I have been asked by one pro-Obama commentator on my blog who calls himself "kris" why a reputable attorney would pursue eligibility litigation against our putative President, Barack Obama.
In his argument, the commentator makes several correct statements. He is correct in stating that "Wong Kim Ark, while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment 'citizen of the United States,' simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a 'natural born Citizen.'"
He is also correct in stating that the Founders never defined in the Constitution what a “natural born Citizen” is. What the commentator does not state is that the Founders believed in a Creator, who to provide order and justice, gave society natural law. That natural law manifested itself in the minds and hearts of men. What society was, who its members were, and what the ends of society were to be were all revealed through that natural law. Hence, there was no reason or motivation for them to write down what a “Citizen” or "natural born Citizen" was. Given the task of creating a new society after having won a revolution, for them it was intuitive that a "citizen" was a member of the new society and the children of the first citizens would in the future be the society's "natural born citizens." They also provided for others to join the new society in the future through naturalization and the children of those so joining the society would also be "natural born citizens."
Except for a short 5-year time period created by the Naturalization Act of 1790, the commentator is also correct in stating that Congress never defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. He is correct because the Constitution does not give Congress the power to define what a "natural born Citizen" is. To argue that it does would be tantamount to saying that Congress can decide who shall be President based on its opinion of what a "natural born citizen" is or should be. Without a Constitutional amendment, Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause is immutable and Congress has no constitutional power to define what it means.
The commentator then says that "Vattal [sic] is not law. Nor is it the precedent you seek - Vattal [sic] does not form the Ratio of any like case to support your contention. . ." He is correct that Vattel's treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (1758 French edition), in and of itself is not law. But he errs in not understanding that those writings do become law if they form the basis of the law of nations. We know that the Founders considered Vattel the preeminent source on the law of nations. We also know that Article I, Section 8, clause 10 gives Congress the power to punish “Offenses against the Law of Nations…” We further know that in Section 212 Vattel, writing in French defined what “citoyens” (“citizens”) and “naturels, ou indigenes” ( “natives or indigenes”) are. Chief Justice Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) translated “citoyens” to “citizens” and “naturels, ou indigenes” to “natives, or indigenes.” Then our U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), translated these same words to “citizens” and “natives, or natural-born citizens”. Vattel’s writings also would become law if the United States Supreme Court were to adopt those writings and Vattel's principles and incorporate them into United States common law. The U.S. Supreme Court did, indeed, in these cited decisions, adopt Vattel's definitions of what a “citizen” and "natural born Citizen" are. Our U.S. Supreme Court, stating in Minor that there have never been any doubts in our history as to what a “natural born citizen” is, to this day has never changed the clause’s definition, always consistently stating that a “natural born citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens at the time of the child’s birth. It is this definition that has become part of our federal common law and to this day, this definition has never been changed.
The commentator then incorrectly states: "But the real issue for you is your client doesn't have standing to sue Congress to do their jobs. . . ." He only refers to Congress but I will assume that he also meant to include Obama. This issue has been briefed by Obama, Congress and me and we are all waiting for the Court to decide it. My brief shows that the Constitution is a social compact or contract between the People and the Government which limits what the Government can and cannot do vis-a-vis the People. The People through the Constitution established for themselves a Constitutional Republic based on a representative form of government. In a Constitutional Republic with such a form of government, the Government cannot govern the People unless it has the People's consent to govern them. Indeed, no government power can vest in any branch of government unless the People have consented to such vesting. My clients are undoubtedly part of the People and they must give the Government their actual or imputed consent to be governed by it. Given the rules on how the Court is to decide the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint/petition, the Court has to accept arguendo that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is therefore not eligible to be President because that is what our complaint factually alleges.
On the question of standing, let us examine through the lens of the Declaration of Independence how Obama and the Congress are affecting my clients’ lives:
Obama has refused to show that he meets the citizenship requirement of Article II, hence refusing to "Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good." Congress has allowed him to get away with it.
In refusing to prove that he is eligible for the Office of President, it is self-evident that Obama and those who blindly defend him have obstructed the "Administration of Justice." Congress has allowed him to get away with it.
Through his obstructive behavior, Obama has made my clients "dependent on his Will alone" and not on legitimately vested constitutional powers. Congress has allowed him to get away with it.
In wanting to replace American sovereignty with world consensus, “[h]e has combined with others to subject [my clients] to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws. . .” Congress has allowed him to get away with it.
In giving or attempting to give to the Government ownership of the means of production (banking, automotive, health, environmental, and who knows what more in the future), he is attempting to alter or has “alter[ed] fundamentally the Forms of our Government. . .” My clients are compelled to live under such a radically transformed Government. Congress has allowed him to get away with it.
Hence, how can my clients not be personally injured if they are compelled to submit without their actual or imputed consent to the commands of a person who not being constitutionally eligible to be President has usurped power over their constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness? Why should my freedom-loving clients be compelled to submit to such usurpation and tyranny? Why should not my clients have a judicial means to fight for and protect their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How can a "candid World" be “deaf to the Voice of Justice” and deny recognizing the real injury that my clients have suffered and continue to suffer? How can Congress turn a blind eye to such matters?
For these reasons, a reputable attorney, working to protect his clients’ unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, has every reason to diligently pursue litigation against Obama and Congress regarding the question of whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
October 14, 2009