Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

The intent and purpose of the amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”

The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.

Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”

As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States.

The issue of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote “natural born Citizen” into Article II is surely ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to determine. The issue is one of first impression and the Supreme Court needs to decide it. The national security and survival of the United States as conceived by the Founders are at stake. Because of the utter failure of our political and media institutions to give proper and honest attention to this issue, only the highest court in the land can now come to the aid of the Kerchner plaintiffs and We the People.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

36 comments:

daddynoz said...

It should be uppermost on everyone's minds why the framer's chose the unique form of citizenship for the presidency of a new republic...

1. The power of the executive office rested in one individual (only ONCE in our constitution is the phrase Natural Born Citizen utilized). Remember, member of the congress shared power and were trusted to be "just" citizens.

2. The framers were extremely nervous that our hard fought war for independence could be lost to the sway of a president that did not INTRINSICALLY hold faith with our nation and could be the pawn of a foreign power (i.e. England or France).

3. In their study of Vattel, they determined that the only fundamental way that the ALLEGIANCE of the presidency could be determined is if he or she was the offspring of two US Citizens born with the sovereign boundaries of our land.

It is simply about ALLEGIANCE.

-1SG Nosworthy

For all those out there who think it is about new world orders, birth certificates, and a DEEP conspiracy to withhold basic truths from the people...well, you're wrong, the facts have ALWAYS been there.

cfkerchner said...

Bravo Mario! Well written.

Charles

PORTUGAL10 said...

This needs to be Submittted to WND, DRUDGE, FOX, and all the Bedmate Media. We all are in need of this Education. This needs to be TAUGHT in school and to every American.


Thanks, Mr. Apuzzo

I'll do what I can to dissiminate this it is that important.

jayjay said...

Good stuff; good stuff, indeed!!

Makes me feel proud (and fortunate) to be a natural born citizen.

Guess I'll run for President (... now where's that Birth Certificate???)

Doublee said...

Dr. John C. Eastman has argued that the 14th amendment does not even bestow so called birthright citizenship on someone born on U.S. soil. I beleive that we are only one of two nations that does so.

http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm

The point of contention is: What did the framers of the 14th amendment mean by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Dr. Eastman says this:

Quote:
The interpretative gloss offered
by Senators Trumbull and Howard was also accepted by the Supreme Court—by both the majority and the dis­senting justices—in The Slaughter-House Cases.[7] The majority in that case correctly noted that the “main purpose” of the clause “was to establish the citizenship of the negro” and that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”[8] Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Brad­ley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitu­tionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which pro­vided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.
End quote

I always find it ironic that according to the original interpretaion of the 14th amendment, Obama would not even be a citizen.

Benaiah said...

WONG was a "citizen of the United States at birth" NOT a "natural born citizen” of the United States.

The single question presented to the WONG court, which the WONG court affirmed, was whether or not WONG was a “citizen of the United States” "at the time of his birth" “by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution”, NOT whether WONG was a "natural born citizen” of the United States under Article II of the Constitution.

Hence, the Wong court determined that WONG was a "citizen of the United States at birth"“by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution”. Thus, Wong was NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United States under Article II of the Constitution.

The "single question” that the WONG court decided was the following:

[13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, ...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."

Hence, the WONG court did NOT consider whether or not WONG was a “natural born citizen” under Article II of the Constitution.

To reiterate, “the single question” was whether or not WONG was a “citizen of the United States” "at the time of his birth" “by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution”, NOT whether WONG was a "natural born citizen” of the United States under Article II of the Constitution.

The WONG court concluded that WONG, "at the time of his birth", was "a citizen of the United States", or in other words, the WONG court concluded that WONG was "a citizen of the United States at birth" “by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution”.

It follows that a "natural born citizen" is always "a citizen of the United States at birth", but that "a citizen of the United States at birth" is NOT always "natural born citizen" of the United States, as the WONG court made a distinction between "a citizen of the United States at birth" and a "natural born citizen" of the United States, when it concluded that WONG was only a "citizen of the United States" “at the time of his birth”, “by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution”.

To reiterate, WONG was NOT a “natural born citizen” of the United States under Article II of the Constitution. Thus WONG would not have been eligible to be the President of the United States.

Benaiah said...

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,
of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, 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."

[15] The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."By the original Constitution, ..."no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that "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," also declares that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude."

[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 [NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS] of the United States." In this, as in other respects, it 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.

[121] The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Benaiah said...

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

[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.

Benaiah said...

http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=897

United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

“…the framers …understood that for liberty to exist the populace needed to be educated enough to understand liberty and to be able to defend liberty. They also understood that liberty was not on automatic pilot, that liberty would not exist simply because it was once started, and that having won it it was very delicate and had to be protected…”

Benaiah said...

Obama is NOT "of the country" of the United States of America, and is NOT 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.

jayjay said...

Benaiah:

Not only Clarence Thomas, but also Benjamin Franklin who reportedly asked about the type of government the framers made, said"

"A republic ... if you can keep it".

It's up to us now to keep it!!!

Teo Bear said...

The fist clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states,

"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."

I understand most Obots never needed to learn such mundane concepts in school such as grammar, as they were too busy learning more important concepts such as socialism 101, and how gay penguins procreate rainbow colored eggs, but if they did learn the fundamentals of the language they claim to speak, they would realize that the conjunction "or" that separates the words born and naturalized makes them equal.

If they insist that the 14th Amendment makes everyone born within the jurisdiction of the United States a "natural born citizen," then the only logical conclusion that they can arrive at is that the 14th amendment also makes those naturalized, natural born citizens also.

jayjay said...

Things are well and truly "heating up" ...

I urge EVERYONE to go to Orly's site for her latest legal action in GA district court:

Childers stal v Wingate etal
4:09-cv-00082-CDL

here's the link:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

There's a wealth of helpful cites and ideas; e.g., paragraphs 8), 14, 15) - and many others. I haven't had time to digest much of it even, but let's put on our thing caps Tin Woodsmen of the World ...

sjc said...

Major Stefan Frederick Cook has taken a stand which his Honor, his Career, His livelihood, His personal freedom,the very roof over his head. Major Cook has at risk all for you and me. Major Cook is even willing to risk his life in a foreign land for you and me.
Obama's retaliation against Major Cook within the past 5 days has been to have his civilian employer fire him. Maj. Cook has had his security clearances revoked, and his military career is well on the way to being abruptly ended. Shall We The People, show our thanks to this patriot by letting him be turned out into the street penniless? We owe this man. His home address is published in the motions, I personally am sending him funds to assist him during this time of his distress. Any funds he does not need I request he donate to Wounded Warriors. Follow my example of fair play fellow citizens. Let this action be our answer to Barack Obama, a usurper and fraud and Major Cook a man of valor and honor.
Major Stefan Frederick Cook
4207 Harbor Lake Dr
Lutz, Fla. 33558

Friends go to your various websites and go to your email lists make this same plea to those you know and ask they do the same expand the circle, let Obama now this will not stand.

I intend to send him a sum each month until he advises me he no longer needs it. This man of honor will not cheat any of us.
Thank You Major Cook

Lemon said...

Lou Dobbs covered the story at 7:35 eastern ... after the Cook challenge against Obama and deployment he mentioned factcheck and its lies, but THEN he mentioned how there is no federal agency that checks citizenship or forms to run for President. It is left up to the states. Then he said, "Different states handle things differently, but Obama's home state of IL doesn't check candidates who run for state congress or Senator."

Then he smirked.

Word is getting out!

capedeh said...

Translate indonesian law about married on uu no 1 tahun 1974, though this not applied during mr o time in indonesia but it bases on uu no 22 tahun 1946 (bill no.22 year 1946) and uu no 32 tahun 1956(bill no.32 year 1956) and the dutch law before it's. search in google.co.id about this law. This is not ramification but the truth I set to you especially article 47 uu no1 tahun 1974:
1. Child under 18 years old and un married under their parents ruleas long as they not renounced their power of the child.
2. The parents represents the child under law matter in and out the court.
This and married on mixed married before this law is passed (1974) were bases on
REGELING OP DE GEMENGDE HUWELIJKEN.... Read More

(K. B. v. 29 Dec. 1896 No. 23.) S. 98—158. and still do until uu no 12 tahun 2006(bill no.12 year 2006) were applied; however after further searching there's no changing on this principle therefore this law still applied.

James said...

Lou Dobbs had Orly Taitz on his show today:

http://loudobbsradio.com/

Check the Archives.

You need to get an interview with Lou Dobbs.

I understand Lou Dobbs actually lives in New Jersey. It might possible to get in touch with him.

Lou Dobbs seems pretty open minded and might be more receptive to this issue.

James said...

In listening to the program, Lou Dobbs seems really interested in this issue.

Charles and Mario,

You should make every effort to contact him.

http://loudobbsradio.com/pg/jsp/help/contact.jsp#form4

http://loudobbsradio.com/pg/jsp/help/contact.jsp#form6

You should try to track down persons who can put you in touch with Lou Dobbs.

Good Luck and God Bless.

James said...

Lou Dobbs is A BIG a development and is a Game Changer.

Dobbs is the first major commentary to not only question the problems with Obama's eligiblity but has displayed quite an interest in the issue even to the point of bringing Orly Taitz on his radio program.

Dobbs seems very interested in this issue.

If you only get your chance to address your position in this matter with Dobbs, you have a good chance of completely winning over Dobbs.

Sean Hannity has also started to take an interest in this issue as well and has mentioned it more than once on his show.

However, Hannity has yet to take the step that Dobbs did by inviting a key figure in this issue on his program or radio show or has voiced his opinion of it.

I encourage to work on Dobbs.

If Dobbs is completely swayed, other commentatories including Hannity and Beck are sure to follow.

Dobb's interest in this issue could indicate that beginning of the end for Obama if him and other major commentatories become interested in this issue especially with your lawsuit that you have.

Joe said...

I just listened to Lou Dobbs radio show.

He is on board!!

Finally!!

Orly is supposed to be on his TV show 2night.

Furthermore he got the issue right--NBC, he didnot misrepresent the issue.

Joe said...

Mario,
the interview is towards the end of the radio show. Alan Keyes also was on.

Gavin said...

Mario:

I'd be interested to hear your perspective on whether it is possible for an illegitimate child to be a natural born citizen of the United States.

It seems clear based on the authority you and others have been able to uncover thus far that children born other than in the United States are not POTUS-eligible. This clearly excludes Senator John S. McCain, who though born to two U.S. citizens, was nevertheless born in Colon, Panama, which besides not being in the U.S., was also never a part of the U.S.'s Panama Canal zone.

It also seems clear based on such authority that a legitimate child of a married couple, at least one of which was not a U.S. citizen, is not POTUS-eligible, even if born on U.S. soil. This clearly excludes Governer Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who though born legitimately and in the United States, was nevertheless the child of non-citizen parents.

An illegitimate child born to a U.S. citizen mother on U.S. soil lacks the complicating factor of a non-citizen parent. Unless moved to conclude otherwise, U.S. law will typically only recognize a man as the father of a child if that man is legitimately married to the mother of the child as of the moment that child was born. Notably, this condition even extends to the status of children born: 1) to a mother who is one-half of a married couple, the father of which is not genetically related to the child so born (e.g., sperm donor used); 2) to a mother who is not genetically related to the child so born (e.g., egg donor used); and 3) to a child's married parents, neither of which is genetically related to the child so born (e.g., sperm donor and egg donor used).

In other words, in the eyes of the law at least, and unless otherwise established by a court of law, one's parents include: 1) one's actual birth mother, and if one's birth mother was legitimately married at the moment of one's birth, 2) the husband of one's birth mother.

As you consider how to answer this query, please note that I am not trying to drive any wedges or exploit any loopholes for anyone's benefit or potential benefit. For what it's worth, this is a question that arose when I attempted to square the teachings of Vattel with the teachings of von Bar.

I am simply trying to determine if the structure of authority that interested individuals have erected in recent months necessarily precludes the possibility of POTUS eligibility for children who, even though illegitimate, are nevertheless second generation U.S. citizens.

While it would be a distinct pleasure for me, personally, to see SCOTUS rule that only legitimate children are POTUS-eligible, I am aware of the social and political forces that would be arrayed in opposition to such a ruling. I also recognize the desire on the part of some patriotic Americans to find some way to arrive at a formula that could (at least possibly) result in a ruling that Barack Obama is POTUS-eligible, if for no other reason than to avoid a constitutional crisis.

I am in favor of a solution that preserves the integrity of the U.S. constitution. If the only possible or practical solution that will meet this criteria would also result in a holding of POTUS-eligibility for the present president, I must admit that I will probably be satisfied.

cfkerchner said...

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC)

While a natural born citizen is obviously a citizen at birth, not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal.

There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401, that grants “natural born citizenship" to anyone. The legal term of art “natural born citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “citizen” or a “national” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., simple "citizen at birth". The law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law. 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 “citizen” at birth and in the other case we have two very important adjectives in front of the word citizen, i.e., “natural born” citizen. That special legal term of art was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise The Law of Nations 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. 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 special 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 no claim on him by a foreign power as to their citizenship of a foreign country at birth too. He has unity of citizenship at birth. He 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.

Also see this chart of the different kinds of citizenship in the U.S. mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and legal reference for same.

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

The natural born citizens of a nation and our nation are by far the most populous group.

Benaiah said...

Gavin raises an interesting issue:

What if Barack Hussein Obahmadinejihad is the illegitimate son of Frank Marshall Davis, or Malik Shabazz, aka Malcolm X?

If Malik Shabazz was indeed Obahmadinejihad's father, it would explain why he named his children Malia (Malik) and Sasha (Shabazz)...

Benaiah said...

By the way, "Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

Gavin said...

For what it's worth, the issue Benaiah says I've raised is not the one that animates me.

I start with the assumption that Barack Obama's paternity is what he says it is. Who are we to say otherwise?

What I can't seem to piece together is how his mother and father were legitimately married in the first place. By all accounts, his father was already married at the time. Hawaii's anti-bigamy statute, HRS s 572-1(3) apparently lists bigamy as a misdemeanor, punishable by 30 days in jail.

Bigamy is illegal in all 50 states. Courts regard acts of bigamy and polygamy as acts of deception or fraud. The second marriage is null or void, technically speaking. This is why bigamy constitutes sufficient grounds for a legal annulment. By granting an annulment based on grounds of bigamy, the state is acknowledging that the second marriage never actually took place.

Barack Obama's mother and father were divorced at some point. Does anyone know whether the divorce decree mentioned anything about his father's previous marriage?

jayjay said...

Gavin:

You've some good points there. In fact, NO ONE has ever seen any marriage certificate between BHN Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham.

Certainly the Present Occupant claims they WERE married - and that shows up putatively in the divorce papers of Sr. and Stanley wgucg she claims took place in Feb. 1961 on Maui (not Oahu for some reason). No one, however, has ever seen the actual document (or even a poor imitation of one on the Web).

Hopefully in discovery that document will be subpoenaed also. After all, we know that almost everthing about the man's life that he has TOLD people is a downright lie. Why believe this "fact" either???

sjc said...

Gavin, as to Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis as father. That point would require paternity proof issues with the burden of proof on Obama I would expect,in order to determine the father's citizenship

Citizenship by birth (INA § 301, 8 USC § 1401)

The US law on citizenship by birth incorporates two traditional legal principles:

ius soli ("right of the soil"), under which citizenship results from being born in the US, and

ius sanguinis ("right of the blood"), under which citizenship results from having an American parent or parents.
Each of these principles is subject to certain restrictions. For example, children born in the US to foreign diplomats are not US citizens. Also, children born abroad to parents who have US citizenship but have never lived in the US are not US citizens (this rule being designed to prevent the proliferation of endless generations of foreign-born and -raised "Americans").

Many dual-citizenship situations result from the interaction of two countries' implementations of ius soli and/or ius sanguinis in their respective citizenship laws. For example, a child might acquire the citizenship of the country in which he was born (via ius soli), and also the citizenship of his parents' country (via ius sanguinis), and as a result start life as a dual citizen.

Section 301 of the INA [8 USC § 1401] defines the following classes of people as having US citizenship from the time of birth:


anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction (basically meaning anyone other than a child of foreign government representatives with diplomatic immunity);

Indians and other aboriginal people born in the US;

anyone born outside the US, if at least one parent is a US citizen and certain residency or physical presence requirements were fulfilled by the citizen parent or parents prior to the child's birth;

anyone who is found in the US while under five years of age, whose parents cannot be identified, and who is not shown prior to his or her 21st birthday to have been born outside the US.
The only part of this section that is mandated by the 14th Amendment is the part giving citizenship to anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in Rogers v. Bellei, held that the citizenship status of a person born outside the US to an American parent is not constitutionally protected.

Note that children born in the US to tourists -- or even to illegal aliens -- are US citizens by birth. Some politicians have proposed changing the law to deny citizenship to US-born children unless at least one parent is a US citizen or permanent resident alien ("green card" holder). However, since such children are guaranteed citizenship by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (see the Supreme Court's rulings in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Afroyim v. Rusk), it is unlikely that this part of the INA could be successfully changed without another amendment to the Constitution. Even attempts to deny citizenship to such children by redefining them as not being subject to US jurisdiction (as proposed, for instance, by various bills in the current Congress) would probably have a rough time in the courts on account of the Wong Kim Ark precedent.
.

sjc said...

part II con't

Under certain conditions, children born outside the US may have US citizenship by birth. This depends on whether one or both parents have US citizenship, how long (if at all) the American parent(s) lived in the US prior to the child's birth, and whether the parents were married to each other or not. The rules have changed several times during the 20th century (mostly in a more liberal direction), so the exact date of one's birth can also be important when determining a claim to citizenship by descent.

Under the current law, if both parents are US citizens and are married, then the child is a US citizen if either parent had a "residence" in the US at any time in his or her life prior to the child's birth. There is no specific minimum period of time in the law for how long a parent must have been in the US in order for his/her status to be accepted as having been "residence" in the US.

If one parent is a US citizen, and the other is not, and the parents are married, then the current law says the child is a US citizen if the American parent was physically present in the US for one or more periods of time totalling at least five years, at some time or times in his or her life prior to (but not necessarily immediately prior to) the child's birth. Additionally, at least two years out the required five years of physical presence must have taken place after the parent's 14th birthday; thus, for example, a parent who was born and grew up in the US, but who left before reaching age 16 and never returned, doesn't meet the requirement.

Prior to 14 November 1986, the physical presence requirement in this case was ten years (instead of five) -- including five years (instead of two) spent after the parent's 14th birthday. The requirement was reduced in 1986, but the change did not retroactively make US citizenship available to people born previously who did not meet the old requirement. (Congress's intent not to make this change retroactive was affirmed in 1988 with the passage of Public Law 100-525, § 8(d), 102 Stat. 2619).

Note that physical presence does not require residence in the US. Time spent on vacation in the US may be counted toward the five-year total. Indeed, Americans living abroad with foreign-born children would be well advised to keep track of the exact dates of each trip the children make to the US, in case the question of a grandchild's US citizenship should arise sometime in the future. After we moved back to the US from Canada, I wrote up an affidavit detailing all the times each of my two children had been in the US; I signed it under oath before a notary, sealed it in an envelope, and have filed it with our important documents for possible future use. I plan to redo each child's affidavit after his/her 16th birthday.

If a non-US-born child's parents are not married, the child's claim to US citizenship depends on whether the American parent is the mother or the father. Section 309 of the INA [8 USC § 1409] grants US citizenship at birth to an "illegitimate" child if his/her American mother had previously spent at least one continuous full year in the US. If the child's American parent is his/her father, however, the child has US citizenship at birth only if the father's paternity is formally established and the father agrees in writing to support the child financially. This sex-based disparity was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001 (Nguyen v. INS).

It is important to note that a foreign-born child whose parents have fulfilled the residency or physical presence requirements is a US citizen by birth. This citizenship is automatic; it is not dependent on the parents' registering the child with a US consulate (though such registration is strongly encouraged) or getting the child a US passport. The child's status as a US citizen is also not dependent on whether or not his/her birth country considers the child to be one of its citizens, or whether or not that country's laws tolerate dual citizenship

cfkerchner said...

A re-post my earlier post for benefit of those reading over our shoulders. OBots frequently confuse on purpose terms Certification of Live Birth (COLB) with Certificate of Live Birth (BC). They deceive the unknowing.

They do the same thing with the legal term of art citizen at birth and a completely different legal term of art natural born citizen. The section 1401 law says nothing about Natural Born Citizenship (NBC) nor does it confer NBC status to anyone. Natural Born Citizenship status is not obtained by a man made law but by the facts at birth for that person, i.e., born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country (Vattel).

Here is a re-post of what I posted earlier.

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC)

While a natural born citizen is obviously a citizen at birth, not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal.

There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401, that grants “natural born citizenship" to anyone. The legal term of art “natural born citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “citizen” or a “national” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., simple "citizen at birth". The law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law. 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 “citizen” at birth and in the other case we have two very important adjectives in front of the word citizen, i.e., “natural born” citizen. That special legal term of art was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise The Law of Nations 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. 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 special 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 no claim on him by a foreign power as to their citizenship of a foreign country at birth too. He has unity of citizenship at birth. He 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.

Also see this chart:

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

The natural born citizens of a nation and our nation are by far the most populous group.

kingskid said...

SJC, thanks for your post on helping Major Cook. What a wonderful idea! I am going to help out also, and just sent an e-mail to my address book (including Joseph Farah at WND), and have asked that they all send it to their address books so that we can build a real groundswell of support for OUR Major Cook! May God bless, protect, strengthen and encourage him in the days ahead.

And God bless all of you for your generous hearts and spirits in your willingness to help a wounded warrior, and thanks to SJC for bringing this issue to the forefront!

James said...

Unfortunately, the case today was dismissed but was not suprising since Cook's orders had been revoked anyway. Orly plans to refile the case in Florida since Cook's company fired him. I believe it is a case of blatant retaliation and she has a good case to put forward. Orly needs to find more military persons who are active duty and bring them on board.

It appears, our best hope of getting Obama ousted is with Orly Taitz and Mario Apuzzo. Other lawyers such Phill Berg have been neutralized and cases have been shelved. Who knows when the appeals court will look at them.

Luu Dobbs has certainly taken a great interest in this issue as well as Hannity although Hannity has to offer his own thoughts.

I this is would be wise for Mario and Charles to step up their efforts in order to contact Dobbs and Hannity for interviews.

Someone out there in the birth movement has the means for Mario to get in touch with Dobbs and Hannity.

Perhaps a personal telegram might be useful in getting their attention.

daddynoz said...

I'm not sure folks are tracking the percieved reality...

***Hannity broadcasts Cook's case is about Mr. Obama ineligibility to hold office because he's "not a US citizen".

***Taitz et al are trying to focus the nation that it is ENTIRELY about a birth certificate.

OK, so I'm dumb...whatever happened to the original focus that ALL the facts are currently available to pursue the President's ineligibility due the nature of his father's citizenship REGARDLESS of any other considerations. I hear the praise of the "true patriot" Doc Orly, but I think she is obscuring a blatant reality rather than illuminating one.

Her exalts of "we won" and they "backed down" show her ignorance of the military and jurisprudence (in general) and absolutely nothing else.

I see no victory other than the second coming of Chester Arthur when he produces the long form document and we arw back at square one.

-1SG Nosworthy

TruthExists said...

When I think of the phrase "under the jurisdiction of" I think of a draft. Anyone with body parts in the country has to go by the laws therein, but only some people can be drafted.

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.

Puzo1 said...

sjc,

Do you believe that Congress has the constitutional power to define an Article II "natural born Citizen?"