an error in your work. It is in the fourth paragraph, fourth sentence. You write:

    "This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new NATIONAL government and Constitutional Republic."

This should be:

    "This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new FEDERAL government and Constitutional Republic."

Originally, the Congress was a federal government, where a Representative was chosen by the people of an individual State and a Senator was selected by the Legislators of an individual State. The Seventeenth Amendment changed that. A Senator is now selected by the the people of an individual State. Therefore, all members of Congress are chosen by the people of the several States. Congress is now a national government.

I wish to let everyone know that I just completed my work on Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Entitled "Natural (Native) Born Citizen Defined!" it can be read at the American Chronicle at this link http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/115465 . Supreme Court of the United States cases quoted and cited.

Dan said...

To Mr. Apuzzo, Esq. and all others:

I read, with interest, your work in this blog. Well written. Clear and concise.

I really like the chart you have included with your work, illustrating a natural born citizen under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.

I would like to, however, point out an error in your work. It is in the fourth paragraph, fourth sentence. You write:

    "This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new NATIONAL government and Constitutional Republic."

This should be:

    "This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new FEDERAL government and Constitutional Republic."

Originally, the Congress was a federal government, where a Representative was chosen by the people of an individual State and a Senator was selected by the Legislators of an individual State. The Seventeenth Amendment changed that. A Senator is now selected by the the people of an individual State. Therefore, all members of Congress are chosen by the people of the several States. Congress is now a national government.

I wish to let everyone know that I just completed my work on Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Entitled "Natural (Native) Born Citizen Defined!" it can be read at the American Chronicle at this link http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/115465 . Supreme Court of the United States cases quoted and cited.

cfkerchner said...

The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/federal-courts-are-committing-treason.html

The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.

It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."

Link to the treason quote in case context:
http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg


Link to Case Summary:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0

Link to Full Case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264

The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org

joloc1 said...

Gavin wrote:
"If....(He) is not and never was a constitutionally-valid Natural Born Citizen of the U.S., and will be subject to immediate removal from office. Hello President Biden."

But, if a president is found constitutionally invalid to hold office, was invalid at the swearing-in, at the time of election, during the course of the campaign, and at the time a running mate was chosen --
why would the running mate still be a legitimate successor to a presidency, when it had never legally existed?

So, wouldn't former Senator Biden automatically become just your average Joe?

Puzo1 said...

joloc1,

You make a very valid point. I have also thought about the same problem. If Biden's Vice-Presidency is intimately tied to Obama's Presidency by the actions of the latter choosing and creating the opportunity for the former to come in being, if the latter is not ligitimate how could the former be?

puzo1moderator said...

New animated video shows Obama explaining how he deceived the American electorate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0_LNLA9GY

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Our Founding Truth said...

If the Supreme Court of the U.S. concludes that Barack Obama's biological father was legitimately married to Barack Obama's life-giving mother at the moment of his birth, Barack Obama's goose is cooked. He is not and never was a constitutionally-valid Natural Born Citizen of the U.S., and will be subject to immediate removal from office. Hello President Biden.>>>>

I don't understand. What does it matter if they were married? It should only matter if Obama's dad was a citizen. He wasn't, so Obama is in the same position as that of an anchor baby.