Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Why Should a Reputable Attorney Pursue the Obama Eligibility Issue?

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
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
October 14, 2009

32 comments:

Jet said...

Finally a good article in the press about the real issue of Obama's British citizenship and ihis lack of NBC status as a result:

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d14-Barack-Obama-and-State-of-Hawaii-on-the-ropes

cfkerchner said...

Another outstanding essay Mario. The truth and the Constitution will win the day.

People who ask questions of you like this person did obviously do not understand the words of the oath I and others in the military took. Those who were prepared to risk our lives if necessary take such matters very seriously. I as a military officer took my oath very seriously. I swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Now I know why that word domestic is in there. The founders and framers were very wise men. They anticipated that this day may come. And we military and many other oath takers will support and defend the Constitution, not a man or piece of land, but the Constitution.

Obviously the politicians and executive appointees in our federal government do not take their oaths seriously. That is how we got into this mess. They looked at their oath as only words and look always to redefine the words out of convenience. It all depends on what the word "is" means, etc.

The federal courts now need to listen to the words of arguably the greatest U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and take jurisdiction and try the case on the merits, find the facts, and make a ruling. That is all we ask is our days in court and ultimately a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue and then to measure Obama against that ruling and together with the Congress at that time take what ever action is necessary to enforce the Constitution. The Prayers for Relief in the lawsuit lay out the relief we seek.

Again, very good essay.

Charles

libertyforusa said...

There is little doubt in my mind that Congress has not exercised their due diligence- and thereby permitted this quandary we find ourselves in- whereby one who has split allegiance holds an office to which is not entitled, and places at deep risk our national security, and the very justice required to protect the rights of all citizens.

James said...

Guess What?!

AP (Associated Press) knows Obama was born is Kenya.

They have known as far aas 2004:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Sunday, June 27, 2004

—AP

Ted said...

Since Obama’s maternal grandmother (38 years old when Obama born) unilaterally submitted birth info to Hawaii (generating the COLB), not Obama’s ‘mother’ (then 18 years old), who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!

Guy4013 said...

Thanks Mario. Well said.

Why so many trying to defeat the Constitution? I say they are traitors.

A pen said...

Your honor is well defended Mario. It speaks volumes about those who do not seek to defend the constitution as well.

If I might change the topic, I found some pertinent documentation concerning the issue at hand. James Kent expounded upon citizenship in the "founders Constitution" A1-S8-C4. It is very revealing and makes the connection to the law of nations quite clear as well as the definition and purpose of the natural born citizen clause.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships21.html

jayjay said...

A pen:

Could you perhaps give a live link or possibly a complete one? I can't get the one you gave to work.

At least the Flying Monkeys have seemingly elevated Mario's status to "respectable". That's a huge leap upward!!

Puzo1 said...

Pen's link as an active link:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships21.html

Sturgis said...

Why should a Reputable Attorney Pursue the Obama Eligibility Issue?

Because Obama's history, his actions and his documentation are shady, the law is clear and the attorney is reputable.

I would like to see "Why I Decided to Hear the Obama Eligibility Issue." by Judge Jerome Simandle

William said...

Mario,

To much of your credit working with the Vattle Laws of Nation defining NBC, I thought this would be of interest to you. I will bring over a prior post on another site (if appropriate) as interesting as it appears. Would this not be a historical play ground for every Constitutional Attorney and Historian alike… It follows:

“There is a guy claiming in the comments section of the Examiner article “Barack…on the ropes” to have some family archives that clearly state the logic that that framers used to determine NBC.

He posts a ton of interesting comments that I have never seen before (he goes by the name of Joe). Below is some of it, there is much more he posted in the comments section. Again, he goes by Joe. There is a way to contact with him via a guy who posted as John.Here is some of it:

“The Adams papers I am in possession of plainly state they looked to “Vattel’s Law of Nations” for guidance in determining who might be qualified as a “natural born Citizen”.
My family is in possession of over seven thousand files of Adams documents that have been passed from generation to generation. We know what our forebears intended, we are not guessing and jumping to conclusions. Every possible legal scenario was thoroughly discussed and carefully decided by the Founding Fathers.

Contrary to prevailing opinion, they left NOTHING to chance. I will be sharing our documents with the best qualified attorneys working on the Obama eligibility cases.

Get used to it, Obama is finished and he knows it. Obama is knowingly leading his blinded followers down the paths of deceit and directly into the darkened halls of shame.

My heritage includes the Adams of Massachusetts and the Herndons of Virginia. The Adams papers I am in possession of plainly state they looked to “Vattel’s Law of Nations” for guidance in determining who might be qualified as a “natural born Citizen”. (Yes, they capitalized “Citizen”.) Do you actually believe there was no discussion of the topic by the Founding Fathers? Are you truly that ignorant of how well the Founding Fathers understood the law and its possible impact on future generations?

It is very clear you haven’t a clue how well educated and intelligent the Founding Fathers were. Most were conversant in Latin and Greek, plus Hebrew and Aramaic. “The Lees of Virginia and other families also possess within their private archives a great deal of documentation regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers. Those who believe this issue was not debated and decided long ago haven’t been previously afforded access to the existing documents. ”

…The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

My family also counts among our forebears King O’Leathlobhair (pronounced OWE LAL_OW_IR), who was ruler of all England in the third century A.D. The name O’Leathlobhair means “seeker of justice” and it is the original term from which the word “lawyer” was derived around the year 100 B.C.

jayjay said...

William:

The poster "Joe" of whom you speak is correct in that many of the founders were conversant with several languages. In fact, some of their children were also and at young ages.

One of the interesting points along those lines is that the son of John Adams who went with his father to France as a tender age and helped his father with his French was so adept that he obtained his first paying political job by accompanying Francis Dana who was appointed as envoy to Russia to St. Petersburg since Dana spoke no French, the diplomatic language of the time. John Quincy (at 14) was his official interface to the Russian government sometimes translating between English, French, and Russian.

Language seemed to be much like NFL games of these times - a sort of parlor sport that many participated in. Certainly John Quincy did and could offer any expert advice and translation of Vattel (or many other languages) the severalk years later when the Constitution was written.

William said...

Charles,

Here are a couple of interesting links to review. Makes one wonder and say, hmmmmm.




http://www.nigerianobservernews.com/4112008/4112008/news/news1.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

Mark said...

"...Government ownership of the means of production (banking, automotive, health, environmental, and who knows what more in the future),.."

This is straight from the Communist Manifesto. The British Labour Party had this in their Constitution for years, but couldn't get elected anymore, so they removed the Public Ownership terms. The US population has never known the futility of trying to run a State owned economy, now they will.

Jet said...

Here's a new article by Dianna Cotter at the Los Angeles Examiner.com about natural born citizens. She's on a roll here.

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d15-Obamas-Achiles-heel--Natural-Born-Citizenship

Synapse said...

Mario: MMMMMM, MMMMMMM, MMMMMM

Teo Bear said...

For those who do not know you as I know you, let me say that there is no one else but you that has the both the intellect and humility to do what must be done to preserve our constitutional republic.

To those who would attempt to ridicule your efforts, they only show to the world that they are ignorant cowards. To the pubic officials who have set roadblock after roadblock against you they a worse than cowards, they are traitors.

Most people do not realize that your legal specialty is in immigration and citizenship law, for there are those who call themselves lawyers but seek their own fame and seek not the integrity of the law.

With the release of the 2004 document now the courts must take notice as this is not some new conspiracy to discredit Obama as this was 4 years before Obama ran for office.

If he was born in Kenya or not there is now overwhelming doubt that his eligibility is questioned, and for this reason alone the legal challenges must be heard. If not the courts not only commit treason against that which they swore to defend, they place this nation upon a precipice where its destruction from within is no longer the work of fiction.

God speed Mario, God speed.

Jet said...

Leo Donofrio has this to say about this "Kenyan-born" AP article:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/president-obama-admitted-he-waskenyan-born/

Ted said...

I assume the Honolulu Advertiser Newspaper Oct 15/16, 2009 fudging of history (deleting reference to Obama foreign born) is all being made known to Judge David Carter in the Fed. District Ct., Santa Ana, CA, in Orly Taitz’s Keyes et al v. Obama.

If not it should be. Seems to confirm why discovery needs to proceed, like NOW, or ASAP!

In any event, it certainly dovetails with both the foregoing and ongoing RICO aspects raised in Orly’s recent filing (after the Oct 5, 2009 hearing) and, specifically, the Dept. of Justice’s ongoing delay of the case (through its Motion to Dismiss etc.) is an act (by the Government no less) in obstructing justice in what is the most significant case and constitutional crisis this nation has faced since the American Civil War.

Team Obama (with the help of the Justice Dept.) is benefitting from its delay of the Keyes case and discovery in the Keyes case, by the scrubbing of history!

While Kerchner Case is right on target re Congressmen violation of constitutional rights, the Keyes case is important too!

Ted said...

Get this to Judge Carter ASAP:

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/video-documents-discovery-of-ap-story-declaring-obama-kenyan-born/#comment-1136

Mr. Curiosity said...

Mario:
“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.”

So the question is: Who has the power to do it? It looks like the answer is: Nobody. And it brings us back to the opinions of the lawyers.

I’ll give you an example.

Steven Lubet, the Williams Memorial Professor of Law of the Northwestern University School of Law (slubet@law.northwestern.edu), wrote in his article “The Citizenship Test: New, Improved and Wrong,” published in SALON (January 3, 2007):
“Question: The president must be born in what country?
Answer: The United States (or, alternatively, America).
The correct answer, however, is that the president may be born in any country whatsoever, or no country at all (at sea or in a plane). The Constitution requires only that the president be a "natural born citizen," and that status is achieved either by birth in the United States or by birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens, the latter potentially living and reproducing absolutely anywhere in the world.
That fah-lunking noise you hear is the sound of the citizenship door slamming shut in the face of the best-informed test takers.”
I have seen similar and other definitions (opinions).
Let’s go now straight to Obama case.

You wrote:

“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.”

How can Barack Obama show that he meets the natural born citizenship requirements, when everybody knows that his father at the time of Barack’s birth was a British subject?

If this is a real “barrier” for him to become and be President of this country, then it doesn’t matter where he was born.
So what documents do you expect to see that may change your opinion about Obama’s eligibility?

Here is my main concern:
As long as there is no agreement among constitutional lawyers of this country regarding the interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen requirement when it comes to Presidency, there is a very little chance that you will succeed.

Where am I wrong?

Puzo1 said...

Mr. Curiosity,

Evidently you have not fully understood my essay. I never stated that Obama could somehow produce some document that would prove he is a "natural born Citizen." But would you not agree that he has a due process right to be heard on the issue?

On succeeding in the case, constitutional lawyers do not decide the issue. Rather, they debate it. The Court is the entity that would ultimatetly decide the question.

Bob said...

Mr. Curiosity --

You facts are all askew. For more than 50 years, the children of Americans 'born across sea,' that is 'in partibus transmarinis,' were actually 'ALIENS, and had to reside for 14 years consecutively within the jurisdiction of the United States to become citizens.

This is a brief summary I have written of that history --

In 1790, under President Washington, the ‘alienigenae’ were ‘considered as’ (meaning: ‘NOT, but JUST LIKE’) ‘natural-born CITIZENS:’ “and the children of CITIZENS of the United States that are born beyond sea (nati ultra mare), or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as ‘natural-born CITIZENS:’” residency required was just 2-years.

The good feelings of the first years following independence did not last long. Newcomers fleeing from the French Revolution were arriving with hereditary titles. America was a ‘melting pot,’ and citizenship was NOT hereditary.

An influx of political radicals caused Congress to repeal the 1790 Act in 1795, and the phrase ‘natural-born CITIZENS’ was replaced by the term ‘CITIZENS.’ Residency was increased to 5-years. The X,Y,Z Affair in Paris provoked Congress, and the U.S. Navy was fighting France in an unofficial war. In 1798, the 5-years was increased to 14-years.

Still, under President Adams the ‘alienigenae’ were ‘CITIZENS’ — but by descent.

But for President Jefferson, also for Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, and Fillmore, they were ‘ALIENS’ — no descent allowed.

The “Act of 1802” was seen to be defective, but attempts to change the Law had failed. By 1850, however, the world was now smaller: in 1847, McCorkell transported Irish aboard the brig Erin; Cunard carried Charles Dickens to America aboard the steamer Britannia. In 1848, Germans fled from Revolution. In 1849, California swarmed with ‘49s seeking gold; in October, Henry David Thoreau portrayed the wreck of the St. John off Cape Cod.

By 1853, the volume of travel to Europe made the status of American children born overseas a practical one. The reform of the Naturalization Laws advocated by Horace Binney and signed by President Pierce (Act of Feb 10, 1855’ (10 Stat. 604, § 1)) restored the ‘alienigenae’ to ‘CITIZENS’ retroactively — and descent was allowed as before. The ‘foreign-born’ were again CITIZENS as under Adams — ‘but by descent’ — and exactly as before, descent was restricted only to the first generation born overseas.

'Natural-born CITIZENS' have no such limits or restrictions placed upon them. 'Natural-born CITIZENS' are unencumbered by any Legislation relating to their 'citizenship status.'

Justin W. Riggs said...

Teo Bear -

Could you tell me what the "2004 document" is, and why it is important? I believe you're referring to the 2004 Hawaiian Certification of Nomination, but I'm not sure, and if you are referring to that document, I haven't seen any commentary as to why it is important.

Mr. Apuzzo -

I truly admire the work you are doing. Thank you for everything.

natural born citizen party said...

great discussion tonight

why not motion to join a multi-district court or just motion to consolidate your USDC-NJ case with an active case in the USDC-DC (District of Columbia) e.g. Strunk v US DOS 08-cv-2234?

libertyforusa said...

The post by Mario continuously states Congress has allowed this all to take place-

It seems like the Congress is getting a free pass in all of this-

Maybe we should all write to ask the following:

Dear Congress,

Barack Obama admits he is a Kenyan-born citizen and British subject by blood by virtue of the citizen status of his father at the time of his birth, regardless of the place of his own actual birth.
This stands in direct contradiction to the eligibility requirements for POTUS
spelled out by the US Constitution.

Silence on this matter seems to be an act of consent for the usurpation of the office of President of the United States of America, and the denial of the authority of the US Constitution.

Please explain your silence regarding this matter of utmost national security.

Signed, concerned citizen

Mr. Curiosity said...

Bob,

Thank you very much for your informative response.
However, the “facts” presented in my post are not mine. I just quoted Professor Steven Lubet of Northwestern University and expected Mario’s comments on that.

My point was that if there is no agreement among the experts as to what natural born citizen means, how can Obama’s eligibility issue be solved?

cfkerchner said...

To LibertyforUSA,

Congress is certainly not getting a pass in the lawsuit I brought. Congress was one of my primary targets and Obama was added as a necessary party. Congress has committed treason against the Constitution, imo. Read the Table of Contents for my lawsuit, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al, and you will see that Congress is very much not getting a pass in my suit. See the list of charges and counts and those that are against Congress and other non-Obama defendants. The lawsuit I brought and the complaint written by Attorney Apuzzo is very comprehensive and complex and addresses all the conspirators in this usurpation of the office of the Presidency and Commander in Chief of the military by Mr. Obama, along with the complicity of the DNC, Congress, and even people in the RNC, i.e., Dick Cheney and the Republican leadership in Congress. They all were in on putting forward a fraudulent, unconstitutional election in the 2008 election for the Presidency. And their respective backers of each party in the Main Stream Media were complicit too, and still are in assisting them with the CYA and Cone of Silence mode everyone is in down there in Washington DC about this issue, despite protests by 100s of thousands of Americans about this and their wanting this addressed in the courts. A massive cover-up is going on and the politcos are pressing the courts behind the scenes to assist in it now, imo, and quietly urging them to not take the cases, not grant standing and not take jurisdiction with any of the cases, and/or to stall and delay the process for as long as they can. But "We the People" WILL be heard. This is a national disgrace what our elected and appointed members of our federal government and the major political parties have done. What George Washington warned about has come to pass. But the People and the Truth and the Constitution will win the day. It's just a matter of when. And culprits and conspirators involved in this are going to go to jail someday. And much of the House of Representatives is going to be voted out in 2010 as well as 1/3 the Senate if they do not hold hearings soon to address this Constitutional Crisis. Using the Table of Contents as a guide, download and read the parts of the lawsuit relating to Congress.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint

Charles Kerchner
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

P.S. And all you readers can help. Here is how. Pass this webpage URL along to your friends and associates and tell them we need your help and this is how to help save the Constitution and our Republic before it is too late:
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Puzo1 said...

Mr. Curiosity,

That there is no agreement among constitutional scholars on a question of constitutional law does not necessitate the U.S. Supreme Court simply throwing its hands in the hair, surrendering to that disagreement, and maintaining the status quo. The constitutional duty of the Court is to interpret the Constitution and apply it to a given set of facts, regardless of what others outside the Court might believe or think. Contrary to what you suggest, there is plenty of history and law on the books for the Court to do just that when it comes to the question of whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen."

I reject your approach which suggests that we should just give Obama a pass because lawyers do not agree on what "natural born Citizen' means. Again, it is not for lawyers to agree. Rather, it is for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the issue based on facts, history, and law.

Additionally, if there is so much disagreement in the legal community on the meaning of a "natural born citizen," do you not agree that Congress should have at least investigated its meaning and decided whether Obama passes the standard before confirming his occupancy of the Presidency? After all, Congress is full of lawyers (both the members themselves and their staffs) and I would think that some of the lawyers of whom you speak who do not agree on the meaning of "natural born Citizen" would be members of Congress. Did not Congress have a constitutional duty to the People to make sure that Obama was a "natural born Citizen?" Why did Congress investigate McCain's "natural born Citizen" status but not that of Obama? There are at least 5 U.S. Supreme Court decision that tell us what a "citizen" is and what a "natural born citizen" is. Congress is obligated to know what the law is and should have readily seen that there was a serious issue on whether Obama was an Article II "natural born Citizen."

hannah said...

Greetings Mr. Apuzzo:
I am posting your statement,"Again, it is not for lawyers to agree. Rather, it is for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the issue based on facts, history, and law.
I read this article and thought about how will we ever get it to the Supreme Court? http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/tax_rebel_197.html
This about a plaintiff before the Supreme Court challenging the Federal Income Tax. But, I found it interesting that Judge Thomas is the only judge that has the courage to call for a hearing and the rest of the Supreme Court are FEARFUL."Justice Clarence Thomas, who also has called for hearing challenges to President Obama’s constitutional qualifications for office on grounds he was born in Africa, not Hawaii. The fearful court refused to accept that challenge."
Justice Clarence Thomas needs 3 more Judges to hear the case.
I can't express how eloquent your case/brief impressed me and many others I have sent it to expressed how through and competent an attorney you are.
I just want to thank you for all your work and research and I pray to God that somehow He will make your path easier to trod.
God Bless you and be with you through this crisis.
Best Regards,
Karen Keene

Sallyven said...

Mr. Apuzzo--another excellent post. Your arguments are sound, logical, rational, and intelligent. Your essays and case have nothing to do with "conspiracy theory" and everything to do with the law and justice. President Obama, as our Commander in Chief, should be our nation's most ardent defender of the Constitution, and should welcome an examination of his eligibility under it--instead, he and his administration seem to be playing games, and in so doing, ridiculing the very document that establishes the legitimacy of the offices they hold and the power they wield.

I often hear the argument that there are so many other battles to be fought in Washington these days; however, none are as symbolic as this one, and therefore, in my opinion, none are as important. Truth is always worth fighting for.

ashle said...

Why do now the question brought up on American President?

Definitely Obama is eligible as US president, the constitutional allowed him to contest in elections.

"Controversies should bring solutions"

--
Ashle

Find Attorney