It was Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758 French edition) (1760 first English edition), who defined for the Framers what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is. It was Vattel, who stated in Section 212: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . . ." Vattel, Section 212 (1797 London edition)(and as translated by the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (repeating Vattel's definition without citing him); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of "natives or indigenes" which is later translated to "natives or natural born citizens"); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (repeating Vattel's definition and stating in referring to his definition: "The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. . . This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case. . . ."); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (citing and quoting the same Ex parte Reynolds references to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor and its recitation of Vattel's definition of "citizen" and "natural born citizen").Rep. John Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment, repeated Vattel's definition when he said: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
Obama fails to meet Article II's “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (where ever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was an United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act of 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he become even a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
At best, Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment (if he was born in Hawaii). But he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.
Our nation is now debating what a “natural born Citizen” is and whether Obama meets that definition which would make him eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We have seen above that, even if he was born in Hawaii, he does not meet that test and is therefore not eligible for the Office of President. Concerned citizens asked Obama to clear this matter up but he has refused all such requests and rather litigated at great expense against the interest of the nation that he is suppose to represent. These concerned citizens then asked both Congress and the Judiciary to resolve the debate. But neither of these two branches of government has so far wanted to get involved. What else are the people to do to have their grievances brought to justice and heard?
Whatever the outcome of the debate, Vattel expressed his sentiments perfectly. I want to share with you what he wrote in the Preface to his 1758 first edition which he wrote in French:
"As to the rest, I have, both in these examples and in my reasonings studiously endeavoured to avoid giving offence; it being my intention religiously to observe the respect due to nations and sovereign powers: but I have made it a still more sacred rule to respect the truth, and the interests of the human race. If among the base flatterers of despotic power, my principles meet with opponents, I shall have on my side the virtuous man, the friend of the laws, the man of probity, and the true citizen.
I should prefer the alternative of total silence, were I not at liberty in my writings to obey the dictates of my conscience. By my pen lies under no restraint, and I am incapable of prostituting it to flattery. I was born in a country of which liberty is the soul, the treasure, and the fundamental law; and my birth qualifies me to be the friend of all nations. These favourable circumstances have encouraged me in the attempt to render myself useful to mankind by this work. I felt conscious of my deficiency in knowledge and abilities: I saw that I was undertaking an arduous task; but I shall rest satisfied if that class of readers whose opinions are entitled to respect, discover in my labours the traces of the honest man and the good citizen." http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel-01.htm
Indeed, Vattel wrote with a clear conscience and pure purpose and asked for history to be his judge.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
November 2, 2009
23 comments:
"What else are the people to do to have their grievances brought to justice and heard?"
This question transcends this debate for our government as a whole is acting as despots not required to listen to grievances from it's citizens and spent this summer/fall showing us the lengths they will go to in order to avoid hearing us.
I do believe Vattel's principles were and are absolutely true, and those are obviously lacking by our leaders today, and so now an usurper is allowed to weakens us even further every day. No one seems to care enough about this country with the power to act inside our government. The patriots are locked out and looking in.
De Vattel, born in Neuchatel, Switzerland, was a citizen of a Republic. That Republic was over 500 years old by the time he wrote his book, having been founded on August 1, 1204.
He already knew the verdict of history, when a Republic remained true to its Founders.
Another excellent essay!
I posted this on another blog a few weeks ago, and thought you might find it interesting as well. I have a family member who is a student at Hillsdale College, where one of the books she is studying is Aristotle’s Politics, Book 3, and she mentioned the following passages to me, regarding Aristotle’s views on citizenship:
“Part 1: …Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?…Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place; nor is he a citizen who has no legal right except that of suing and being sued; for this right may be enjoyed under the provisions of a treaty. Nay, resident aliens in many places do not possess even such rights completely, for they are obliged to have a patron, so that they do but imperfectly participate in citizenship, and we call them citizens only in a qualified sense, as we might apply the term to children who are too young to be on the register, or to old men who have been relieved from state duties. Of these we do not say quite simply that they are citizens, but add in the one case that they are not of age, and in the other, that they are past the age, or something of that sort; the precise expression is immaterial, for our meaning is clear…
Part 2: But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens…
Part 3: …It would be a very superficial view which considered only the place and the inhabitants (for the soil and the population may be separated, and some of the inhabitants may live in one place and some in another)….
Part 5: …Since there are many forms of government there must be many varieties of citizen and especially of citizens who are subjects; so that under some governments the mechanic and the laborer will be citizens, but not in others, as, for example, in aristocracy or the so-called government of the best (if there be such an one), in which honors are given according to virtue and merit; for no man can practice virtue who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer. In oligarchies the qualification for office is high, and therefore no laborer can ever be a citizen; but a mechanic may, for an actual majority of them are rich. At Thebes there was a law that no man could hold office who had not retired from business for ten years. But in many states the law goes to the length of admitting aliens; for in some democracies a man is a citizen though his mother only be a citizen; and a similar principle is applied to illegitimate children; the law is relaxed when there is a dearth of population. But when the number of citizens increases, first the children of a male or a female slave are excluded; then those whose mothers only are citizens; and at last the right of citizenship is confined to those whose fathers and mothers are both citizens…”
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html
It appears that even in 350 B.C., “natural born citizenship” was a relevant topic of study; that place of birth was important; that citizenship of the parents was significant; and that the highest form of citizenship was “confined to those whose fathers and mothers were BOTH citizens…
I am sure that the founding fathers would have been familiar with these writings, as the study of history and of great works such as these was an esteemed pursuit, and not confined, as it is today, to a few unusual places like Hillsdale College.
Another note—it is interesting to me that the current political writers I most respect have backgrounds in history…
Mario,
I have been researching the framers and have uncovered much reference to Justice Wilson who was Washington's 1st appointment to the Supreme Court. Wilson was a close friend and advisor to Washington and he was considered an 'expert' in Vattel' as well as Cicero, Puffendorf, Locke, etc. Wilson was also an 'expert' in the Roman Republic form of government and makes mention of it many times in his works. BTW, his works were the very first Commentaries of 1791on the newly formed Republic & American Law & our Constitution as well as boldy rejecting the notion the Blackstone's theory of English subjects/citizens was the basis for the meaning of American Citizenship.
In one of the articles from the 1800's, it states that "Wilson's role in framing the Constitution was crucial, second only to that of James Madison." In Madison's minutes fo the conventions, now archived in PA, Madison states that in vital matters, Wilson's intellect dominated the proceedings...without the his profound learning, no agreement could have been reached upon a federal Constitution which would have been ratified."
You may be interested in reading these works:
James Wilson, Patriot; The Wilson doctrine and also James Wilson: Nation Builder.
Wilson is considered to be the "Forgotten Founder" who's works for Amrican Independence stems well before the Declarartion of Independence and whose principles were the foundation for the Declaration that was finally written by Ben Franklin who was also a close friend & collegue to Wilson.
I hope this information will lead you to more evidence in your quest to have 'natural born' defined definitavely for ALL time to come as it was intended by our Founding Fathers.
Sallyven,
Your find on Aristotle is priceless. I was aware that, apart from being heavily influenced by the Bible, the Founders had a strong classical education which gave them a deep understanding of Aristotle, Cicero, and the Roman Republic. I had yet to get into Aristotle's works to find clues to the Founders thinking on "natural born citizen." I thank you for giving me this research help.
Thank your family member for sharing this not only with me but with America. It is clear that her college, Hillsdale College, is doing a great job in exposing its students to such great classical works and in shaping them to be truly educated persons as were the Founding Fathers.
Mario and Sallven and others:
Excellent treatise on Vattel and certainly some folks realize that natural law (or Natural Law if you prefer) goes back into history as shown by Aristotle. His successors down through history are many as noted by constitutionallyspeaking to include Cicero, Puffendorf, Locke amd to include Grotius, and Wilson as well.
Of all of these Vattel was considered a giant and remained so for something like at least 125 years after the founding of our country. Many have no realization of this - nor of the real history of our country (including Obama I'd think). Vattel and/or his precpte enumerated in his Law of Nations (which was in the US in English before the Constitution was drafted contrary to the paid-for DOJ Obot posters claims).
Constitutionallyspeaking,
I also want to thank you for giving me the information on Justice James Wilson. I have also incorporated his works into my arguments on the meaning of "natural born citizen."
Indeed, his contributions to the founding are great. He also has much to say about what a "natural born Citizen" is.
There is much to be said about Justice Wilson. I will share this one comment:
Justice Wilson called for a source on the laws of nations upon which we can rely. “A more perfect work than has yet appeared upon this great subject, would be a most valuable present to mankind. Even the most general outlines of it cannot, at least in these lectures, be expected from me.” Chapter III Of the Law of Nature, page 144.
But as we will see, the Founders used various sources for learning what natural law was. But out of all these sources, they held Emer de Vattel in the highest regard and of course Vattel's, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law Nature, is the source on the law of nations to which Justice Wilson referred.
I was aware that Vattel was used quite frequently in past U.S. cases, I was simply surprised by how much during my resent research.
…. “If the sovereign violates fundamental rights, the nation as a whole can withdraw its obedience”…..
Emmerich de Vattel's
Vattel’s extensive writings on international law have been deeply influential in terms of U.S. law – for example, he has been cited over 150 times by the United States Supreme Court, including as recently as 2004. (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 731 (2004).Cite Sosa)
Another indication of the significance of the “law of nations” comes from the Constitution itself. Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to define and punish “Offences against the Law of Nations.” Accordingly, the very first Congress passed the Alien Torts Statute, which grants the federal courts jurisdiction over any civil action by an alien for a tort “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”
This statute has given rise to recent Supreme Court discussion of the Framing generation’s conception of the law of nations. As the Court has explained, in passing the statute the first Congress anticipated that the courts would recognize private causes of action for certain torts in violation of the law of nations. ( Originally included in The Judiciary Act of 1789, the Alien Tort Statute is now codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (1948).
Notice : Many of Pastor James David Manning's videos which are critical of Obama have been removed from YouTube. As we all know, this is NOT, by ANY stretch of the imagination, a "free country". YouTube is evil!
Charles,
I have a suggestion to help with getting your and Mario’s case out for discussion, however I am reluctant to post it here. I do not want any Obot’s flooding this issue and possibly blocking the opportunity. Would it be possible for you to send me an email and I will then explain and give the sources?
Thanks,
Part I of III
A commentator called dunstvangeet on Dr. Conspiracy's blog had this to say to me:
"Just wondering, Mario, I’ve asked this question to other people, but I want to hear your take on this.
Exactly which 5 Supreme Court Justices do you expect to uphold your warped view of the Constitution? Which 5 Supreme Court Justices do you expect to say that Natural Born citizenship is Jus Sanguinus, when the only court in the history of the United States that has held this is Scott v. Sanford?
Do you expect for Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, themselves born to Italian and Sicilian Immigrants who traveled to the United States? Do you expect them to be part of the 5 that rule that if they were born 1 day before their fathers Naturalized, they’d be ineligible for the Presidency?
Do you expect Clarence Thomas and Sonya Sotomayor to uphold Scott v. Sanford, a ruling that said in part that the founders considered them too inferior to ever hold citizenship in the first place?
Do you expect Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Breyer to rule that because Israel, an independent country considers them to be Israeli Citizens, that they’re ineligible for the Presidency?
Do you expect John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, or Anthony Kennedy to rule your way?
If you get your wish, and your warped theory of Jus Sanguinus ever reaches the Supreme Court, which of the 9 Supreme Court Justices do you think will uphold your warped view of the Constitution?"
Continued . . . .
Part II of III
Here is my response:
The "natural born Citizen" clause is not my "warped view of the Constitution” but rather part of our Constitution. I neither wrote it nor defined it. The Framers put the clause there to protect the new nation from insidious attack from within. Only a constitutional amendment can remove it.
I would expect our Supreme Court justices to interpret and apply the Constitution as the Framers intended it to be done. There is nothing discriminatory about the clause today so the Court is free to interpret and apply it as the Framers intended it to be done at the time they included it in the Constitution.
"Natural born citizen" means born in the country to citizen parents. The clause does not discriminate as to color or race either on its face or in its application to Obama or any other person.
You are clearly mistaken that Scott v. Sandford is the only U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized that a "natural born citizen" is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. It was Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758 French edition) (1760 first English edition), who defined for the Framers what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is. It was Vattel, who stated in Section 212: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . . ." Vattel, Section 212 (1797 London edition)(and as translated by the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (repeating Vattel's definition without citing him); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of "natives or indigenes" which is later translated to "natives or natural born citizens"); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (repeating Vattel's definition and stating in referring to his definition: "The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. . . This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case. . . ."); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (citing and quoting the same Ex parte Reynolds references to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor and its recitation of Vattel's definition of "citizen" and "natural born citizen").
Part III of III
Rep. John Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment, repeated Vattel's definition when he said: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866). So as you see, you have failed to recognize the many sources that define "natural born citizen."
By citing to Scott v. Sandford, you attempt to appeal although unjustifiably to the decision maker's duty to act without discrimination, just like when Obama supporters say that people question his eligibility because they are racists. You want to win the issue by appeal to race rather than to justice. You miserably fail to show that there is any real connection between the clause and discrimination. Dred Scott concluded that blacks were property and therefore not eligible to be citizens. That holding in no way proves that the "natural born Citizen" clause is discriminatory. The Court could have used jus soli as a concept of citizenship and come to the same conclusion. Hence, it is not jus soli or jus sanguinis that drove the decision but rather the fact that the Court felt compelled because of history and social norms of the day to consider blacks, whether free or not, to be property or from an inferior race and therefore not eligible to be citizens. The Court would have reached that conclusion no matter what definition of citizenship it may have used. Finally, if Dred Scott's definition of "natural born Citizen" was discriminatory, why did not any cases following that decision declare the clause to be discriminatory, including the cases of United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cas. 785 (C.C.D.Ky. 1866), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)?
Also, if you are going to argue that the clause is discriminatory on its face, then you will have to throw out every other clause of the Constitution that provides for eligibility requirements for public office along with so many of our immigration laws that define the rights and benefits of legal permanent residency and citizenship.
As you well know, Lady Justice is blind. That means that it should not matter what the Justices' backgrounds are. They swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. They have to do that no matter what their personal circumstances are. They are sworn to uphold the law and I would expect them to do so regardless of any extraneous factor not part of the rule of decision.
Finally, on your Jewish example, first, "natural born Citizen" status is determined as of the time of birth. Hence, becoming a citizen of another country later in life does not constitutionally disqualify that person from being President. Second, we are a sovereign nation and do not allow other countries to dictate who should be our President. As long as a person satisfies United States constitutional law as to what a "natural born citizen" is, then that is all that is constitutionally required in that regard. Again, if a child is born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, then he or she is a natural born citizen and satisfying the age and residency requirements is eligible to be President.
William,
You can reach me via email using the "Contact" feature at the below website:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
Atty Apuzzo's email address is in the upper right quadrant of this blog.
Charles
Take heart, Mr. Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner.
"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light. "
(George Washington letter to Charles M. Thruston, Aug. 10, 1794)
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
"It is the function of a judge not to make but to declare the law, according to the golden mete-wand of the law and not by the crooked cord of discretion."
(Edmund Burke)
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
(John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770)
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right... and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefensible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers." (John Adams, 'A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law', 1765)
Here you have on one hand a mandate for the constitution to be followed i.e. term limits for Bush, Clinton, etc. per order of a certain amendment in the constitution. And on the other hand you have the constitution being breached by some communist who doesn't know any better and thinks that just any 'ole body can run for president. I, too complained to my elected officials long before November fourth of last year warning them that there could be an infringement upon that very piece of legislation in the upcoming election, but they made a conscious choice to upend the constitution where it favored them and institute "martial law" upon those of us who desire freedom. I do not live in fear of this government takeover yet they live in fear of us. This may take some time, but the imposter will be exposed to the USA for what he is.
You'll find a DECLARATION OF WAR On The Biased Mainstream Media at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22260424/DECLARATION-OF-WAR-on-the-Biased-Mainstream-Media
This delcaration includes statements about a dereliction of duty by journalists in investigating the "natural born citizen" issue, with links to this website.
If you visit http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/declaration-of-war-on-biased-mainstream.html you will see how I hope this document will be used.
I have always wanted to ask those who believe that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents whether they mean the real parents, the ones who passed on their DNA to the child, or merely the legal parents, the ones with their names on the birth certificate.
If only the legal parents, what is the mechanism by which they influence the child? Surely, the mere fact of being the stated parent is insufficient. And, our framers were very familiar with the fact that the legal father of a child is not necessarily the real father. Ben Franklin, for example, fathered two children outside of wedlock.
But, if you say, “the real parents,” then does this require future candidates for the presidency to take DNA tests and then test their parents (or the remains of their parents) and then search for the citizenship records of their real parents before they can be considered really Natural Born?
smrstrauss,
I am not aware of Obama saying that Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham were not his real mother and father. Hence, there is no need to deal with your hypothetical.
But what about future presidents? If Obama is required to have two citizen parents, then they would be too. Why should they be allowed to claim that their parents were citizens without proving it? And would they have to prove their legal parents or their DNA parents?
smrstrauss,
Our naturalization laws since the beginning of our nation have provided citizenship and immigration benefits to children based on the status of their parents. Did Congress see a problem with proving whether someone was a parent or not of a child when it wrote the 1790 Naturalization Act and the many acts that followed it (1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, 1824, 1855, 1878, 1934, 1940, 1952, to the present at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401, 1403, and 1409) which provide for citizenship and immigration benefits for children based on the parent-child relationship?
Why should we now all of a sudden have a problem with proving the parent-child relationship, raising the specter of hotly contested paternity proceedings and DNA analysis and all the rest, especially for an event that occurs once every 4 years (or every 8 years if re-election is involved)concerning an individual who should be the most vetted human being on the planet? Can you please share your wisdom with me on this?
Mr. Strauss,
DNA ... you got to be kidding. Let's start with the simpler, basic evidence first. Obama has not even shown the world his real long-form birth certificate to anyone, let alone a controlling legal authority. He could start by doing that.
As to DNA testing, paternity is not the issue as I think you full well know.
The legal issue as to his not being eligible to serve as Pres and CINC is that Obama's father as declared by Obama himself was NOT a U.S. citizen when Obama was born. In fact Obama's father was not even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident. Thus Obama is NOT an Article II natural born citizen to constitutional standards since both his parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born.
A picture is worth a thousand words. See these graphics to educate yourself a bit on the argument:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/natural-born-citizen-graphic-picture.html
But I think you already know all this as you've discussed these issues many times here and elsewhere before ... and are here merely to agitate and pose ridiculous hypotheticals that have nothing to do with Obama's citizenship status, the current Usurper in Chief.
I suggest you do some reading of essays by Atty Apuzzo on this blog and the Complaint/Petition and focus on the real charges and facts in this instant case, and not try and change and obfuscate the subject by dreaming up some future hypotheticals that have nothing to do with Obama's lack of a U.S. citizen father.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
We are focused on the current legal issue, the lack of constitutional standards Article II natural born citizenship of the current Usurper in Chief. If you care about our Constitutional Republic and our Constitution, I suggest you do the same.
Charles
We've seen smrstrauss on many, many pro-Obama blogs and he always tries the tactic of crossing "hypothetical bridges too far" in the hopes that that will, somehow, make Obama a natural born citizen (which the man has already told all that he is not by his own admissions against interest).
It won't!!
The poster has a quaint fixation, though - one of Obama-love apparently. There WAS a lot of that "going around" but most people are now becoming innoculated against it so perhaps there's hp[e for him as well.
Post a Comment