The Law of Nations, Vattel, pub. 1758, Vol. 1 Chapter III § 30 -- Of the support of the constitution and obedience to the laws.
. . . The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquility, the firmest support of political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigor and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires. It is very uncommon to see the laws and constitution of a state openly and boldly opposed: it is against silent and gradual attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard. Sudden revolutions strike the imaginations of men: they are detailed in history; their secret springs are developed. But we overlook the changes that insensibly happen by a long train of steps that are but slightly marked. It would be rendering nations an important service to show from history how many states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution. This would awaken the attention of mankind: — impressed thenceforward with this excellent maxim (no less essential in politics than in morals) principiis obsta, — they would no longer shut their eyes against innovations, which, though inconsiderable in themselves, may serve as steps to mount to higher and more pernicious enterprises.
Contributed by:
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The Chalice Show - Patriot's Heart Broadcasting - BlogTalkRadio Network -10:15 p.m. EDT Sunday 28 Jun 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress
The lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the Patriot's Heart Broadcasting Network, The Chalice Show, talk radio show Sunday evening, 10 Jun 2009, during the 2nd half of the show, 20 minutes in at approximately from 10:20 to 10:55 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update regarding the recent activity in the case, including the recent attempt to get the case dismissed. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host Chalice and the listening audience. Feel free to spread this announcement. I hope to hear from you on the show.
To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts: Chalice & the Patriots Heart Network Radio Show
Patriot Heart Network webapge: http://www.patriotsheartnetwork.com/
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts: Chalice & the Patriots Heart Network Radio Show
Patriot Heart Network webapge: http://www.patriotsheartnetwork.com/
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Friday, June 26, 2009
Activity in Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case - Defendants' Motion to Dismiss & Supporting Brief Received (this motion was expected)
Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit: The defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit was filed today and is posted on the PACER system as Document 27. A copy of defendants' motion and supporting brief are available in the right frame of this blog. We all know that we have seen months of stalling from the defendants. We fully expected this dismissal motion which Obama has previously used when he was a mere candidate. The difference now is that Obama is the putative President and not simply a candidate with a 1st Amendment right to run for political office. As the putative President, Obama must show that he is qualified under Article II of our Constitution. We also know that Congress failed to exercise its Constitutional duty to properly vet Obama prior to confirming him as President at the Joint Session. The motion return date is July 20, 2009. We, of course, will file opposition to their dismissal motion prior to that date. I will comment more later after I have had a chance to fully study the motion and supporting brief in greater detail.
Read the motion and supporting brief here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Read the motion and supporting brief here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16831085/
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
An Open Letter to President Obama by Lou Pritchett former VP Procter & Gamble
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking The Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the Internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
####
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here]. ####
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking The Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the Internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
####
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here]. ####
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sixth U.S. House Representative Signs on to Sponsor HR 1503
The sixth U.S. Congress House Representative has signed on to co-sponsor HR 1503. Congressman John Campbell (R-CA 48th District) is the latest to co-sponsor the bill written and sponsored by Bill Posey (R-FL). This bill would prevent Presidential candidates running in future elections, including 2012, as I read the bill, from hiding and sealing their birth and other records and require the political party for the candidate to file the necessary birth records and any other sought corroborating evidence which would be necessary to prove that they are a "natural born citizen" and eligible for the office of President under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. It would be administered by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). See this website for more details: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1503
List of sponsors and co-sponsors as of 18 June 2009. Sponsor: Rep. Bill Posey [R-FL15]. Cosponsors: Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA6], Rep. John Culberson [R-TX7], Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R-TX19], Rep. John Carter [R-TX31], Rep. John Campbell [R-CA48]
P.S. If so inclined, some of you readers may wish to call in to the various talk radio show hosts (and/or your own U.S. Representative) to discuss this new bill which is gaining support in Congress in order to get more public support for this bill and to get other U.S. Representatives to sign on to it. Also, using this bill as your subject may get you past the call screeners so that you can get to "deeper" issues. Tell them you want to talk about HR 1503 and that the listening audience should call their Congressional representatives and ask them to also sign on and co-sponsor HR 1503 and that it will prevent in the future what happened last year and now, hiding of records by people who want to be President.
P.S.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here]. ####
List of sponsors and co-sponsors as of 18 June 2009. Sponsor: Rep. Bill Posey [R-FL15]. Cosponsors: Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA6], Rep. John Culberson [R-TX7], Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R-TX19], Rep. John Carter [R-TX31], Rep. John Campbell [R-CA48]
P.S. If so inclined, some of you readers may wish to call in to the various talk radio show hosts (and/or your own U.S. Representative) to discuss this new bill which is gaining support in Congress in order to get more public support for this bill and to get other U.S. Representatives to sign on to it. Also, using this bill as your subject may get you past the call screeners so that you can get to "deeper" issues. Tell them you want to talk about HR 1503 and that the listening audience should call their Congressional representatives and ask them to also sign on and co-sponsor HR 1503 and that it will prevent in the future what happened last year and now, hiding of records by people who want to be President.
P.S.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here]. ####
Friday, June 19, 2009
MommaE Radio Rebels - BlogTalkRadio Network - 8:30 p.m. EDT Friday 19 Jun 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress et al Update & Q&A
The lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the MommaE Radio Rebels talk radio show Friday evening, 19 June 2009, from 8:30 to 10:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update regarding the recent activity in the case, the 2nd extension of time granted to the Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise respond and other activity in our efforts. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host MommaE and the listening audience. There is also a chat room which the listeners can participate in live while the show is on the air. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you Friday night on the radio show.
To listen to the BlogTalkRadio.com show live Friday night or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts: Momma-E-and-the-Radio-Rebels
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
To listen to the BlogTalkRadio.com show live Friday night or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts: Momma-E-and-the-Radio-Rebels
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Sean & Frank Radio Show of Baltimore MD at 8:35 a.m. EDT Thursday 18 June 2009
I will be on the "Sean & Frank" radio show with Talk Radio 680 WCBM of Baltimore MD at 8:35 a.m. during the morning commute time slot on Thursday, 18 June 2009 to discuss the recent activity and order from the court in the Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al lawsuit. "Start off your day the right way" and listen in. For more details on the show see: http://www.wcbm.com .
Listen to a replay of the interview here: Click Here to Listen
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here]. ####
Listen to a replay of the interview here: Click Here to Listen
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here]. ####
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Why Should We Care That Our President Is At Least A Natural Born Citizen
A friend of mine sent me the following quote from Cicero, a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist, January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC. It made me think of the importance of having a President that the people can trust. Indeed, it shows that it is more dangerous for a nation to be secretly attacked from within than openly from without.
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable for he is known and carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself... for the traitor appears no traitor: He speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their faces and their garments, he appeals to the baseless that lies deep in the souls of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is to be less feared." ~ Cicero
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable for he is known and carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself... for the traitor appears no traitor: He speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their faces and their garments, he appeals to the baseless that lies deep in the souls of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is to be less feared." ~ Cicero
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Andrea Shea King Radio Show - BlogTalkRadio Network - 9:00 p.m. EDT Thursday 11 June 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress et al - Update & Q&A
Listen to the latest status of the case as of 11 June 2009.
The lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the Andrea Shea King talk radio show Thursday evening, 11 June 2009, from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update for the case, including the 2nd extension to answer, move, or otherwise responded granted to the Defendants on Monday. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host Andrea Shea King and via phone calls from the listening audience. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you on the radio show.
To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live on the air or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts: Andrea-Shea-King-Show
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
The lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the Andrea Shea King talk radio show Thursday evening, 11 June 2009, from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update for the case, including the 2nd extension to answer, move, or otherwise responded granted to the Defendants on Monday. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host Andrea Shea King and via phone calls from the listening audience. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you on the radio show.
To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live on the air or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts: Andrea-Shea-King-Show
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Chalice Show - Patriot's Heart Broadcasting - BlogTalkRadio Network -8:00 p.m. EDT Wednesday 10 Jun 2009 - Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress
The lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the Patriot's Heart Broadcasting Network, The Chalice Show, talk radio show Wednesday evening, 10 Jun 2009, from 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update regarding the recent activity in the case, including discussion of the 2nd time extension to answer, move, or otherwise respond which was granted to the Defendants yesterday. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the host Chalice and the listening audience. There is also a chat room which the listeners can participate in live while the show is on the air. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you on the radio show.
To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts. Note the first hour segment of the show is about the Citizen Grand Jury efforts. We are on in the second hour discussing the recent activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case: Chalice & the Patriots Heart Network
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
To listen to this BlogTalkRadio.com show live or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts. Note the first hour segment of the show is about the Citizen Grand Jury efforts. We are on in the second hour discussing the recent activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case: Chalice & the Patriots Heart Network
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Devvy Kidd's Radio Show Wednesday 10 Jun 09 at 9 p.m. EDT
We will be on Devvy Kidd's radio show Wednesday night 10 Jun 09 at 9 p.m. EDT.
The host's website URL is: http://www.devvy.com/
Link to the show: http://www.themicroeffect.com/
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
The host's website URL is: http://www.devvy.com/
Link to the show: http://www.themicroeffect.com/
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Activity in Kerchner v Obama & Congress Case - 2nd Extension of time granted to Defendants
Activity in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit - The motion by the defendants for the second extension in time to answer, move, or otherwise respond was granted. Their new deadline is June 29, 2009. You can read the full order at the link below. When you read the order you will see that the court addressed this second request for an extension in great detail in his five page order. On page two the Judge writes, "In their complaint Plaintiffs assert violations of their constitutional rights alleging that Defendants have failed to conclusively prove that President Obama is a natural born citizen and therefore may not be eligible to serve as President of the United States." Then on page four the Judge writes, "Plaintiffs' Complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named Defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests." The Judge points out that the Department of Justice still has not decided who is going to represent whom for the seven defendants in the case. Later he then writes, "The Court is confident that after all the attorneys enter their appearances on behalf of all Defendants, that the case will proceed expeditiously." The Judge of course noted that we opposed the extension. And previously on page two, the Judge noted, "The Court has also received numerous letters from non-parties opposing Defendants' motion [Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25]." The order was written and signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider who serves at the:
United States Courthouse
4th & Cooper Street
Camden NJ 08101
I will comment in more detail later.
Link to a copy of the filed court document for this latest activity: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16253400/
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
United States Courthouse
4th & Cooper Street
Camden NJ 08101
I will comment in more detail later.
Link to a copy of the filed court document for this latest activity: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16253400/
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Update on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
There are many who want an update on what is going on with the court in the Kerchner case. The court listed the defendants’ (Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) motion for a second extension of time to answer or otherwise move as to the amended complaint for June 1, 2009. Not receiving any decision from the court as of June 5, 2009, I contacted Judge Schneider’s law clerk on June 5, 2009. She advised me that the June 1, 2009 date was a tentative date, with the court being able to decide the motion either before or after the date. She told me that the defendants’ motion was still pending and that “they” were working on it. She was not able to give me any more specific information as to when we can expect a decision.
I know that many of you are frustrated and have lost faith in the integrity of our legal system. I know that many of you do not believe that, given that we are so far post election and the lack of any support from our political leaders, institutions, and mainstream media, a court will have the moral and legal courage to do what you believe to be justice. But at this point, we can only believe and hope in a court honoring the Constitution and the rule of law by upholding the original intent of the Founding Fathers on the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Our Constitution at Article II says, in pertinent part, that only a "natural born Citizen" can be President. At the time of the Founding, the Framers relied upon the law of nations which was based on natural law for, among many things, the definition of what a "natural born Citizen" was. They did not rely on English common law for the definition. The latter law was not accepted by most civilized nations of the world but the former was. Before the Constitution was adopted, the colonies and eventually the states decided on their own the definitions of citizenship and naturalization. The result was that there was no uniformity among the colonies and States on these important matters which affected not only relations between the states themselves but also America’s relations with foreign nations. Indeed, and unlike the English common law, the law of nations provided for the Founding Fathers a uniform definition of what a "natural born Citizen" was, a definition that could and would be accepted by every State in the new Republic and by most every other civilized nation. It was the law of nations that provided the definition for the new national citizenship in the new Republic. The Founders relied heavily upon Emmerich de Vattel and his The Law of Nations, as the source for what the law of nations said on the many topics that were incorporated into the Constitution, and in constituting the new nation. Under the law of nations as explained by Vattel, a "natural born Citizen" (he called them “naturels” or “indige’nes” in French) was a child born in the country to a mother and father who were also citizens of the country (“parents who are citizens”). These were the “true citizens” who would preserve and perpetuate the society and all its values. Id. Sec. 212, Book 1, The Law of Nations, 1758, Vattel. It was Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” was that was incorporated into American common law. Vattel was correct in his analysis, for these “true citizens,” having a unity of citizenship at the time of their birth (jus soli and jus sanguinis united in them at the time of their birth) were born with a sole allegiance and loyalty to the society into which they were born.
Vattel had a profound and lasting impact in the formation of the new Republic, not only in defining national citizenship but also in many other areas of nationality and immigration law. He also wrote on (1) naturalized citizens, (2) legal residents (he called them perpetual inhabitants), (3) legal visitors (he called them just inhabitants), (4) travelers, (5) emigrants, (6) expatriates, (7) asylum seekers (he calls them supplicants), (8) those who are involuntarily exiled from a country (forced to leave it “without a mark of infamy”), (9) those who voluntarily exile themselves from a country, and (10) those who are banished from a country (those who are forced to leave a country “with a mark of infamy annexed”). Id. Sec. 213-29. He also states that a nation, having the right to protect its safety and “natural liberty,” has the right to decide who it will admit into its territory. (11) Id. Sec. 230. All these concepts as expressed by Vattel are part and parcel of our immigration law today which expresses these concepts as follows: (1) naturalized citizens, (2) legal permanent residents, (3) visitors, (4) visitors, (5) emigrants and immigrants, (6) expatriates, (7) refugees/asylees (8) those who are given the privilege of “voluntary departure” rather then removed or deported under our immigration laws, (9) refugees/asylees, (10) those who are “removed” (formerly called “deported”) from the U.S. under our immigration laws. We characterize in our immigration laws the right and power of the U.S. under No. 11 as the U.S. being able to decide who is or is not admissible into the country. These are not the only subjects which the Founders and later Congresses incorporated into our Constitution and naturalization laws. There are many more but I will not go into those areas at this time.
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British subject when he was born in Kenya. When Obama Jr. was born in 1961, his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father a British subject. At the time of his birth, his father, being in the U.S. only on a temporary basis to study, was not even a permanent resident or immigrant. When Obama was born, under the same British Nationality Act of 1948, he automatically became a British subject by descent from his father. Obama Jr., having a British father and being born a British subject himself, along with presumably being a United States citizen under a liberal and probably erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment (if he was born in the U.S.), was born with multiple allegiances and therefore fails the law of nations test and is not eligible under Article II to be President.
Moreover, given how Obama has so far comported himself and poorly represented the interests of the United States internationally, I doubt that he knows and appreciates that he “ought therefore to love [America] . . .” and “express a just gratitude to it, and requite its service as far as possible by serving it in turn.” Vattel.
Only our courts and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court are able to tell America what a "natural born Citizen” is, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The fate and future of and what type of nation America is going to be is all in their hands. In our Constitutional Republic, we have to allow due process to take its course and wait for their decision.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
I know that many of you are frustrated and have lost faith in the integrity of our legal system. I know that many of you do not believe that, given that we are so far post election and the lack of any support from our political leaders, institutions, and mainstream media, a court will have the moral and legal courage to do what you believe to be justice. But at this point, we can only believe and hope in a court honoring the Constitution and the rule of law by upholding the original intent of the Founding Fathers on the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Our Constitution at Article II says, in pertinent part, that only a "natural born Citizen" can be President. At the time of the Founding, the Framers relied upon the law of nations which was based on natural law for, among many things, the definition of what a "natural born Citizen" was. They did not rely on English common law for the definition. The latter law was not accepted by most civilized nations of the world but the former was. Before the Constitution was adopted, the colonies and eventually the states decided on their own the definitions of citizenship and naturalization. The result was that there was no uniformity among the colonies and States on these important matters which affected not only relations between the states themselves but also America’s relations with foreign nations. Indeed, and unlike the English common law, the law of nations provided for the Founding Fathers a uniform definition of what a "natural born Citizen" was, a definition that could and would be accepted by every State in the new Republic and by most every other civilized nation. It was the law of nations that provided the definition for the new national citizenship in the new Republic. The Founders relied heavily upon Emmerich de Vattel and his The Law of Nations, as the source for what the law of nations said on the many topics that were incorporated into the Constitution, and in constituting the new nation. Under the law of nations as explained by Vattel, a "natural born Citizen" (he called them “naturels” or “indige’nes” in French) was a child born in the country to a mother and father who were also citizens of the country (“parents who are citizens”). These were the “true citizens” who would preserve and perpetuate the society and all its values. Id. Sec. 212, Book 1, The Law of Nations, 1758, Vattel. It was Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” was that was incorporated into American common law. Vattel was correct in his analysis, for these “true citizens,” having a unity of citizenship at the time of their birth (jus soli and jus sanguinis united in them at the time of their birth) were born with a sole allegiance and loyalty to the society into which they were born.
Vattel had a profound and lasting impact in the formation of the new Republic, not only in defining national citizenship but also in many other areas of nationality and immigration law. He also wrote on (1) naturalized citizens, (2) legal residents (he called them perpetual inhabitants), (3) legal visitors (he called them just inhabitants), (4) travelers, (5) emigrants, (6) expatriates, (7) asylum seekers (he calls them supplicants), (8) those who are involuntarily exiled from a country (forced to leave it “without a mark of infamy”), (9) those who voluntarily exile themselves from a country, and (10) those who are banished from a country (those who are forced to leave a country “with a mark of infamy annexed”). Id. Sec. 213-29. He also states that a nation, having the right to protect its safety and “natural liberty,” has the right to decide who it will admit into its territory. (11) Id. Sec. 230. All these concepts as expressed by Vattel are part and parcel of our immigration law today which expresses these concepts as follows: (1) naturalized citizens, (2) legal permanent residents, (3) visitors, (4) visitors, (5) emigrants and immigrants, (6) expatriates, (7) refugees/asylees (8) those who are given the privilege of “voluntary departure” rather then removed or deported under our immigration laws, (9) refugees/asylees, (10) those who are “removed” (formerly called “deported”) from the U.S. under our immigration laws. We characterize in our immigration laws the right and power of the U.S. under No. 11 as the U.S. being able to decide who is or is not admissible into the country. These are not the only subjects which the Founders and later Congresses incorporated into our Constitution and naturalization laws. There are many more but I will not go into those areas at this time.
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British subject when he was born in Kenya. When Obama Jr. was born in 1961, his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father a British subject. At the time of his birth, his father, being in the U.S. only on a temporary basis to study, was not even a permanent resident or immigrant. When Obama was born, under the same British Nationality Act of 1948, he automatically became a British subject by descent from his father. Obama Jr., having a British father and being born a British subject himself, along with presumably being a United States citizen under a liberal and probably erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment (if he was born in the U.S.), was born with multiple allegiances and therefore fails the law of nations test and is not eligible under Article II to be President.
Moreover, given how Obama has so far comported himself and poorly represented the interests of the United States internationally, I doubt that he knows and appreciates that he “ought therefore to love [America] . . .” and “express a just gratitude to it, and requite its service as far as possible by serving it in turn.” Vattel.
Only our courts and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court are able to tell America what a "natural born Citizen” is, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The fate and future of and what type of nation America is going to be is all in their hands. In our Constitutional Republic, we have to allow due process to take its course and wait for their decision.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 (HR1868) Does Not Nor Can It Make Anyone a "Natural Born Citizen." It Adds Conditions for Citizenship by Birth.
Congressman Nathan Deal (R-Georgia) has recently introduced in the House the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. The bill is included on the OpenCongress.org web site at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1868/show. The summary of the bill at the site states the following:
“OpenCongress Summary: This bill would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as natural born citizen. Under the bill, only children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a legal permanent resident, or an undocumented immigrant serving in the military would be considered citizens.”
This summary contains a very serious error. It states that “Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as natural born citizen” (emphasis supplied). This is not a correct statement of the law.
Any legal statement referring to citizenship is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts. The former refers only to “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . .” and the latter only to “citizen.” There is absolutely no mention in the amendment or statutes of a “natural born Citizen.” There also is no Supreme Court decision that says that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is the same as an Article I, II, III, and IV and Fourteenth Amendment “Citizen.”
There is a critical difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.” The Constitution itself does not tell us what a “natural born Citizen” is. Hence, we simply cannot just apply the term to a given situation. Rather, we have to construe from the Constitution itself and other extrinsic sources such as historical events, constitutional debates, congressional debates, case law, statutes, and any other relevant information what the Framers meant by the term. The Constitution uses both “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” It uses “Citizen of the United States” in Article II’s grandfather clause, giving such a citizen the right to be President, but only if born prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It even says that a President must be a “natural born Citizen” (implying from birth) and a Senator or Representative need only be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 and 7 years, respectively (a fortiori showing that he/she could be a naturalized citizen). Basic rules of constitutional construction tell that the terms are not interchangeable. These rules also tell us that in construing the Constitution, special meaning must be given to the words “natural born.” We must give meaning to the Framer’s use of the words “natural born.”’
The Constitution does not state that Congress has the power to determine and define what a “natural born Citizen” is. It is important to note that the Framers did not write in Article II “natural born Citizen of the United States,” but rather just wrote “natural born Citizen.” Why did they omit “of the United States” which they appended to the word “Citizen” when using that term? When the Framers included into Article II “natural born Citizen,” they used the definition of the term as established by the law of nations which the heavily relied upon in drafting the Constitution. The law of nations, which followed the jus sanguinis tradition, was based on natural law that had been accepted by the international community since time immemorial. Hence, a “natural born Citizen” did not need any artificial territorial boundary as part of its definition. Of course, it was understood that such a citizen would belong to the civil society or country called the United States of America. The definition from the law of nations became part of American common law and that definition was that a “natural born citizen” was one that was born in the country to a mother and father who were also citizens of the country. Our U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this definition when it stated: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1874). It is clear from the language used that the Supreme Court borrowed its concept of what a “natural born Citizen was from Vattel. See Vattel, The Law of Nations Sec. 212-33. It is also important to note that the Supreme Court said that the Framers were “familiar” with this principle.
The Framers did not give Congress any power to change this natural law definition, for to do so would have been contrary to natural law and would have given Congress the power to decide who can be President which the Framers did not trust it to have. Rather, the Framers gave Congress in Article I, Section 8 the Constitutional power to make uniform the naturalization laws which means it could determine and define what a “Citizen” is as that term is used in Article I, II, III, and IV. Congress has used this power throughout American history and used it to define who are U.S. nationals and citizens at birth. Other than the 1790 Naturalization Act (which "natural born" language was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act-see my post on this blog concerning these two early Acts), Congress never defined a "natural born Citizen" nor can it. Just to mention some of the many more existing examples, in 1866, Congress passed the Act of 1866, Sect. 1992 US Revised, which was designed to allow blacks to be citizens. The law provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power . . . are declared to be citizens of the United States.” In 1924, Congress also passed a law making all Indians United States citizens. Current citizenship and nationality Congressional statutes may be found at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 and 1409. By making such individuals citizens at birth, Congress simply obviates their need to be naturalized. But Congress’s definitions are driven by the political influences and environment of the day and, as can be seen from the many changes Congress has made to who can be a U.S. “citizen,” can change direction like the wind. Indeed, Congress can naturalize and de-naturalize individuals if perceived to be warranted because of political and military interests as some countries have done in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalized_citizen. Hence, these definitions do not and cannot change natural law which is the basis for the meaning “natural born Citizen.” One cannot be made a "natural born Citizen" through legislation. Only a constitutional amendment would suffice to specifically change the meaning of "natural born Citizen" or generally change the requirements to be President of the United States.
H.R. 1868's purpose is to stop the "anchor baby" syndrome. By doing so, it is restricting the open license of current U.S. policy on what is U.S. birthright citizenship. Because of the continuing wrong interpretation given to the U.S. Supreme decision of Court Wong Kim Ark, now even if both parents are illegal aliens and with some rare exceptions (children of ambassadors or of invading military soldiers), their children born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens (jus soli). The bill, by telling us under what condition the child born on U.S. soil will be considered as being "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," would require at least one of the parents to be (1) a citizen or national of the U.S.; (2) a Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) who resides in the U.S.; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. armed forces. By adding this additional element (modified jus sanguinis), the bill clarifies that birthright citizenship is not only based on being born on U.S. soil but also on the nationality/military status of at least one of the parents. Through such a law, Congress would also be telling us that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” does mean more than the incorrect and ludicrous notion that it means that the child simply needs to be born on U.S. soil. By not requiring both parents to be citizens of the U.S., the bill does not require the United States to have complete and absolute jurisdiction over the child in order for that child to be a “Citizen.” Being completely and absolutely subject to that jurisdiction would make the child an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for such a child has at birth sole and exclusive allegiance to the United States by enjoying unity of citizenship at birth. See my post on this blog on unity of citizenship. Not being completely and absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (i.e. born with dual or more citizenship) makes the child born on U.S soil only a “Citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment as it has since been interpreted by our courts.
Hence, the bill is correct in calling any child born under its reach only a “citizen” but as I have explained the bill’s summary is not in calling such a child a “natural born Citizen.” The bill does not require that both parents be United States citizens at the time of the child's birth on U.S. soil which is the correct definition of a "natural born citizen" under the law of nations, which the Founding Fathers relied upon in drafting the constitution and the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II. Hence, the bill is not declaring these children Article II "natural born Citizens." See my article on the meaning of Article II "natural born citizenship."
In short, under the bill any baby born on U.S. soil who does not have at least one qualifying parent, will not automatically be a U.S. citizen at the time of birth. Hence, the bill would put a stop to those mothers who sneak across the border into the U.S. or enter the U.S. with a visitor visa or some other non-immigrant visa and have a child here. After all, if the woman is pregnant, what is she doing traveling internationally and entering a foreign country (the U.S.A) at a time when she could be giving birth to a child? Are those mothers who enter the U.S. with a visitor or other non-immigrant visa telling the immigration authorities that they are entering the U.S. during a late stage of their pregnancy? Who is paying for that woman's pre- and post-partum health care provided in U.S. hospitals? The bill will also prevent those alien mothers who are already in the U.S. illegally for some time and who have the baby with a non-U.S citizen or non-resident who is also not in any U.S. military service from giving birth to a child in the U.S. and having that child be declared a U.S citizen. Also, those children who are born on U.S. soil to foreign parents acquire under the citizenship laws of their parent’s home country dual or triple allegiances by inheriting their parent’s nationality or citizenship through descent. To some of these children as they grow older, such dual allegiance might mean something to them politically or militarily. Making that class of children a U.S. citizen and giving them the right to vote could someday put in jeopardy U.S. political sovereignty and Constitutional values. If the American people are happy with these choices, then so be it. But they at least have to be informed of these possible consequences so their decision is knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. Additionally, under the current system of birthright citizenship, we hear how the U.S. is cold and vicious because it separates families by removing (formerly called deporting) the illegal parents back to their home countries while allowing their U.S. citizen children to stay in the U.S. with other legal natural or foster families. At least, if one of the parents is here legally and married to the other foreign parent, that legal parent can potentially petition for the foreign parent to become a legal permanent resident and eventually a U.S. citizen and thereby family unity will be achieved.
Thus, the bill summary should be reworded as it is not correct to say the bill is addressing "natural born citizenship." It is addressing statutory "citizenship at birth" which is an entirely different legal term of art. The Congress, when debating this bill, should for posterity's sake be made to state its position in the public record on the question of whether it believes there is a difference between a 14th Amendment born “citizen of the United States” and an Article II "natural born Citizen." This issue is critical to the question of who is eligible to be President under Article II. While Congress's debate and opinion will not be binding on any court of law, at least their opinion and rationale will provide some guidance for the courts and the public.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
“OpenCongress Summary: This bill would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as natural born citizen. Under the bill, only children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a legal permanent resident, or an undocumented immigrant serving in the military would be considered citizens.”
This summary contains a very serious error. It states that “Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as natural born citizen” (emphasis supplied). This is not a correct statement of the law.
Any legal statement referring to citizenship is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts. The former refers only to “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . .” and the latter only to “citizen.” There is absolutely no mention in the amendment or statutes of a “natural born Citizen.” There also is no Supreme Court decision that says that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is the same as an Article I, II, III, and IV and Fourteenth Amendment “Citizen.”
There is a critical difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.” The Constitution itself does not tell us what a “natural born Citizen” is. Hence, we simply cannot just apply the term to a given situation. Rather, we have to construe from the Constitution itself and other extrinsic sources such as historical events, constitutional debates, congressional debates, case law, statutes, and any other relevant information what the Framers meant by the term. The Constitution uses both “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” It uses “Citizen of the United States” in Article II’s grandfather clause, giving such a citizen the right to be President, but only if born prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It even says that a President must be a “natural born Citizen” (implying from birth) and a Senator or Representative need only be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 and 7 years, respectively (a fortiori showing that he/she could be a naturalized citizen). Basic rules of constitutional construction tell that the terms are not interchangeable. These rules also tell us that in construing the Constitution, special meaning must be given to the words “natural born.” We must give meaning to the Framer’s use of the words “natural born.”’
The Constitution does not state that Congress has the power to determine and define what a “natural born Citizen” is. It is important to note that the Framers did not write in Article II “natural born Citizen of the United States,” but rather just wrote “natural born Citizen.” Why did they omit “of the United States” which they appended to the word “Citizen” when using that term? When the Framers included into Article II “natural born Citizen,” they used the definition of the term as established by the law of nations which the heavily relied upon in drafting the Constitution. The law of nations, which followed the jus sanguinis tradition, was based on natural law that had been accepted by the international community since time immemorial. Hence, a “natural born Citizen” did not need any artificial territorial boundary as part of its definition. Of course, it was understood that such a citizen would belong to the civil society or country called the United States of America. The definition from the law of nations became part of American common law and that definition was that a “natural born citizen” was one that was born in the country to a mother and father who were also citizens of the country. Our U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this definition when it stated: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1874). It is clear from the language used that the Supreme Court borrowed its concept of what a “natural born Citizen was from Vattel. See Vattel, The Law of Nations Sec. 212-33. It is also important to note that the Supreme Court said that the Framers were “familiar” with this principle.
The Framers did not give Congress any power to change this natural law definition, for to do so would have been contrary to natural law and would have given Congress the power to decide who can be President which the Framers did not trust it to have. Rather, the Framers gave Congress in Article I, Section 8 the Constitutional power to make uniform the naturalization laws which means it could determine and define what a “Citizen” is as that term is used in Article I, II, III, and IV. Congress has used this power throughout American history and used it to define who are U.S. nationals and citizens at birth. Other than the 1790 Naturalization Act (which "natural born" language was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act-see my post on this blog concerning these two early Acts), Congress never defined a "natural born Citizen" nor can it. Just to mention some of the many more existing examples, in 1866, Congress passed the Act of 1866, Sect. 1992 US Revised, which was designed to allow blacks to be citizens. The law provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power . . . are declared to be citizens of the United States.” In 1924, Congress also passed a law making all Indians United States citizens. Current citizenship and nationality Congressional statutes may be found at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 and 1409. By making such individuals citizens at birth, Congress simply obviates their need to be naturalized. But Congress’s definitions are driven by the political influences and environment of the day and, as can be seen from the many changes Congress has made to who can be a U.S. “citizen,” can change direction like the wind. Indeed, Congress can naturalize and de-naturalize individuals if perceived to be warranted because of political and military interests as some countries have done in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalized_citizen. Hence, these definitions do not and cannot change natural law which is the basis for the meaning “natural born Citizen.” One cannot be made a "natural born Citizen" through legislation. Only a constitutional amendment would suffice to specifically change the meaning of "natural born Citizen" or generally change the requirements to be President of the United States.
H.R. 1868's purpose is to stop the "anchor baby" syndrome. By doing so, it is restricting the open license of current U.S. policy on what is U.S. birthright citizenship. Because of the continuing wrong interpretation given to the U.S. Supreme decision of Court Wong Kim Ark, now even if both parents are illegal aliens and with some rare exceptions (children of ambassadors or of invading military soldiers), their children born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens (jus soli). The bill, by telling us under what condition the child born on U.S. soil will be considered as being "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," would require at least one of the parents to be (1) a citizen or national of the U.S.; (2) a Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) who resides in the U.S.; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. armed forces. By adding this additional element (modified jus sanguinis), the bill clarifies that birthright citizenship is not only based on being born on U.S. soil but also on the nationality/military status of at least one of the parents. Through such a law, Congress would also be telling us that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” does mean more than the incorrect and ludicrous notion that it means that the child simply needs to be born on U.S. soil. By not requiring both parents to be citizens of the U.S., the bill does not require the United States to have complete and absolute jurisdiction over the child in order for that child to be a “Citizen.” Being completely and absolutely subject to that jurisdiction would make the child an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for such a child has at birth sole and exclusive allegiance to the United States by enjoying unity of citizenship at birth. See my post on this blog on unity of citizenship. Not being completely and absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (i.e. born with dual or more citizenship) makes the child born on U.S soil only a “Citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment as it has since been interpreted by our courts.
Hence, the bill is correct in calling any child born under its reach only a “citizen” but as I have explained the bill’s summary is not in calling such a child a “natural born Citizen.” The bill does not require that both parents be United States citizens at the time of the child's birth on U.S. soil which is the correct definition of a "natural born citizen" under the law of nations, which the Founding Fathers relied upon in drafting the constitution and the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II. Hence, the bill is not declaring these children Article II "natural born Citizens." See my article on the meaning of Article II "natural born citizenship."
In short, under the bill any baby born on U.S. soil who does not have at least one qualifying parent, will not automatically be a U.S. citizen at the time of birth. Hence, the bill would put a stop to those mothers who sneak across the border into the U.S. or enter the U.S. with a visitor visa or some other non-immigrant visa and have a child here. After all, if the woman is pregnant, what is she doing traveling internationally and entering a foreign country (the U.S.A) at a time when she could be giving birth to a child? Are those mothers who enter the U.S. with a visitor or other non-immigrant visa telling the immigration authorities that they are entering the U.S. during a late stage of their pregnancy? Who is paying for that woman's pre- and post-partum health care provided in U.S. hospitals? The bill will also prevent those alien mothers who are already in the U.S. illegally for some time and who have the baby with a non-U.S citizen or non-resident who is also not in any U.S. military service from giving birth to a child in the U.S. and having that child be declared a U.S citizen. Also, those children who are born on U.S. soil to foreign parents acquire under the citizenship laws of their parent’s home country dual or triple allegiances by inheriting their parent’s nationality or citizenship through descent. To some of these children as they grow older, such dual allegiance might mean something to them politically or militarily. Making that class of children a U.S. citizen and giving them the right to vote could someday put in jeopardy U.S. political sovereignty and Constitutional values. If the American people are happy with these choices, then so be it. But they at least have to be informed of these possible consequences so their decision is knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. Additionally, under the current system of birthright citizenship, we hear how the U.S. is cold and vicious because it separates families by removing (formerly called deporting) the illegal parents back to their home countries while allowing their U.S. citizen children to stay in the U.S. with other legal natural or foster families. At least, if one of the parents is here legally and married to the other foreign parent, that legal parent can potentially petition for the foreign parent to become a legal permanent resident and eventually a U.S. citizen and thereby family unity will be achieved.
Thus, the bill summary should be reworded as it is not correct to say the bill is addressing "natural born citizenship." It is addressing statutory "citizenship at birth" which is an entirely different legal term of art. The Congress, when debating this bill, should for posterity's sake be made to state its position in the public record on the question of whether it believes there is a difference between a 14th Amendment born “citizen of the United States” and an Article II "natural born Citizen." This issue is critical to the question of who is eligible to be President under Article II. While Congress's debate and opinion will not be binding on any court of law, at least their opinion and rationale will provide some guidance for the courts and the public.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####
G. Gordon Liddy Radio Show Interview with Atty Mario Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner
G Gordon Liddy Radio Show Interview with Atty Mario Apuzzo & Mr Kerchner re. Kerchner vs Obama & Congress Lawsuit
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here]. ####
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here]. ####
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Sean & Frank Radio Show of Baltimore MD Interview of Atty Mario Apuzzo
Sean & Frank Radio Show Interview with Atty Mario Apuzzo about Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here]. ####
P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here]. ####
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
