Friday, July 17, 2009

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC). Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT identically equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC) at Birth.
Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

by: Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)

While a natural born Citizen is obviously a Citizen at birth, not all Citizens at birth are natural born Citizens at birth. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal. All "natural born Citizens" are Citizens at birth but not all Citizens are "natural born Citizens" at birth. If you cannot grasp that logic concept then try this analogy, "all trees are plants but not all plants are trees".

There are five types of Citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. All Citizens have equal rights as a member of the society but not all Citizens have the privilege and legal eligibility requirements to be the President and Commander in Chief of the Military under Article II of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.

There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401 that addresses "natural born Citizenship". The law addresses basic "Citizenship at Birth", i.e., who is a "Citizen by Birth", (which is needed under various situations and conditions of a child's birth spelled out in Section 1401) which requires such a man-made act of law to grant the Citizenship by an act of Congress, i.e., naturalized at birth by act of Congress. USC 1401 does not grant “natural born Citizenship" to anyone. Natural born Citizens do not need man-made laws to grant them Citizenship. The facts of nature of their birth do that. The legal term of art “natural born Citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Title 8 Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “Citizen” or a “National” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., a basic "Citizen at birth", i.e., a person entitled to the rights and privileges of membership in the society of our nation under our Constitution, the supreme and fundamental law of our nation. The Section 1401 law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law, not by nature. The legal term of art “Citizen at birth” is not the same legally as the legal term of art “natural born Citizen”. Simply note that in one case we are talking about who is at least an ordinary, basic “Citizen” at birth with no adjectives in front of the word Citizen, and in the other case we have two very important adjectives placed in front of the word Citizen by the framers of the Constitution, i.e., “natural born” Citizen. Since that term was used in the Constitution only once in Article II for singular most powerful office in our new federal government, the framers intended that it have special meaning. And the source of that meaning is written down and well known by legal scholars. That specific type of citizenship and "legal term of art" natural born Citizen was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise "The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law", published in 1758, in which he said that ... a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country. And this group or class of citizens are the most populous group of any nation. They do not need statutory law to be considered Citizens of the nation. Nature and the facts of their birth in the country to two Citizen parents granted that to them, not Congress.

Most citizens of the USA are natural born citizens. Most citizens of the USA were born in the USA to two parents who were citizens of the USA. And that is the pool of citizens that must be chosen from for the singular most powerful office in our nation, the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. Simple citizenship at birth by being born in the USA without regard to the citizenship status of both your parents ... or by naturalization and swearing an oath to this country and renouncing all allegiances foreign kings, princes, and potentates later as an adult, is adequate for the offices of Senator, Representative, or a Governor of a state. But it is not sufficient to be the President under Article II, to Constitutional standards. Article II requires that the person to be eligible to be President must be a "natural born Citizen". And that means that person must be born in the USA ... AND ... both his parents must be citizens of the USA.

Natural born citizenship status in a nation is granted by the facts of nature of your birth. No law or statute is necessary to grant it. The nations can make any law they wish to make a person a citizen at birth or later. But natural born citizenship can only be conveyed by nature by the facts at birth of the child. If you are born in the country of two citizen parents you are "naturally" ... a "natural born Citizen" … a citizen too … but a specific kind of citizen who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military since the child when born has sole allegiance to this country and there is no claim on him/her by a foreign country or power as to their citizenship at birth by that country too. Natural born Citizens have unity of citizenship at birth. A natural born Citizen is NOT a dual citizen at birth. A natural born Citizen has no divided loyalty issues by his birth since the child was born in the country to two citizens of the country.

See this chart showing the five types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S Constitution:

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

And "natural born Citizens" are not rare in the USA. The "natural born Citizens" are by far the most populous group in the nation. And it from this group, under Article II of our Constitution, we are to choose our President and Commander-in-Chief, the group with sole allegiance at birth to the USA and only the USA, not someone who has foreign and/or dual citizenship and divided loyalties at and by birth.

Obama's father was not a citizen of the USA, nor was he an immigrant to the USA, nor was he even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject via his British Subject father, per the British Nationality Act of 1948 which governed the status of children born to British Subjects. Obama thus was born with dual citizenship and allegiances and a foreign claim on his allegiance. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA and he is not eligible to be the President under Article II of our U.S. Constitution. He is a Usurper.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al
Help the Cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

27 comments:

Joe said...

Nicely done Charles,

Alot has been going on the last few days on this issue. Everything I saw in print after Orly's hearing in GA purposely misrepresented the issue. So we have a media that is willing to lie to the public. At first I thought they weren't getting the story straight but at this point its become preety obvious what they are doing.

The Gov. retaliation against the officer is disheartening. Our Gov. is now going after people they don't like to hurt them. This is a sad state of affairs.

Anyway if the Supreme Ct decides this issue is important enough, the new Supreme Ct. Justice will be detrimental.

What people don't understand is there is no legal system if you are counting on the Supreme Ct.. The appeals ct. is the last ct. for 99% of the cases. If you factor in getting an attorney for all this, the legal system is just not available for almost everyone.

The appeals ct. is very important. And Sotomayer was reversed 8 out of 10 times.

We would all go broke if we had to sue our Gov. everytime they broke the Constitution,

I hope this weeks events have helped your stratedgy.

Joe said...

Orly's plaintiff is ripe to file a Quo Warranto.

Apparently I don't know what a motion day is.

The original motion day was July 20The new motion day is Aug. 3. You will file two weeks prior to that, which is July 20th????

It was also referred to as a motion decsion day.

roderick said...

In other words if a war were to break out between the United States of America and Cuba and we had a Commander-In-Chief who was born in Florida of one United States citizen and one Cuban, that Commander-In-Chief may not want to do everything possible to win that war against the homeland of one of his or her parents. That Commander-In-Chief may hold back an all out assault on the invading country. Divided loyalties if you will. I will be back with further redaction of this problem as the Lord sees fit.

Mick said...

That is how Obama supporters like to frame the question of what is a Natural Born Citizen. They say "who, in other words is a U.S Citizen at Birth?" Which, of couse, is totaly wrong. The question should be, "who is a US citizen at birth and is NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of any other Foreign Power." I mean, look at all the people that would be a NBC if it were according to Section 1401!! Certainly the main reason for the requirement, which is to prevent Foreign Influence on the office, would be compromised! Could the framers have possibly meant for Anchor Babies, when they were looking to prevent foreign influence, to be POTUS? IT IS INCONCEIVEABLE.

Mick said...

Mr. Appuzo,
I know that you are busy, but could you do a piece on Wong Kim Ark? I ran across this quote while researching Horace Gray.

” Thus his associates were not surprised by his opinion in UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK (1898), confirming the CITIZENSHIP claim of a Chinese child born in the United States, even though he had also spoken for the Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), denying the same claim when filed by an American Indian who had left a government reservation and renounced all privileges of tribal membership. In Gray’s view, the anomalous status of Indians as wards of the nation had already been fixed by nine decades of administrative usage. But the status of persons born of unnaturalizable ALIENS was a new question in American law.”

I find this very interesting. The very narrow ruling that this would represent, that Children of UNNATURALIZEABLE Aliens residing and working in the US, could be considered Citizens (Not Natural Born). If you remember Wong's parents could not be Naturalized because of a Treaty with China, although they lived and worked here for years. This line of thinking goes to the example of Children of pre 1866 Slaves, which he equated Wong with. This ruling has since been overruled, I would think, by Perkins v. Elg 33 years later, which held that treaties between, and laws of, Foreign nations must be considered in Citizenship cases (which of course applies to Obama with the BNA 1948). If you look at the case in this light, it is obvious that Gray was not evicerating his own ruling in Elk about jurisdiction, but was making a narrow ruling in a specialized case. The Law should take another look at this ruling, since it is being abused to muddy Jurisdiction, and allow anchor babies automatic US citizenship, when they certainly should not be automatic citizens.

Guy4013 said...

To Charles,

On a recent blog, I discovered the quote of Lynch v. Clark, 1844 in NY, where it was implied that the judge found Ms Lych a NBC because she was born in NY and of alien parents.

Any knowledge of how important this case is in history?

Thanks for all you do.

Guy4013 said...

To Mario and Charles,

I heard from a friend who had a friend who had access to the halls of congress in December 2008.

He said that every member of congress due about the eligibility issue but were scared to death to overturn the election. They ran to the woods for cover.

Which is why my letters were ignored by congress because they were all cowards to challenge the ONE.

I found it interesting they knew. I had always thought they were too busy to understand the issue.

jayjay said...

Guy4013:

Sure they knew and were just too lilly-livered to do anything about it.

That's why for my money all 535 of the Beltway Bastards should be replaced as soon as possible - and I do mean NO EXCEPTIONS as harsh as thay may sound.

I believe the founders always believed that those in Congress should serve a term or two and then return to get a dose of the real world to helo focus their thinking on what the people really want ... IOW, term limits.

cfkerchner said...

Guy,

Thank for the feedback. I agree with you on the assessment of things in Congress. All afraid of being called the R word if they spoke the truth, etc., is part of it too. I believe they knew exactly what the problems were with Obama's and McCain's lack of NBC status and thought they could get away with it. They both made a pack with the devil amongst themselves down there in DC and against the people and the Constitution. And then when the people started protesting about this they all went into the CYA mode. This has all been orchestrated at the highest levels of the DNC and RNC who put party politics and personal political goals above the Constitution and the Country in the 2008 elections for President. Obama, McCain, and Calero on the ballot for President last year all were not Article II Natural Born Citizens to Constitutional Standards! The political parties knew what they did which is why they did not answer my letters and FAXes and which ultimately lead to my lawsuit against Congress and Obama et al. And they all CYA'd for each other all through this mess since then. And the press is in the tank protecting them all in DC. The 4th branch of government, the so called free press in the USA, as well as the Department of Justice should be on our side (We the People) in this in digging for the truth and protecting the Constitution which many in this cover up swore to support and defend against all enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC. And they did not and are still not doing so.

Also, I'm not a lawyer and thus not familiar with many cases other than the key ones in this case about natural born citizenship which have all been put forward here and in other threads here.

I am sure Mario will see you question about the case you mention and if he has the time will answer you.

But we are all busy as beavers this week. The opposition filing date is Monday. So Mario is very, very busy.

And I'm working on various projects in support of publicity and education about this legal battle and the fund raising efforts for that.
http://www.protectourlibery.org
There is still a wee bit to raise online for the current series of advertorials, Series 2. If you all want to see the advertorial continuing in the Washington Times Weekly Edition, pop on by that website and click on the "Donate" button and contribute what you can. I thank you and all patriots will thank you.

We will win this. I am confident that in the end truth and the Constitution will be upheld.

God bless America and protect us all in this endeavor to save our Constitution and the Republic.

Charles

Mick said...

To Guy 4013,
Lynch is a circuit court case, not Supreme Court, and has virtually no weight of precedent in matters of the constitution, especially since Perkins v. Elg was a SCOTUS case almost 90 years later. Lynch is a favorite case of the Obama crowd to use as evidence, but it does not hold water.

Benaiah said...

The WONG court specifically stated that Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 unequivocally established that "all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth [NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS]".

A "citizen of the United States at birth" is NOT synonymous with a "natural born citizen" of the United States.

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

[13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, ...becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "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."

[35] That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, [NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS] does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

James said...

Charles,

About the guy who says that Congress knew;

I believe this to be true.

It is on the record and you can actually find it, that several congressman (No Senators that I have been able to find) were strongly considering objecting to Joint Session of Congress Electoral Vote and even said this publically in statments.

However, no objection were ever made not withstanding Chaney's screw up of not asking for any objections.

You should be able to find some the statements on the internet from Congressman strongly considering to object.

It certainly might be helpful try to add those statements to the court record to show that Congress was well aware of the problem, had considered it and DID NOTHING.

James said...

Look up John Linder, Congressman from GA. According to him, he was planning to object but never did. While some may argue that it also takes one Senator too to object and its possible that Linder could not find a Senator to join in his objection (which is why is Linder's objection never went anywhere), one can certainly argue that Linder had the duty to raise this issue with all senators if not at the very least his senators from Georgia. It not clear if Linder did this, but the duty was there and Senators had the constitutional duty to consider Linder's objection.

Where were our Senator's duty of due dilligence to consider this matter.

Senators simply relying on FactCheck and Snopes is not acceptable.

Teo Bear said...

Here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen for Dummies and Obots.

Contrary to what Al Gore and the Democrats say, if something needs to be created by law it is not natural. When something is made by man we say it has artificial ingredients and it is not "all natural."

Even the most die hard vegan obots should comprehend this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jayjay said...

James:

There is actually a video clip of Cheney (with Pelosi benind him) doing the so-called "certification" of the vote after which as I understand it he should have asked for any objections.

He not only did not so ask, but the clip clearly shows one representative near the center of the seating energetically waving his hand in the air as if trying to get Cheney's attemtion and be heard. At about that time, Pelosi started clapping - which was then echoed by others and the guy was never allowed to be heard.

Cheney NEVER asked for any objections though it looks to me like there was clearly at least one. The Obama pals will perhaps say the man just wanted permission to be excused for a bathroom break ... I don't think so.

I think all 535 (and then some, probably) were in on the "game". AFAIC - we "owe" them BIG TIME!!!

jayjay said...

Hmmm!!! The electronic execution of incriminating evidence continues - in this case on FactCheck.com (the Annenberg site).

Some of the statements which had been pointed to by the late lamented FightTheSmears.com (before its complete execution) about Mr. O. "being governed by the BNA of 1948" are no longer there but they have missed something and mum's the word.

So kiddies, keep all your archived websites that have the stuff on them just in case they are needed to make up subpoenas for testimony from those operating these sites.

And keep your eyes peeled for other data "gone missing".

Let us move forward said...

It was interesting that Gibbs called on WND’s reporter Lester in the first place. It is more interesting that Gibbs used the phrase “the noble truth” twice in his response to Lester’s question about the BC. Lastly “the noble truth” is also in Plato’s Republic, in which it has a very specific meaning, i.e. that it is a noble lie. The public is being set up for the BC and all will be good.

see Alan Keyes at
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104164

jayjay said...

Let us move forward"

It really does not matter what Gibbs meant by the comment (and you're most likely right) and that is why we should always emphasize that the BC is merely a necessary but not sufficient part of the eligibility issue.

The real issue is "eligibility" and not really where he was born (presuming he has been telling the truth about being born in HI).

The pro-O forces are merely trying the cheap political stunt of shaping the playing field to pretend that the BC itself is the whole thing and when that's (loudly) presented they can cry "game over". Tain't so!!

In fact the game will not even have really begun at that point since any BC produced by the O-forces would have to be carefully verified - perhaps by subpoenaing the vault copy from the state of HI complete with certifications, etc. After all, the Big O has been known to fib a couple of times.

With a REAL, known valid BC we can move on to other documentary evidence such as the Occidental records and even other things of fact.

THEN, with the facts all in hand the court can proceed with its legal ruling on whether the man is eligible or not.

The BC is not the most meaningful; THE ELIGIBILITY IS!!!!!

James said...

Conversations between Gibbs and Les Kinsolving have proved most interesting in the matter. While in conversations Les often mentions Obama's Vault Copy BC supposely listing the hospital and doctor. For what I can tell, it seems the Gibbs has deliberately refused to acknowledge the existance of such document even though the State of Hawaii says they have it. Gibbs constantly refers to posted COLB that is online. From what I can tell, neither Gibbs or the Obama administration has ever had any comment or really acknowledgment of the Vault Copy BC that State of Hawaii claims they have. Instead to keep harping on the posted COLB even though a great number of people have no interest in seeing that document and instead want to see the Vault Copy BC.

I believe the Obama adminstration is scared to death of mentioning the Vault Copy yet alone releasing it.

They is something on the Vault Copy BC that Obama is very fearful of and does not want the American People to see what is on it.

That is all the more reason why we must see the Vault Copy BC and Obama must be forced to release it.

The American People have the right and the duty to see what Obama keeping from us.

jayjay said...

Let us move forward:

Perhaps what the current DC version of "Baghdad Bob" is really trying to say is that his boss is a "noble born citizen" rather than a "natural born citizen" ... after all, his boss has told us he is a "citizen of the world".

Let us move forward said...

JayJay

Noble born, is that the same as someone born into the nobility? But there isn't supposed to be nobility in the US!

And to think that I laughed when I read "noble born".

concerning: The public is being set up for the BC and all will be good.

The "all will be good" was intended sarcastically. Should have put "HA HA" after it.

Guess that you are moderating. Thank you for donating your time.

KJ

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

Puzo1 said...

Duplicated from another thread.

Benaiah said...
-----------------
A “citizen of the United States at birth” is NOT synonymous with a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

[13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, …becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “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.”

[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

[35] That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, [NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS] does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

Suffice it to say, Obama is NOT “of the country” of the United States of America, NOR is he a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, as his father was a “foreigner”…

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

[419] Again:

[420] …to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.

July 20, 2009 3:20 PM
-----------------------

google said...

Consider the following that I found recorded in The Congressional Globe, May 23, 1866, Page 2769:

When the 14th amendment was being considered, this very issue was presented and a PLAIN response to its intended meaning given that no justice, legislator or citizen can refute. As recorded in The Congressional Globe, May 23, 1866, Page 2769...

“Mr, FESSENDEN. Suppose a person is BORN HERE OF PARENTS FROM ABROAD temporarily [or illegally] in this country.”

“Mr. WADE. The Senator says a person MAY BE BORN HERE and NOT be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside “near” the United States in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are NOT supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law THEIR CHILDREN WOULD NOT BE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, ALTHOUGH BORN IN WASHINGTON. I agree to that, but my answer to the suggestion is that that is a simple matter, for it could hardly be applicable to more than two or three or four persons; and it would be best not to alter the law for that case. I will let it come under that well-known maxim of the law, de minimis lex non curat. IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE RESULT.”

So, was Obama’s parents here legally? — Were they supposed to be here?

In other words, at the time Obama was allegedly born here on our soil, were his parents “supposed to be here”, as mentioned by Mr. Wade, or just visiting as foreign citizens as would be a diplomat? — And, if not supposed to be here, as is true with any diplomat or illegal alien, does that not make Obama (naturally) NOT a citizen of the United States, anyway? — And, so, unless NATURALIZED, is he not STILL a citizen of the origin country of his parents and, so, still here illegally to this day?

Jim D said...

"Opinerlog" did a creditable summary of this nbc issue. The particular post is entitled "Scotus Potus Summary". Worth reading.

These attorney's, Apuzzio, are heroes of the Republic. Hope it all works out--and soon!

Jim D said...

Opinerlog, a blog in Rochester, did a creditable job of summarizing this issue. Well worth reading. The particular post is entitled "Scotus Potus Summary".

These attorneys, like Apuzzio, are heroes of the Republic and I wish them every success.