Thursday, March 4, 2010

Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States

The question which has gripped our Constitutional Republic is whether putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution provides that: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Despite the fact that Article II itself, and when read together with Articles I, III, IV and Amendments Eleven, Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, Twenty-Four, and Twenty-Six, clearly makes a distinction between a “Citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” when it comes to deciding whether Obama is eligible to be President under Article II, many incorrectly interpret a “Citizen of the United States ” to be the same thing as a “natural born Citizen.” With these two clauses not having the same meaning, the proper eligibility question is not whether Obama is a “Citizen of the United States.” Rather, the correct inquiry is whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen.”

Most probably recognize that United States citizens are created either at birth or at the moment of naturalization. The former is a native (using that term in its modern sense and not in the sense that the Founders used it) and the latter is not. Most probably also recognize that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But what many fail to recognize is that the event of birth has two natural elements which always have and always will be present in every birth: (1) the place where one was born and (2) the two parents who procreated the child. Hence, some also fail to understand that there are two types of born citizens, one being a born "Citizen of the United States" and the other being a "natural born Citizen." Under current law, a born "Citizen of the United States" is one granted that status under the 14th Amendment or Congressional Act (e.g. Title 8 Section 1401), both of which consider either (1) being born on United States soil or (2) being born to at least one United States citizen parent sufficient conditions for being granted the status of a born "Citizen of the United States." Never in our history has the United States Supreme Court or the Congress ever required that one needs to satisfy both of these conditions in order to be a “citizen of the United States.” But as to a “natural born Citizen,” we have a different story.

To understand what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we have to revert to the Founding era to determine what the Founders and Framers intended that clause to mean. In analyzing what meaning the Framer’s gave to the “natural born Citizen” clause, we must remember that they wrote the Constitution in the historical context of having won a Revolution and in having to constitute a new society. They were inspired by and found justification in the political philosophy of natural law and the law of nations and not that of the English common law in going forward with that Revolution and they relied on that same law when defining national citizenship. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution grandfathered all persons to be eligible to be President who were “Citizens of the United States” at the time the Constitution was adopted. These persons would have been adults who were born in the colonies, children born in the new states, or adults inhabiting or naturalized under the naturalization laws in either place, at the time that the Constitution was adopted, provided they all adhered to the American Revolution. Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) explained that under English common law that prevailed in the colonies these original citizens included persons who were born in the colonies or new states to alien parents. These original citizens, whether born in the country or out of it, were all naturalized to be “citizens of the United States” by simply adhering to the American Revolution. The Founders in Article II grandfathered these “citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President, provided that they were such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which we know occurred on September 17, 1787. The grandfather clause is obsolete today.

The Founders themselves, being born prior to independence were subjects of the British Crown and to other foreign sovereigns but adhering to the American Revolution became part of the first “citizens of the United States.” All being born in the colonies before the Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776 to British parents, the first seven Presidents were born subjects of Great Britain (born subject to a foreign power) and therefore needed the grandfather clause to make them eligible to be President. William Harrison, the ninth President, born in 1773 in Virginia, was the last President who could utilize the grandfather clause to make him eligible to be President. Justice Story observed in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States that for the Framers to allow naturalized citizens (who like them were born subject to a foreign power and as we shall see below not “natural born Citizens”) to be eligible to be President was an exception to “the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.” III J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Sec. 1473 (1833). Being born on December 5, 1782, on United States soil (in New York and therefore not born on foreign soil) to parents who had also become “citizens of the United States” by election to be loyal to the American Revolution (not born to foreign parents), Martin Van Buren, the eighth President (his mother was of Dutch ancestry and his great-great-great-great-grandfather Cornelis had come to the New World in 1631 from the Netherlands) was the first United States President not born a British or other foreign subject (not subject to a foreign power by being born either on foreign soil or to a foreign parent) who was born a “natural born Citizen” and who therefore did not need the grandfather clause to make him eligible to be President. The New Netherland Institute describes Van Buren’s family history as follows: “In fact, although they were fifth generation Dutch, all of their forebears were of Dutch extraction. The original Van Buren had come over in the 1640's during the Van Rensselaer era when all of Columbia County was part of the Rensselaer Estate. And the original immigrant forbear probably came over sponsored by Killian Van Rensselaer, among many other immigrants, to occupy the Rensselaer estate. As a result Martin Van Buren was pure Dutch, and still spoke Dutch, the language that prevailed for many generations in that part of New York State along the Hudson River.” http://www.nnp.org/nni/Publications/Dutch-American/buren.html. It has been said that Van Buren is the first President born under the American flag.

On the other hand, for children born after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, the same Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides, among other things, that only a "natural born Citizen" is eligible to be President. An Article II "natural born Citizen" is one granted that special status under American common law that has its origins in natural law and the law of nations. With citizenship being a matter of status having international implications, the Framers would have expected its definition to be supplied by public law or the law of nations and not by any municipal or English common law, which the States continued to use to resolve their local problems concerning contracts, torts, property, inheritance, criminal procedure, etc. Under the law of nations, to be a "natural born Citizen," the child needed to be born in the United States (or what may be deemed its equivalent) to two citizen parents. This definition of a “natural born Citizen” is found in and has been confirmed by the following United States Supreme Court cases and other authorities:

1. Samuel von Pufendorf, The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature (William Tooke trans., Ian Hunter & David Saunders, eds., Liberty Fund 2003, Book II, Chapter 6, xiii (1691): “Citizens are either Originally so; that is, such as are born in the Place, and upon that Account claim their Privileges; Or else, Adscititious; that is, such as come from Foreign Parts. Of the first Sort, are either those who at first were present and concerned in the forming of the said Society, or their Descendants, who we call Indigenes, or Natives. Of the other Sort are those who come from Foreign Parts in order to settle themselves there. As for those who come thither only to make a short Stay, although they are for that Time subject to the Laws of the Place; nevertheless, they are not looked upon as Citizens, but are called Strangers or Sojourners."

2. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759): Vattel clearly distinguished between “citizens” (“citoyens” in French) and “naturals” (“naturels” in French). His title for Section 212 is “Des citoyens et naturels” (“Of citizens and naturals” which the English translators called "Of the citizens and natives"). He therefore saw that there is a difference between the two types of citizens.  He then explained that difference: “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 indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”. In the 1797 English edition, the translator replaced the word “indigenes” with “natural-born citizens.” Hence, it read: “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.” Hence, while the definition of a natural born citizen never changed in Vattel’s texts, the term to express it was changed from “indigenes” to “natural-born citizens.”

With many of the Founders being proficient in Latin, Greek, and French, they probably obtained the clause “natural born citizen” and its synonym, “native,” from ancient Latin text which was also translated into English rather than from simply copying the clause “natural born subject” from the English common law and substituting the word “citizen” for “subject.” That ancient text was found in Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (or Quintilian), published in Latin in the first century A.D. The Framers were well read in the Roman and Greek classics as is expounded upon in their writings in the Federalist Papers. Jefferson and other Founders had a love for Roman history and education. From the excellent research conducted by John Greschak, we learn the following: “In 1774, the phrase natural born citizen was used in an English translation (from the Latin) of the book Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (published in the first century A.D.); this was done in Chapter I of Book VIII. The phrase is found in the Latin text: Quare, si fieri, potest et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata. Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book 1, Chapter VIII. There have been at least five different English translations of this work and this sentence. The first was by Guthrie in 1756. Since then, there have been translations by Patsall (1774), Watson (1856), Butler (1920-2) and Russell (2001).” http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm. Greschak found that Guthrie in 1756 used the word “native” when translating Quintilianus’ reference to that Roman citizen who because of birth and family upbringing was expected to be most able to speak the pure Roman language. In referring to the same type of citizen, Patsall in 1774 translated the same sentence as: “Therefore, if possible, every word and the very tone of voice, should bespeak the natural born citizen of Rome, that the language may be purely Roman, and not so by a right different from birth and education” (emphasis supplied). Greschak states: “I do not claim that this is the first use of the phrase natural born citizen, but it is the earliest use of which I am aware.” Id. “Alumnum” means "nourished, brought up; reared/fostered by; native, brought up locally." (Latin-English Dictionary 1.97FC). “Urbis” means city. Parentage, education, and upbringing made an “alumnum urbis oleant.” Just being born in the city was not sufficient to meet the definition of the phrase. It was both birth in the locality and parental and institutional rearing and education from birth that produced the “natural born citizen.”

Hence, Quintilianus’ work which was translated from the Latin to the English provided the clause “natural born citizen” and the word “native” and the translators used the words interchangeably to mean the same thing. This fluctuation in translation explains why the Founders, too, used the words “native” and “natural born Citizen” synonymously.

Quintilianus also provides an explanation of how the Framers translated Vattel by taking his French words of “Les naturels, ou indigenes” or the same words translated into English as “natives or indigenes” and translated or converted them into “natural born Citizen” which is what they wrote into Article II. Being able to read and understand the definitions that Vattel gave to the clause “Les naturels, ou indigenes” (in French) and “The natives or indigenes” (in English), they realized that Vattel’s clauses as written in either French or English were the equivalent to “native” or “natural born citizen” with which they were familiar from having found the clauses in ancient Latin text or its English translations that we saw above. The Founders would have been familiar with both “natural born citizen” and “native” from having seen the two expressions in these various English translations of the ancient Latin text. These English translations took the Latin clause “alumnum urbis oleant” and translated it into either “native” or “natural born citizen.” Hence, it appears that the English translators believed that either “native” or “natural born citizen” captured the meaning of “alumnum urbis oleant.” The Framers, applying their study and knowledge of natural law, would have equated Vattel’s description of “Les naturals, ou indigenes” or “the natives or indigenes” found in Section 212, which was a citizen of true origin and therefore of the highest order with what Quintilanus called “alumnum orbis oleant,” also considered by him to be a citizen of true Roman origin and of the highest order. In fact, during the constitutional debates the Framers also used both “natural born citizen” and “native” interchangeably, just as the English translators of the Latin term “alumnum orbis oleant” did. It would be highly coincidental that both the English translators of Quintilianus’ Latin text and the Founders would have been using those two clauses interchangeably unless they were referring to the same concept, “alumnum orbis oleant.” We know that the Framers chose “natural born Citizen” rather than “native.” They then applied Vattel’s definitions to the “natural born citizen” clause that they selected. It is also significant that the English translator of the 1797 English edition used “the natives, or natural-born citizens” in the place of “the natives, or indigenes.” In making this change, this translator probably knew that the Founders used “natives” or “natural born Citizens” to represent the citizens of the highest order and whom Vattel called “Les naturels, ou indigenes,” or what had been to date translated as “the natives, or indigenes.”

3.  Rutgers v. Waddington (1784):  In 1784, Alexander Hamilton, as the lawyer for the defense, arguing in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington, quoted prolifically from Vattel’s, The Law of Nations. The Waddington case shows how Vattel shaped Hamilton’s thinking. Hamilton argued that the law of nations was part of the common law and that the decisions of the New York Legislature must be consistent with the law of nations. Hamilton used Vattel as the standard for defining the law of nations. Hamilton argued that state law was superseded by national law and the law of nations. He also argued that the intent of the state legislature had to be that their laws be applied in a fashion that was consistent with national law and the law of nations. Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the law of nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the New York statue passed under the color of English common law must be consistent with the law of nations. Hamilton espoused a concept of constitutional law which he obtained from the teachings of Vattel. It was Vattel that gave him the idea of the judicial branch of government making sure that both the legislative and executive branches follow the Constitution. It was Hamilton’s views on Vattel that lead to the creation of judicial review which was included into the Constitution and which was later given prominence by Chief Justice John Marshall. It was Vattel’s idea of what the purpose of government should be (promote commerce, revenue, agriculture, tranquility, happiness, stability, and strength) that Hamilton advocated to the convention delegates in 1787. Hence, there is no doubt that Vattel shaped the founding of the United States.

4. The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814): Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”

5. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830): “If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.”

6. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): Justice Daniel concurring, cited and quoted from Vattel and The Law of Nations thus: "'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. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .'" It should be noted that Justice Daniel took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively.  I have maintained that the Founders and Framers relied upon natural law and the law of nations rather than the English common law to define a "natural born Citizen."  On the question of whether blacks were citizens, Justice Curtis in dissent looked to the law of nations to determine their status given that there was no other municipal law that had abrogated that law.  He did not look to the English common law. 

7. 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: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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. . . . ” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866).

8. Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872): In explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said in dicta that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

9. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875): “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80. Minor did not cite Vattel but as can be seen the Court’s definition of a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” are taken directly out of Vattel’s Section 212.

10. Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879): “[T]he offspring of free persons…follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. 1 Bouv. Inst., 198, § 502; 31 Barb. 486; 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 147; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 242. This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen -- as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law… No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486, the court says: ‘The universal maxim of [**17] the common law being partus sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother.’ 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. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: ‘As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.’ Again, on page 102, Vattel says: ‘By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.’ 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.”

11. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884): “The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306… [S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof… is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance…. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized… Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations…. To be a citizen of the United States is a political privilege which no one, not born to, can assume without its consent in some form.”

12. United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); “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.”

13. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): It quoted the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett. Hence, Wong did not change the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen."  It declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on United States soil to alien parents who were domiciled and legally residing in the United States and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States,” It did not find him an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The Wong Kim Ark holding which relates to a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States" cannot be relied upon to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is depends upon what the Framers intended that clause to mean in 1787. The Framers defined national citizenship during the Founding in the historical context of the American Revolution, a context which did not exist in 1898. In that context, the Founders had to provide for who were the original citizens and who were their descendents. To define these terms, the Framers relied upon the same law that justified the Revolution itself. That law was natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. From that law, they came to call the original citizens "citizens of the United States" and their descendents, the "natural born Citizens." The Framers then gave Congress the power to naturalize all other persons who may in the future also qualify to be “citizens of the United States.” Under natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Vattel, whom the Framers relied upon to explain that law, this meant that only the children of citizens (either “natural born Citizens” or naturalized) could ever be “natural born Citizens.” All other citizens would only be “citizens of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark dealt with defining what a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” was in 1898. Justice Gray's general statements in Wong Kim Ark as to what a "natural born subject" (which under English common law also included naturalized subjects) was in the colonies under English common law before the Revolution made by him for the purpose of defining a “citizen of the United States” in 1898 do not answer the question of what the Founder's definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" was in 1787. In fact, given the Revolution and the need to constitute a new society, to the Framers the English common law was neither relevant nor useful in providing that definition. Justice Gray’s decision can at best be used to define what an original citizen was before the adoption of the Constitution which definition he used to justify his declaring Wong a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States."  But it cannot be used to define what a “natural born Citizen” is following its adoption.   Additionally, the Wong court itself recognized the two distinct types of citizens, a "natural born Citizen" and a "citizen of the United States."  Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent said that he would not have found Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” because his parents were not citizens. He also confirmed Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

The two citizen-parent requirement (not only just one parent) comes from the definition of a “natural born Citizen” referring to the child’s parents in the plural. It also comes from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. Both parents must also be citizens in order for the child not to be born subject to any foreign power and therefore with any other conflicting allegiance or loyalty. Hence, given the Framers’ use of the “natural born Citizen” clause, they required a would-be President to have both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens."

It is telling that of all the positions and offices the Framers provided for in the Constitution, only that of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) may be occupied only by a “natural born Citizen.” They therefore believed that this singular and all-powerful office was more vulnerable to foreign influence than any other and they thereby sought to give it the most protection that they could. Minor said that there were doubts whether the children born in the United States to alien parents were “citizens.” The Minor decision was decided in 1875 or 87 years after the Constitution was adopted and as Justice Waite explained in that decision our nation still had doubts on whether children born in the United States to alien parents were even citizens. If the Court had doubts about whether these children were “citizens,” it surely had doubts whether they were “natural born Citizens.” We cannot reasonably imagine that the Framers would have used a standard for a person to meet in order to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military which would have created doubts as to its meaning and which would therefore have put at risk the security and integrity of that critically important office. Surely, they would have relied on a definition that created no doubt which Minor explained was one that included that both the child be born in the country (or its equivalent) to citizen parents. Indeed, as Minor explained, such a standard created no doubt. It was through the “natural born Citizen” clause that the Framers sought to accomplish the goal of protecting the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military from foreign influence and of providing a definition of national citizenship which the nation would have no difficulty to understand.

The categories of citizens that the Framers established in the Constitution is "natural born Citizen" and "citizen of the United States." With respect to citizenship, the Framers gave Congress only the power to "naturalize" persons to become "citizens of the United States." Hence, any person that is made a citizen by Congress that is not by the natural circumstances of his or her birth a "natural born Citizen" is necessarily a naturalized citizen and consequently a "citizen of the United States" but not a “natural born Citizen.”  Congress has also chosen to exercise its naturalization power over children born in the United States which constitutionally could have any effect only over a child who is not a "natural born Citizen."  See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) ("The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"). 

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), the United States Supreme Court said that slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not members of American society even though born on United States soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Hence, the Court said that they were not “citizens of the United States.’ To correct that ruling, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. With this Act, Congress first declared what a "citizen of the United States" was. The Act declared citizens of the United States “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. Sec. 1992. Hence, this Act removed from citizenship any factor related to color, race, or past condition of servitude. Because of the controversial nature of the Act, Congress saw fit to introduce and have passed a constitutional amendment which would protect what the Act sought to accomplish from the political whims of future Congresses and state governments. We know that this Act became the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment which was passed in 1868.

In Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 310, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1879), in commenting upon what the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was, our U.S. Supreme Court said: "Its aim was against discrimination because of race or color. As we have said more than once, its design was to protect an emancipated race, and to strike down all possible legal discriminations against those who belong to it. To quote further from 16 Wall., supra: 'In giving construction to any of these articles [amendments], it is necessary to keep the main purpose steadily in view.' 'It is so clearly a provision for that race and that emergency, that a strong case would be necessary for its application to any other.' "

The amendment was needed to remove any doubts regarding whether blacks could be United States citizens. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the United States community by making them United States citizens. The intent and purpose of the amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on United States soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It did not grant “natural born Citizen” status. The Amendment’s framers were familiar with how the Constitution in many places and the Naturalization Act of 1790 (used “natural born citizens”) and 1795 (changed the statute to read just “citizens of the United States”) distinguished between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen of the United States.” If the Amendment were to grant “natural born Citizen” status, it would have told us that a born citizen thereunder was a “natural born Citizen” and not only a “citizen of the United States.” It also would not have equated a born citizen thereunder to a naturalized citizen, for a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. Hence, the Amendment only confers “citizen of the United States” status, as that is the exact clause used by the Amendment itself and that is the same clause that appears in Articles I, II, III, IV and Amendments Eleven, Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, Twenty-Four, and Twenty-Six of the Constitution and in various Congressional Acts. It just conveys the status of “citizen of the United States,” and as we have also seen from how the First and Third Congresses handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen of the United States” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.” Indeed, both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) expressly told us that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not found in the Fourteenth Amendment or any other part of the Constitution but rather in the common law. The Supreme Court decided these cases after we adopted the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Court in both cases was asked to decide if the subject person was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens, “and nothing more.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 166, 22 L.Ed. 627, 21 Wall. 162 (1874). The Fourteenth Amendment gave the status of "citizen of the United States" to all those persons born in the United States or naturalized therein and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." As to born citizens, the Amendment was not needed to make anyone a "natural born Citizen," for that status was conferred upon a child by natural law and the law of nations. On the other hand, the Amendment was needed to clarify who may be a "citizen of the United States." Under the probable meaning of the Amendment, it simply removed race, color, and condition of servitude from the application of the natural law and law of nations definition of a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” As the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause is currently interpreted, which interpretation is questionable and highly debated, the Amendment went as far as to take Congress's power to "naturalize" a child born in the United States of parents who were not citizens (one parent or both not citizens or even legal residents) as expressed by it in the 1866 Act and constitutionalized the status of that child to a "citizen of the United States." Additionally, a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States" does not need to go through any formal naturalization process as does a person wanting to be a “citizen of the United States” but who was not born a "citizen of the United States" under any Congressional Act. This more liberal rule can be better understood when we consider that Vattel informed that England was an exception to the general rule for being born a native or indigenes, in that in England the “single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner,” Vattel, at Sec. 214.

What is important to understand when questioning Obama’s eligibility to be President is that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any Congressional Act makes one a "natural born Citizen." Rather, what their provisions create is at a maximum a born or naturalized "citizen of the United States" who are equal under the law. They do not create a "natural born Citizen." Since the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to mirror Congress’s 1866 Act, the Amendment makes one a born citizen through the Constitution who under the 1866 Act would have been a born citizen by naturalization by Congress and by so doing it produced only a "citizen of the United States" and not a “natural born Citizen.” Since Congress had neither the power nor intent to make anyone a “natural born Citizen” under the 1866 Act and the Amendment merely followed the path of that Act, the Fourteenth Amendment also would not have made anyone a “natural born Citizen.”  This interpretation is confirmed by Congressman John Bingham who implicitly distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States.” Bingham confirmed the understanding and the construction the Fourteenth Amendment Framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on the proposed civil rights act of 1866 that was being discussed in the House on March 9, 1866: “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….”

To have the special status of "natural born Citizen," a child needs to necessarily satisfy the birth conditions of that special status, i.e., born in the country to two citizen parents. These are two factors that occur naturally and need no law to be so recognized. Because “natural born Citizen” status requires unity of citizenship and allegiance, conditions which descend naturally to the child at the time of birth from the two events of birth in the United States and birth to United States citizen parents, this status provides a would-be President with the greatest degree of loyalty and allegiance to the United States, a quality that the Framers expected all Presidents and Chief Military Commanders born after the adoption of the Constitution to have. It is this high degree of loyalty and allegiance to the United States in a President and Military Commander in Chief of the Military that provides the nation and each of its citizens and residents with both the greatest confidence in the person holding that highest civil and military office and the greatest protection from enemies both foreign and domestic, or what John Jay in his letter of July 25, 1787, to then General Washington (copy of original) called “a strong check” on foreign influence invading our government. Wisdom shows that there is no sound national security or public policy reason why a Constitutional Republic such as the United States should demand anything less from a person who would aspire to the singular and all-powerful office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Because Obama was born 173 years after the Constitution was adopted, he cannot take advantage of Article II’s now obsolete grandfather clause which would have allowed him to be eligible to be President if he could conclusively prove that he was a “citizen of the United States” (by conclusively proving he was born in Hawaii). Since he cannot utilize the grandfather clause, he must conclusively prove he is a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President. But Obama’s birth circumstances show that, even if he were born in Hawaii as he claims, he cannot satisfy his constitutional obligation under Article II. Obama’s father, being born in the then-British colony of Kenya, was under the British Nationality Act 1948 a British subject/citizen and not a United States Citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Being here only temporarily on a student visa, he was not domiciled or permanently residing in the United States. Obama himself in 1961 by descent from his father was also born a British subject/citizen under that same 1948 Act. If Obama was born in Hawaii (a fact which he has yet to conclusively prove by presenting a contemporaneous birth certificate created in 1961 when he was born and not a Certification of Live Birth created in 2007 and posted on the internet in 2008), which would make him a dual citizen from birth of the United States and Great Britain, he could qualify as a “Citizen of the United States” under a liberal and questionable interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. But because his father was not a United States citizen when Obama was born, he was born subject to a foreign power which he inherited from his father. Being born subject to a foreign power like a naturalized citizen, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

March 4, 2010
Updated June 13, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

50 comments:

cfkerchner said...

Excellent essay Mario!

Charles

James said...

Some state that since Obama Sr. was under juristication of US Laws since he was in the US (Obama Sr. did have diplomatic immunity), it does not matter. However, from what I understand, after Obama Sr. completed his education at Havard, the Kenyan government mandated that Obama Sr. return to Kenya. if the first is true, then there is no way Kenya could actually do anything since Obama SR. was under US juristication. It might worthwhile to check this out. If in fact, Kenya had the authurity to mandate Obama Sr. come back to Kenya, it would certainly suggest that Obama Sr. was not completely under US Juristication since he was a citizen of Kenya and had to follow their laws. If this true, the original agrument stands firm.

Incredulous said...

Yes, the natural born citizen issue is the baseline issue. And now that the Hawaii Attorney General will not corroborate Fukino's statement that Obama was born in Hawaii, Fukino breaks 2 Hawaii information laws requiring her to show her basis for making a public statement such as she did, and also allowing release of a noncertified copy of whatever Obama already published in non-redacted form. Lingle only sends a boilerplate letter stating she cannot say anything. Janice Okubo plays dumb, sends replies for misspelled names, obfuscates, BUT she did send a list confirming that unless Obama had a Hawaiian hospital birth, since he is not on the non-conforming and late registrations list, that he was nor born in Hawaii. Kapiolani says he was not born there.
Obama has not one shred of evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

Benaiah said...

Thanks Mario and Charles...

You all are appreciated.

jayjay said...

Another wonderful (and informative) essay on the eligibility issue!!

Many thanks - and let's hope that some of the "political persuasion" not only read it (and the rest of the website) but understand what is said!!!!

constitutionallyspeaking said...

WOW, WOW, WOW..Mario, I am at a loss for words. Everytime I think you have outdone yourself, you prove me wrong by continuing to push the goalline.

Thank you & God Bless you Mario & Charles

I am deeply humbled & honored to be associated with you.

Doublee said...

I have not seen much written about the 14 year residency requirement for the office of President. (I did see someone point out that age 21 plus 14 years equals age 35.)

There is the question of whether the years satisfying the residency requirement must have occured contiguously.

It does seem to me that the 14 year residency requirement is an additional check that assures that the president has loyalty to the United States. A person needs to have lived in a country a certain amount of time to absorb its culture and values, and come to appreciate the unique political and social constructs that define a particular country.

It doesn't make sense to allow someone who has lived all of his or her life in a foreign country to come to the U.S. a year or two before a presdidential election to be eligible to run. Of course, this ignores the politcal question of whether such a person would be electable. But then, with many people arguing that the Article II requirement is out of date, who knows?

dixhistory said...

I really like the first part in explaining what a NBC is. I always thought it a simple thing to understand. You really have to try and not understand it to get to where those in the Obama Camp try and get you to think he is a NBC.

I hate when a so called reporter keeps using the term well he is a citizen. They know better than this and in my opinion are trying to muddy the waters on purpose.

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~texdick/

doctorbulldog said...

Doublee said of the 14 year requirement: "an additional check that assures that the president has loyalty to the United States."

Which has me wondering about Obama's active campaigning for Odinga in Kenya.

Doesn't that demonstrate Obama's allegiance to his Kenyan/British citizenship?

After all, from what I remember, Obama was not directed by the U.S. government to go to Kenya and involve himself with the political landscape of Kenya.

It seems to me that if one demonstrates his/her allegiance to the lesser half of one's dual-citizenship, one has just lost any claim to an Article II Natural Born Citizen.

Even the Kim Wong Ark decision bases its citizenship ruling on the actions of KWA and his parents. Not only that, but the KWA decision more than implies that the "actions" of an individual are to be considered when determining citizenship status.

I mean, at the very least, Obama is guilty of violating the Logan Act by inserting himself into the politics of Kenya back in 2006. Although I don't recall anyone ever being prosecuted under that law, it is still on the books as a crime.

But, be that as it may, since the actual INTENT of our Founding Fathers' "natural-born citizen" requirement was to insure that the president would be solely dedicated to the United States, it is my contention that Obama's actions in Kenya have cost him any claim he might have possibly had to an Article II Natural Born.

So, the big question is how can one go about convincing a Judge that Obama's actions have removed any possible claim to an Article II Natural Born?

Cheers

Incredulous said...

Mr. Apuzzo, can you do anything about the overt violation of UIPA laws in Hawaii by Janice Okubo and Ms. Fukino?
And re:Dr. Bulldog--the facts about the passport violation, that Brennan is now quid pro quo Obama's terror advisor and Lt. Quarles Harris Federal witness was murdered and the fact that only an Indonesian citizen could attend Indo schools obviously means Obama was an Indo citizen who traveled on an Indo passport, went to Indo public schools, and went to Occidental as an Indo student with a SSN that started with 99---that is but "one" of his "citizen of the world" divided allegiances (if he ever even had US citizenship at all)...
And the Logan Act violation in Kenya, can this be brought forth as a charge?
Or is the fact that criminal Eric Holder is running DOJ mean that nothing will ever happen?

Incredulous said...

To Medical:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2463790/posts?page=264#264

Incredulous said...

Hawaii conspires to deprive citizens of civil rights
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/05/hawaii-department-of-health-has-conspired-against-the-public-for-5-months-2/

medical said...

My fine young wife is an Attorney at Law and both her parents are practicing physicians in Romania (it's a bit awkward to have a mother and father in law who are four years younger than me). Very often, my wife asks why so many U.S. Citizens and especially the courts of the U.S.A. cannot understand the simple and long established definition of what constitutes a "natural born Citizen" and why it is so important to our national security. The vast majority of Europeans fully grasp the concept and they cannot understand why we aren't literally rioting in the streets over the issue and the U.S. Government's intentional lack of action to correct such a blatant violation of our Constitution. Ioana's father is a general surgeon and her mother is a general practitioner and world famous kidney transplant surgeon - she performed the world's first "half kidney transplant", which required removing an adult kidney and precisely trimming it to fit within the tiny abdominal cavity of a very young child. Today, my wife informed me that as of April, Romania will begin phasing out "socialized medicine" in favor of private medical insurance plans which are not government regulated or controlled. The doctors, not the government, will be in control of healthcare. Countries have discovered that "nationalized healthcare" is not the panacea which it appears at first glance, it does not and cannot work, plus it is far more expensive than private medical care and the required record keeping is much too lengthy and complicated to properly administer in a timely and reasonably efficient fashion. Narcissistic Obama and the delusional out of touch with reality members of Congress who continue to support lethal "Obamacare" don't even have the slightest clue what they're advocating. Just one glance at insane Nancy Pelosi puts me in an awful mood, she's so mindlessly ignorant and I believe she actually feels that she's American royalty, not a public servant. WHY do we foolishly continue to re-elect the same crude, nasty, arrogant, ignorant, self-serving, sold out persons to the Congress and the Senate term after term? How can things ever change if the members of Congress never do?! There should be a one term limit imposed on Congressmen and Senators. Most Congressmen and their staff members don't have as much sense as a brain damaged squirrel, plus they arrogantly ignore the wishes of the people they're supposed to represent! Should the senseless and lethal "Obamacare" bill pass, I swear I'll open a chain of the only businesses that will experience huge increases in revenues - funeral homes, crematoria, and cemeteries. Commander Charles Kerchner and Attorney Mario Apuzzo shall prevail. Our nation and the Constitution shall be protected and preserved! The entire world is watching and the world understands that the U.S. courts and Congress have not been doing their sworn duty for the Citizens!

James said...

Mario,

While you wait for your case to go through the courts, in the interim have you thought about exploring ways to get access to Obama's records from the Hawaii DOH. It is appears that a great battle has been going for months for the access of Obama's records in the DOH. Certainly, your legal skills and expertise might be very helpful in the battle.

James said...

This is an interesting development....Remember Dr. James Ang'awa, the doctor who attended Obama's birth in Kenya according to the Lucas Smith Obama Kenyan BC. Dr. Angawa was later killed. A story was written about it: http://allafrica.com/stories/201002010485.html

The story contains an interesting paragraph....

"The family lived in high-class government quarters in Upper Hill. Among their neighbours were Dr Njoroge Mungai, former President Kenyatta's personal physician, President Kibaki, who was then minister for Finance and the late Barack Obama Sr, father of American President Barack Obama."

The Angawa family apparently knew of Barack Obama Sr.

An Amazing Conincidence??????

Puzo1 said...

James,

The Founding principle of American citizenship is based on mutual consent. Citizenship in the United States started with one consenting to be such. The individual had to show that he or she wanted to be a citizen of the United States, that he or she consented to be one. This consent was manifested by the individual showing his or her loyalty and allegiance to the new nation by adhering to the American Revolution. Hence, the nation did not thrust itself upon the individual and make him or her a citizen. The individual was free to choose whether to be American or British. If that person consented to be an American citizen and qualified for the right and privilege by showing his or her loyalty and allegiance to the new nation, the nation also consented to allowing that person to join American society. Hence, under this scenario, citizenship was based on the person and the American people consenting to that citizenship. Giving one American citizenship simply because one may be born in the territory of the United States or because he or she is subject to its laws, goes against this Founding principle of mutual consent to citizenship.

To maintain the principle of mutual consent to citizenship, to be an American citizen, we as a nation should expect the parents of the child to show their consent to their child becoming an American citizen. Then we should also expect that the American people have a say on whether they want to consent to that child becoming a citizen. Nondiscriminatory laws should be in place which present the circumstances under which both the parents and the American people are deemed to having given their consent to such membership.

Citizenship should not be thrust upon an infant as it was under feudalism for the purpose of aggrandizing the King's army and empire. In a Constitutional Republic such as the United States, which has a self-representative government, citizenship is a very important status, for it gives one the right and privilege of participating as a voter and/or as an elected representative in the decisions that are made in the management and guidance of the republic. These decisions are critical to the prosperity and survival of the republic. Hence, to protect its value, citizenship should be based on a continuity that begins and is nourished from when both the child's parents and the American people consent to that child becoming an American citizen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Justin said...

I would like to point out that IF Obama was born in Hawaii, he can claim citizenship under Title 3, Chapter 1, Act 305 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Benaiah said...

Hawaii Department of Health has conspired against the public for 5 months
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/05/hawaii-department-of-health-has-conspired-against-the-public-for-5-months/

DENIED UIPA RESPONSES AFTER DOING INTERNET BACKGROUND CHECKS ON THE POLITICAL VIEWS OF PERSONS MAKING UIPA REQUESTS

[...]

The Conspiracy is hatched by Ken David

After receiving Gotto’s request, Ken David of the Vital Records Department sent the following email to Janice Okubo:

From: vr-info
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 6:18PM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Cc: Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.
Subject: FW: Per Dr. Okubo
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009

Hi Janice,

Did you want me to respond to Kathleen’s email? I might not even try to clarify her questions. Instead, should I reply, I would probably appeal to the confidentiality of our records and the procedures we follow.

Aloha,

VR-Info (Ken David)

Okubo then replied to David:

From: Janice Okubo
To: ‘vr-info’
Cc: ‘Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. 8:28PM’
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:28PM
Subject: RE: Per Dr. Okubo

Hi Ken,

If you are able to respond succinctly then I would appreciate that. I don’t plan to respond to any further e-mails from this person. I was just required to provide a response to the UIPA request. Thanks.

Janice

David then emailed Okubo, suggesting a conspiracy to deprive Gotto of a response, the incriminating evidence of which is contained in the following email:

Subject: FW: Per Dr. Okubo
From: vr-info
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 1:50 PM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Cc: Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.
Subject: Re: Per Dr. Okubo

Hi, Janice,

I checked online for a “Kathleen Gotto” and I came across this letter that I presume she wrote http://blogtalkradio.com/MenifeeValleyRadio/blog/2008/11/15/Letter-to-the-US-Supreme-from-Kathleen-Gotto-This-is-a-vital-issue-to-us-all who accused Obama of “…who almost got away with stealing the Presidency…” I doubt that any answer I might send her would satisfy her since she has the same agenda as Rob Lamb (who accused me of lying and that I should be fired). Although Rob Lamb did not mention Obama’s name, he can be found online as another person who has a hidden agenda. It is interesting that in all of Rob Lamb’s emails he did not mention Obama’s name even once.

Aloha,

Ken

[...]

It looks like sufficient evidence for a charge of conspiracy to deprive Gotto of her civil liberties, even from a cursory consideration of the U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I of §1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights reads:

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire … for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; … ; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

The rights deprived are those granted in the UIPA for disclosure of government records.


[...]

jayjay said...

James:

Obama Sr. did not have "diplomatic immunity" as he was here as a student - an alien. So what you claim that "some state" matters not at all as he was not under the complete jurisdiction of America.

As for the "HI records", if any, the best manner of obtaining those is through discovery related to a case in Federal Court. The attempts in HI so far have gone nowhere and will no doubt continue in that vein also.

As for tha Angawa family knowing of O Sr., how is that helpful?? The fact that "Harry knew Sally" is most likely not legally persuasive.

As for the INA of 1952 that you mention, could you provide a link to exacly the part you refer to???

medical said...

(PART ONE) To "Incredulous" : Thank you very kindly for posting the link to the ad hominem attack and outright lies posted by "Ender Wiggins" on "free republic.com". I stand by my original statement. The photograph posted on "free republic" purporting to show the Usurper is nowhere to be found in the official files of Harvard and it appears to be altered. I am in the process of having a copy of the photograph forensically examined (at my expense) by what is considered by the "American Academy of Forensic Sciences" to be the greatest forensic photographic examination laboratory in the entire world. My nephew IS now a professor at Saint Hugh's. At the end of this posting, there is a link to an old article showing he was basketball coach of the "Oxford Blues" at Oxford University, England, at the age of twenty five. As anyone can plainly see from reading the article, he has been connected with Saint Hugh's for quite some time. "Michael has an AB from Harvard College in Anthropology and an MPhil from Oxford University in Landscape Archaeology. He is currently a DPhil research student and a member of St. Hugh’s College." Michael's father is a Medical Doctor specializing in diagnostic radiology and his mother is equally brilliant and accomplished. Basketball skills run in the family, Michael's father played first string for Georgia Tech and his mother was the second ranked university level womens basketball player in the entire State of Georgia. Their rather large primary residence has a full size basketball court with wooden parquet flooring in the basement, plus twenty three foot ceilings and there are no support posts to obstruct the movements of players. The upper level of the home rests on large steel I-beams. Our family has long been known for many great accomplishments in various fields, especially engineering, law, politics, and medicine - no brag, just fact. King O'Leathlobhair (meaning "seeker of justice" and the name from which the term "lawyer" was originally derived), from which my family name derives, were the Kings of Ulidia and among our direct forebears. We are also directly descended from Founding Fathers and presidents John and John Quincy Adams, plus we are indirectly related to nine other United States presidents. Here is a partial list of the United States politicians from the Adams side of our family (I have chosen not to include myself and a few others) : Samuel Adams (1722-1803), delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention 1779 1788, Massachusetts State Senator 1781, candidate for U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1788, Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts 1789-1794, Governor of Massachusetts 1793-1797. Second cousin of John Adams.
John Adams (1735-1826), Delegate to the Continental Congress from Massachusetts 1774-1778, U.S. Minister to the Netherlands 1781-1788, U.S. Minister to Great Britain 1785-1788, Vice President of the United States 1789-1797, President of the United States 1797-1801, delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention 1820. Second cousin of Samuel Adams.
Joshua Johnson, U.S. Consul to London, England 1790-1797. Father-in-law of John Quincy Adams.
Joseph Allen (1749-1827), delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention 1788, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1810-1811. Nephew of Samuel Adams.
John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), U.S. Minister to the Netherlands 1794-1797, U.S. Minister to Prussia 1797-1801, U.S. Minister to Russia 1809-1814, U.S. Minister to Great Britain 1815-1817, Massachusetts State Senator 1802, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts 1803-1808, U.S. Secretary of State 1817-1825, President of the United States 1825-1829, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1831-1848, candidate for Governor of Massachusetts 1838. Son of John Adams...

medical said...

(PART TWO)
John Pope (1770-1845), Kentucky State Representative 1802 1806, U.S. Senator from Kentucky 1807-1813, Kentucky Secretary of State 1816-1819, Governor of Arkansas Territory 1829-1835, U.S. Representative from Kentucky 1837-1843. Brother-in-law of John Quincy Adams.
Benjamin Crowninshield (1773-1851), Massachusetts State Representative 1811, Massachusetts State Senator 1812, U.S. Secretary of the Navy 1815-1818, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1823-1831. Grandfather-in-law of John Quincy Adams.
William S. Smith (1755-1816), U.S. Representative from New York 1813-1815. Son-in-law of John Adams.
William Cranch (1769-1855), Judge of U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia 1801 1806. Nephew by marriage of John Adams.
Charles Allen (1797-1869), Massachusetts State Representative 1830 1833-1835 1840, Massachusetts State Senator 1836-1837, Judge of Court of Common Pleas in Massachusetts 1842-1845, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1849-1853, delegate to the Republican National Convention 1856, Superior Court Judge in Massachusetts 1859-1867. Son of Joseph Allen.
George Washington Adams (1801-1828), Massachusetts State Representative 1826. Son of John Quincy Adams.
Edward Everett (1794-1865), U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1825-1835, Governor of Massachusetts 1836-1840, U.S. Minister to Great Britain 1841-1845, U.S. Secretary of State 1852-1853, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts 1853-1854, candidate for Vice President of the United States 1860. Brother-in-law of Charles Francis Adams, Sr..
Charles Francis Adams, Sr. (1807-1886), Massachusetts State Representative 1831, Massachusetts State Senator 1835-1840, candidate for Vice President of the United States 1848, delegate to the Republican National Convention 1856, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1859-1861, U.S. Minister to Great Britain 1861-1868, candidate for Governor of Massachusetts 1876. Son of John Quincy Adams.
Alfred Cumming (1802-1873), Mayor of Augusta, Georgia 1836; Governor of Utah Territory 1858-1861. Great-grandson-in-law of Samuel Adams.
John Quincy Adams (1833-1894), Massachusetts State Representative 1866 1869, candidate for Governor of Massachusetts 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1879, candidate for Vice President of the United States 1872. Son of Charles Francis Adams, Sr..
William C. Lovering (1835-1910), Massachusetts State Senator 1874-1875, delegate to the Republican National Convention 1880, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1897-1910. Father-in-law of Charles Francis Adams III.
William Everett (1839-1910), U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1893-1895, candidate for Governor of Massachusetts 1897. Son of Edward Everett.
Brooks Adams (1848-1927), delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention 1917. Son of Charles Francis Adams, Sr..
Henry Cabot Lodge (1850-1924), Massachusetts State Representative 1880, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 1887-1893, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts 1893-1924, delegate to the Republican National Convention 1924. Brother-in-law of Brooks Adams.
Charles Francis Adams III (1866-1954), Mayor of Quincy, Massachusetts 1896-1897; delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention 1917; U.S. Secretary of the Navy 1929-1933. Son of John Quincy Adams.
Thomas B. Adams (1910-1997), candidate for Democratic nominations for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts 1966, delegate to the Democratic National Convention 1972. Great-grandson of Charles Francis Adams, Sr..
William R. Merriam (1849-1931), Minnesota State Representative 1883 1887, Governor of Minnesota 1889-1893, delegate to the Republican National Convention 1896. Descendant of John Adams.
Eugene H. Nickerson (1918-2002), delegate to the Democratic National Convention 1972, Judge of U.S. District Court 1977. Descendant of John Adams.

medical said...

(PART THREE) (The Usurper's blogs will not publish posts that PROVE they are pathological liars, so they can read the facts here.) My family does not merely stand on the sidelines, wringing our hands, and complaining about matters, we become directly involved and set out to change matters, even if we imperil our lives in the process. We do not cower and hide, we stand tall and fight like men should for that which is right. The obot who has intentionally slandered Michael's name is simply another prime example of the very low class illiterate un-American Marxist trash that knowingly lies in support of the Usurper. I have revealed more of my family history in this post than the Usurper has revealed in his entire fabricated "life history". ***Respect our family's personal privacy or we shall instantly commence criminal action against perpetrators without the slightest hesitation - money is no object.*** Obots have a history of being EXTREMELY crude pathological liars, totally inconsiderate intruders, incurably ignorant clowns, and clueless buffoons. I just love it when the childish "know it all" obots are caught red handed publicly making complete fools of themselves, then they invariably make matters even worse by telling one obvious pathological lie after another in a feeble effort to support their original lie. Obots are hopeless, but after the elections this fall, they'll simply vanish because their very temporary Congressional and Senatorial power bases shall forever disappear. The Usurper's approval ratings are already swirling around the vortex of the flushing political toilet and that's precisely where they've belonged since day one. (Soon, children will be asking, "Daddy, what was a Democrat and why did their party become extinct?") The following is a link to an old Oxford University article showing Michael's profile. Read it and cry, you nasty obots! http://www.oubbc.org.uk/coach_details_causey.asphttp://www.oubbc.org.uk/coach_details_causey.asp

Spaulding said...

Mr's Apuzzo and Kerchner. Your latest article distills much of what those inclined could find by reading dozens or hundreds of historical documents. You demonstrate that discovery is not necessary. The evidence could not be much clearer. The long dialogs about photographs and recalcitrant Hawaiian officials, along with irrelevent personal histories dilute the clarity of your arguments. The problem is how to get our judicial system to respond, and unsupported allegations don't further that end. Helping more to clearly understand the issue is what is needed. Might the extraneous discussions be filtered a bit? Everyone may mean well, but some 'contributors' may be adding 'noise' to the discussion to obscure the message.

A question for anyone proposing to run for office in November or in 2012 should be asked by anyone who understands this attack on our Constitution: "What is the definition of a natural born citizen?" Any candidate who will not or cannot properly answer the question will have been properly exposed. They must swear to respect and protect the Constitution, something they clearly cannot do if they don't understand, or hide from this essential question.

jayjay said...

medical:

TYVM for the pertinent (and very interesting) family background. I read it with great interest. Here's a possible addition of interest ...

As I'm sure you know, when John Adams went to Europe to press the Netherlands for American support he took with him his son, John Q. who was then a very young teenager - something like 14 or so. While "dad" was working away at the Dutch a man named Francis Dana (GFather, I believe, of the author Richard Dana who wrote the book "Two Years Before The Mast" and for whom Dana Point, CA is named) was appointed envoy to Russia.

Since Dana had a "language problem" and could speak only English, he manage to von vince John Q pop that the youngster (who was fairly fluent in several languages including Frence, the diplomatic language of the day) shoul accompany him to St. Petersburg as secretary and interpreter ... and be baid for doing so, This was John Q's first paying political job but more were to come, certainly.

You are certainly correct about the Obots - who I prefer to call Flying Monkeys as it more accurately describes their Modus Operandi as they flit about from blog to blog (and media outlet to media outlet) spreading rumors, misinformation, trashy attacks, and just plain lies about the eligibility issue.

With the background you sketch out it is apparent that you are NOT a Flying Monkey!

Jackie Smith said...

Hi all.....Charles and Mario....please check out the breaking News at CW's blog!!! This could be true.....we need an investigation NOW!!! It seems all is being scrubbed and she is in danger.

Chanise Foxx, free republic, FreeRepublic.com, March7, 2010, I helped Obama campaign staffer Divorah Adler create a fake birth certificate, Fact Check, COLB

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/chanise-foxx-free-republic-freerepublic-com-march7-2010-i-helped-obama-campaign-staffer-divorah-adler-create-a-fake-birth-certificate-fact-check-colb/#comments

jayjay said...

Jackie Smith:

I wouldn't get too overly excited about the "CW/Foxx" bit of data at this point as it may very well be part of the "disruptor campaign" that we know is going on. Keep in mind, there are paid web wranglers in the DOJ now to do this very sort of thing.

Let's give it a bit of time and breathing room to see what transpires!!

Incredulous said...

Medical: They commented to your posting. The freeper site is very egalitarian, but that means the bots on there can and do attack (however you can also defend and slay them back as well).
In the NYT interview from 1990 Obama said he wanted to work in the community and not just be a "media creation" a term which I find very suspicious...also faculty and staff interviewed relate that he was "selected" (not elected) to be president of Harvard Law Review, and that it was contentious (grumbling muted comments from faculty/students) and that one professor commented in so many words that he didn't think Obama was up to it--and he published absolutely nothing (first and only in such a position not to).
I think a HUGE amount of money bought him that slot, and his diploma, and that though he "hung out" on campus somehow a bit more than at Columbia, that he never was a valid student there. For indeed he never went to Columbia, so since that was a fraudulent set-up, Harvard also had to be. And that forged photo, is just one of a litany of forged Obama history photos--and even one photoshop means none of them have any credibility. This one with the fake arm holding the baton is so badly done, it's obvious to even the untrained eye. But WHY...if he was installed in this position, he could have had a valid photo...if someone who had the position was paid off to trade, that could explain the forged photo. Someone knows, and yet again...we going to go to Eric Holder with it?

James said...

John Charlton from Posted Email is seeking a legal fund to bring suit against the Hawaii DOH to get access to Obama's records. I think this one of the strongest avenues to go. Given all the communications with DOH, I think John a pretty good case against DOH. He needs a lawyer who will take it by the horns.
http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/

Jackie Smith said...

jayjay.....I understand....but leave NO stone unturned.....also check out the following comment that was left at CW's.....this man has been to CW's in the past...I carried on a couple of conversations with him last year and saved them....he claims to have known that Obama is FRAUD.....his ex-wife's family is/was deeply involved in Chicago crime and knew about the FRAUD way back when....

Marty Didier // March 7, 2010 at 3:59 pm

I’ve personally known the truth about Obama NOT being a US citizen since the 90’s when the family I was in for more than 26 years worked directly with Obama as he setup their huge air distribution drug business in Florida. I was also told that the criminal system didn’t worry about him not being a US citizen because they could easily cover it up.
Mexico drug plane used for US ‘rendition’ flights: report Sep 4, 2008
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6QonBKKMo2gw1e3ql-xUcQEZbVg

Good article and I’ll be looking forward to meeting Chanise Foxx in the future. I too have been the target of endless harmful acts and murder attempts by a unique criminal system employing many others using love and sex to get into your inner circle.

Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL

Jackie Smith said...

jayjay....Info on Marty…..I saved this info a while back when I saw it at Orly’s site.

gladi8r wrote:
Dr. Orly,

I believe this is the same Martin Didier whom you seek. Below is a link to his divorce documents from Dec 2000 and also lists him as the president of Integrated Technologies. The document shows that his ex-wife received a substantial salary for several years and owns has ownership interest in several of her family’s businesses.

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/appellatecourt/2000/1stdistrict/December/WP/1992564.doc

Here’s the info on Integrated Technologies…

Integration Technologies Inc
(Iti)
1684 Holly Ave, Northbrook, IL 60062-5022

Contact Phone: (847) 272-2056
URL (web address):
Business Category: Computer Software Development & Consulting in Northbrook, IL
Industry (SIC): Computer Programming Services

Company Name: Integration Technologies Inc
Is This Your Company?
Address: 1684 Holly Ave, Northbrook, IL 60062-5022 (Map)
Alt Business Name: Iti
Location Type: Single Location
Est. Annual Sales: padlock icon View Details
Est. # of Employees: 1
Est. Empl. at Loc.: 1
Year Started: 1990
State of Incorp: IL
SIC #Code: View Details
Contact’s Name: Martin Didier
Contact’s Title: President
NAICS: Custom Computer Programming Services

http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_0014w8

Jackie Smith said...

Another post that Dider made at CW's back in Oct.2009....

• Marty Didier // October 28, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Good video! I’m happy to see this growing and want to add something important. While married in a family who are directly involved in laundering of criminal money for the CIA and it’s operatives since the later 70’s, they went into business with purchasing jet planes to smuggle huge amounts of Cocaine.
Meet the family:
Mexico drug plane used for US ‘rendition’ flights: report Sep 4, 2008

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6QonBKKMo2gw1e3ql-xUcQEZbVg

Please note the CIA link and realize they were involved in Rendition flights and shipping Black Market Nuclear Materials as well as Drugs. The family often bragged about being a CIA Asset that would protect them even it is involved murder. Someone needs to count how many there have been! Everyone will be amazed.
However the video talked about Obama’s Birth Certificate and it’s important to know that the attorney who assisted the family with setting up their new Drug Smuggling business in Florida was Obama while he worked as a lawyer for a law firm in Chicago. This Law Firm is known as a Shadow Government/Combine law firm that the family went to for help. Orly Taitz told me she found more than 130 properties with suspicious Soc#’s and names that look like Obama owns them. The family said that property is used as payment for services rendered.
BUT, the family talked about Obama and said he ISN’T a US CITIZEN! That the criminal system they are part of wasn’t worried because it could easily be covered up! The family said that Obam was considered a TEAMMEMBER and was to achieve high success for them in Politics. Nothing was discussed at that time with me to indicate they looked to him to be one of our Presidents however they said he would make it to possibly Congress.
Hence I would expect when more of the Drug system surfaces along with the family I was in, more proof about Obama will also surface and we’ll see the truth for a change.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL

Sheila said...

Mario and Charles has the oppostion filed their anwer yet?

James said...

Mario,

When DOJ files their opposition, please post. I'm sure you will immediately work on a reply. You should allow those on this board to contribute his or her legal expertise in filing the reply. Ultimately, you as the lawyer will have the final call on any of our contributions. The reply can be the "Peoples Reply"

medical said...

"Incredulous" : Let the silly obot buffoons attack what I have posted, they're attacking because they know I'm telling the truth. I choose not to post facts or corrections on blogs which are open to any petty or hateful false statements the obots care to fabricate. Posting on those blogs is exactly what they love to sucker us into doing - they'll just attack us and call us liars day after day, especially when they are well aware that we are 100% correct. I've seen one blog where the same old professional obots have posted more than five hundred off topic ad hominem comments in response to one truthful comment about the Usurper, not one of the five hundred contained even one pertinent fact. Obots are being trained and paid to post endless ad hominem attacks, propaganda, diversions, and obvious lies. On the other hand, we're simply publicly exposing the truth about the Usurper in a patriotic effort to save our nation. Playing into the liberal trap would only consume a great deal of time, which can be utilized for far more constructive purposes. When we post facts, the same very predictable crew of obots will suddenly gang up and post one ad hominem attack after another until they completely bury the truth and intentionally confuse the important issues beyond all recognition. We are in an all out battle to expose the absolute truth about the Usurper and we'll see to it that he is removed from the office which he is illegally occupying and I'll not waste my resources arguing with paid professional Marxist liars whose sworn objective is the total destruction of the United States of America. Constitutional issues which have such a serious direct effect upon our national security must be decided by unbiased courts of competent jurisdiction (if there are any left). I VERY seldom visit any liberal websites, reason number one is that I refuse to increase their visitor count, which also helps to prevent an increase in the value of the advertising they sell and reduces their economic power (look at "Air America", a lack of listeners bankrupted it). Reason number two is that I care not what liberals say, because everyone with good sense already knows they do nothing but tell one devious anti-American lie upon another. The Honorable Mario Apuzzo is the commanding General of our Army and he shall lead us to a stunning court victory! (2010 Elections = The end of the Democrats! I doubt the Usurper can even spell "Columbia" or "Harvard" without the aid of a teleprompter and a tutor!)

Incredulous said...

Medical:
Concur completely. Am frustrated over the standing issue.

The marxists are at war with us, no holds barred.

cfkerchner said...

Posted on behalf of "Fool Me Once".

Obama’s and Congress’s Opposition Brief Does Not Address the Kerchner Case But Rather Only a Self-Serving One Created by Themselves

Written - 10 March 2010
By: Fool Me Once

Posted in two parts. This is comment post I.

The present response by the defense in the Kerchner et al action genuinely reminds one of the above idiom in that the defense counsel had already used what amounts to the same response in their original efforts to subvert and destroy the U. S. Constitution. They apparently think that a repeat is in order and that since they originally misstated the complaint and fooled the original court into siding with them on all points they can once again fool the court with the same antics and the same basic response. No need at all to address the plethora of facts and citations raised in the ACTUAL action - and they certainly have not done so. They’ve totally ignored and not responded to any of them, but perhaps that’s because they realize they cannot do so in any valid (or ethical) fashion as the facts of the case do not favor the positioning they are attempting. Who was it that said:“If the law is on your side argue the law. If the facts are on your side argue the facts. If neither are on your side make something up.”? Indeed they have made something up ... and out of whole cloth to boot.

All the defense has done is to claim a set of issues and facts never stated in either the original Kerchner complaint nor in the Initial Appeals Brief. That, of course, makes their job childishly easy as they only have to respond to a “case” they themselves devised ... very much a legal straw man that they can demolish forthwith. The problem is that I can find no clauses in the Constitution that allow that sort of behavior on the part of either the Legislative nor of the Executive branches of our government (and, after all, the Department of Justice, although misnamed in this instance, is part of the Executive branch). I doubt even that any genuine legal ethics would allow that sort of shenanigan either.

The Italians having a Proverb:

“He that deceives me Once, it's his Fault; but Twice it is my fault.” To translate that into English for you non-Italian-speakers, the epigram reads as:

“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!!”

So we now have the “delicious” spectacle of attorneys well-paid by taxpayers’ money freely attempting to run roughshod over - and destroy - the very Constitution they took an Oath of Office to protect.. In their legal version of the Potemkin Village, they merely ignore the Plaintiffs’ works submitted to the court and proceed to outright lie about the issues and facts of those submissions. As most who have read those submissions know, the Kerchner et al action plainly states that Obama has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies. That is the key concept, is required by the black letter law of this country, and is COMPLETELY ignored by the defense response.

(continued in the next comment post as Part II)

cfkerchner said...

Posted on behalf of "Fool Me Once".

PART II of two parts.

Obama’s and Congress’s Opposition Brief Does Not Address the Kerchner Case But Rather Only a Self-Serving One Created by Themselves

Written - 10 March 2010
By: Fool Me Once

Posted in two parts. This is part II.

That’s not too difficult a concept to grasp - unless you wish not to. It is certainly much easier to warp that around into the lie of the Plaintiffs allege that “... Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States because he is not a “natural born citizen” ...” (and note they do NOT capitalize the word “citizen” as is done in the Constitution). There is a vast and manifestly meaningful difference between stating the obvious FACT as the Kerchner action does and the claimed ineligibility statement proffered by the defense team which claim appears nowhere in the mainline Kerchner actions. A lie isa lie isa lie as Gertrude Stein might have said.

Even more than that, the defense in the present attempt to mislead (fool, if you will) the court a second time, the tax-funded barristers see fit to throw in decisions and backgrounds of various other inapplicable cases they have participated in (where they obviously believe they “won” despite the fact that NONE were ever decided - or even heard - on merit and which do not in any event relate to the Kerchner facts and circumstances) also undoubtedly to try to push the court over the edge into unsound Constitutional reasoning and decisions. None of these citations offered by the defense are at all relevant to the Kerchner action and do nothing to show anything having to do with Obama’s eligibility.
The original judge took the bait - hook, line, and sinker but not all judges think alike and possibly some are not so easily led by the nose. We shall see if the word games, misdirection, and outright misstatement-of-contentions tactics of the DOJ manage to fool the court a second time as the old proverb says when it includes:

... Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me

Posted on behalf of "Fool Me Once".

CDR Kerchner
http://www.protectourliberty.com

Puzo1 said...

I of III

The categories of citizens that the Framers established in the Constitution is "natural born Citizen" and "citizen of the United States." With respect to citizenship, the Framers gave Congress only the power to "naturalize" persons to become "citizens of the United States." Hence, any person that is made a citizen by Congress that is not by the natural circumstances of his or her birth a "natural born Citizen" is necessarily a naturalized citizen and consequently a "citizen of the United States" but not a “natural born Citizen.”

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), the United States Supreme Court said that slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not members of American society even though born on United States soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Hence, the Court said that they were not “citizens of the United States.’ To correct that ruling, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. With this Act, Congress first declared what a "citizen of the United States" was. The Act declared citizens of the United States “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. Sec. 1992. Hence, this Act removed from citizenship any factor related to color, race, or past condition of servitude. Because of the controversial nature of the Act, Congress saw fit to introduce and have passed a constitutional amendment which would protect what the Act sought to accomplish from the political whims of future Congresses and state governments. We know that this Act became the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 310, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1879), in commenting upon what the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was, our U.S. Supreme Court said:

"Its aim was against discrimination because of race or color. As we have said more than once, its design was to protect an emancipated race, and to strike down all possible legal discriminations against those who belong to it. To quote further from 16 Wall., supra: 'In giving construction to any of these articles [amendments], it is necessary to keep the main purpose steadily in view.' 'It is so clearly a provision for that race and that emergency, that a strong case would be necessary for its application to any other.'"

Continued….

Puzo1 said...

II of III

The amendment was needed to remove any doubts regarding whether blacks could be United States citizens. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the United States community by making them United States citizens. The intent and purpose of the amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on United States soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It did not grant “natural born Citizen” status. The Amendment’s framers were familiar with how the Constitution in many places and the Naturalization Act of 1790 (used “natural born citizens”) and 1795 (changed the statute to read just “citizens of the United States”) distinguished between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen of the United States.” If the Amendment were to grant “natural born Citizen” status, it would have told us that a born citizen thereunder was a “natural born Citizen” and not only a “citizen of the United States.” It also would not have equated a born citizen thereunder to a naturalized citizen, for a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. Hence, the Amendment only confers “citizen of the United States” status, as that is the exact clause used by the Amendment itself and that is the same clause that appears in Articles I, II, III, IV and Amendments Eleven, Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, Twenty-Four, and Twenty-Six of the Constitution and in various Congressional Acts. It just conveys the status of “citizen of the United States,” and as we have also seen from how the First and Third Congresses handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen of the United States” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.” Indeed, both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) expressly told us that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not found in the Fourteenth Amendment or any other part of the Constitution but rather in the common law. The Supreme Court decided these cases after we adopted the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Court in both cases was asked to decide if the subject person was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Continued….

Puzo1 said...

III of III

The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens, “and nothing more.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 166, 22 L.Ed. 627, 21 Wall. 162 (1874). The Fourteenth Amendment gave the status of "citizen of the United States" to all those persons born in the United States or naturalized therein and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." As to born citizens, the Amendment was not needed to make anyone a "natural born Citizen," for that status was conferred upon a child by natural law and the law of nations. On the other hand, the Amendment was needed to clarify who may be a "citizen of the United States." Under the probable meaning of the Amendment, it simply removed race, color, and condition of servitude from the application of the natural law and law of nations definition of a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” As the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause is currently interpreted, which interpretation is questionable and highly debated, the Amendment went as far as to take Congress's power to "naturalize" a child born in the United States of parents who were not citizens (one parent or both not citizens or even legal residents) as expressed by it in the 1866 Act and constitutionalized the status of that child to a "citizen of the United States." Additionally, a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States" does not need to go through any formal naturalization process as does a person wanting to be a “citizen of the United States” but who was not born a "citizen of the United States" under any Congressional Act. This more liberal rule can be better understood when we consider that Vattel informed that England was an exception to the general rule for being born a native or indigenes, in that in England the “single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner,” Vattel, at Sec. 214.

What is important to understand when questioning Obama’s eligibility to be President is that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any Congressional Act necessarily makes one a "natural born Citizen." Rather, what their provisions create is at a maximum a born or naturalized "citizen of the United States" who are equal under the law. They do not create a "natural born Citizen." Since the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to mirror Congress’s 1866Act, the Amendment makes one a born citizen through the Constitution who under the 1866 Act would have been a born citizen by naturalization by Congress and by so doing it produced only a "citizen of the United States" and not a “natural born Citizen.” Since Congress had neither the power nor intent to make anyone a “natural born Citizen” under the 1866 Act and the Amendment merely followed the path of that Act, the Fourteenth Amendment also would not have made anyone a “natural born Citizen.” What this all means is that all "natural born citizens" are "citizens of the United States," but not all "citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens."

To have the special status of "natural born Citizen," a child needs to necessarily satisfy the birth conditions of that special status, i.e., born in the country to two citizen parents. These are two factors that occur naturally and need no law to be so recognized.

Puzo1 said...

I just left this comment as Dr. Conspiracy's blog:

"Greg,

You said: "Minor doesn’t speak of any “citizen of the United States” that could be born here, get their citizenship by being born here and yet not be a natural born citizen.

You cannot find a single court case to suggest such a thing."

My response: You are exactly correct. Justice Gray in Wong, by going back in time to before the adoption of the Constitution and applying the inapplicable English common law to defining national citizenship, created a person who could be a born "citizen of the United States" but not a "natural born Citizen."

You said: "In fact, since it’s an argument made often by white supremacists and tax-evaders, it has been explicitly considered and rejected by at least a dozen cases."

My response: Are you kidding me! The next thing I will see appear in your arguments is that I believe the earth is flat and that the moon landing was staged in a Hollywood studio.

You said: "(By the way, Justice Field’s view of citizenship – in re Look Ting Sing – adopted and extended by Gray, was the majority opinion in the circuits when Wong was decided. If Gray hadn’t been appointed, the decision might have been shorter, but there is no evidence to suggest it would have been different!)."

My response: First, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether the California Circuit Courts were correct. That necessarily required that the Court make an unbiased and ethical decision. The Court could have said the Circuit was wrong as it does in so many of its decision. Second, none of that changes that Chester Arthur, who was born in the country to alien parents, appointed Justice Gray to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Gray wrote the "leading" Supreme Court case on what is a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" in the context of the question of whether a child born in the United States of alien parents was a "citizen of the United States." Remember that the Government had argued that Wong was not a citizen. What does that mean? It means that our own Government necessarily argued that Chester Arthur also would not have been a “citizen of the United States.” What does that mean? It means that Chester Arthur was not eligible to be President. What does that mean? It means that Justice Gray was appointed by an ineligible President. Do you believe given those indisputable facts that it was appropriate for Justice Gray to sit with the Court in the Wong case let alone write the opinion which in the end made Justice Gray’s appointing President, Chester Arthur, a “citizen of the United States?'"

Puzo1 said...

I just left this comment as Dr. Conspiracy's blog:

"ballantine,

You said: “We are still waiting for you to point out any early authority that says the common law required citizen parents. Since we can’t find it, whoever Waite had in mind could not be very important.”

My response: I guess the United States Government including Congress in all its naturalization laws was wrong for all those years following the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 until Wong was decided in 1898 for believing that the law of nations controlled the meaning of national citizenship and that a child born in the country of alien parents was an alien and needed to naturalize.

You said: “Minor takes no poition on the only issue relevant to Obama and hence is not authority on the issue. Thus, any court following up on Minor would be instructed to look at basis of such doubts and examine what the true definition of the common law was. This is what Wong did in great detail.”

My response: Article II’s “grandfather clause pertaining to “citizen of the United States” is obsolete. Hence, Obama needs to show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Minor defined what a “natural born citizen” was. Wong did not define what a “natural born citizen” was but rather what a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” was. Clearly, Minor wins and Wong loses on the question of which case applies to Obama.

You said: “In the absense of helpful legislative history, the court would look to what the terms were understood to mean in the founding era. That is all Scalia ever cares about. Hence, if you cannot find anyone defining the term in such era in accordance with Vattel, you are done.”

My response: First and foremost, the text and structure of the Constitution supports my position and not yours. Second, I have weight and force of history on my side. You do not. You are trying to convince the world that the Founders used English common law to define national citizenship in the context of the American Revolution. Just the context of the American Revolution alone proves you wrong. Add to that the following: (1) evidence of what the political philosophy was during the Founding; (2) the intellectual content of the Founders learning; (3) the Founders’ warning of keeping foreign influence out of the new national government; (4) the Founders’ attachment to natural law and the law of nations as evidenced by virtually all of the Founders writings and speeches; (5) the Founders’ high esteem for Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, and especially Vattel; (6) citizenship being an international topic and not a mere domestic one; (7) the Founders’ rejection of English common law as a guide for the new national government; (8) what Thomas Jefferson told us in his Virginia citizenship statutes of 1779 and 1783; (9) all the early naturalization laws by Congress; (10) speeches and debates in various Congresses; (11) America’s historical rejection of dual allegiance; (12) the U.S. Supreme Court cases that defined a “natural born Citizen;” (13) the position always taken by the Federal Government up until the Wong case that children born in the country to alien parents were aliens and needed to naturalize; and (14) the national security reason for the “natural born Citizen” clause, which alone demands a stronger test of citizenship and not a weaker one for one who would aspire to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States.

Given this overwhelming evidence against your position, you and your supporters better keep praying that the court does not grant the Kerchner case standing."

MinutemanCDC_SC said...

I heartily agree except on one point: "Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States."

There is no evidence of his ever being a U.S. citizen.

He was born in Kenya, as testified by his paternal step-grandmother, Mama Sarah, his half-brother and half-sister in Kenya, Peter Ogego, Kenya's Ambassador to the U.S., numerous MP's in Kenya, many newspaper accounts in Africa and (until mid-2004) in the U.S., and a signed (though not properly embossed) long form birth certificate from Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya.

His father of record was never a U.S. citizen, and specifically, was not a U.S. citizen when Barack Obama II was born.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as in effect on his birthdate, required the U.S. citizen parent (of a foreign born child of an alien and a U.S. citizen) to be a resident of the U.S. for five years after the age of fourteen, that is, at least 19 years old, in order to confer his or her U.S. citizenship to the child. His mother of record was 18 years and 8½ months old when he was born.

Therefore, Barack Obama II was, at birth, a citizen of Kenya and a British Protected Subject, but not a U.S. citizen.

He has neither claimed nor even mentioned any subsequent U.S. naturalization, much less made public any record of U.S. naturalization.

He was not born a U.S. citizen, and if he was never naturalized a U.S. citizen, he is nothing more than an illegal alien and an unlawful squatter in the White House.

Geeze11 said...

Did anyone just note what happen with Rahm Emauel's ballot pursuit in the Chicago Mayor race? The IL Supreme Court overturn the Appeals Court... the IL Supreme Court simply ignored the current law of resisdency and same as said it did not matter... Rahm could run!

That is the case here! Everyone in power knows Obama is not U.S. Constitutionally eligibile to be POTUS but no one in power cares!

So the problem does not lie in further proving him "not natural born"... it lies in making people in power and in medai care!

They know the "natural born clause" is there, THEY KNOW OBAMA DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENT (JUST LIKE RAHM) they're simply saying it DOES NOT MATTER!

HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE IN POWER AND MEDIA TO CARE? THAT IS THE REAL QUESTION... THE REAL PROBLEM?

puzo1moderator said...

New animated video shows Obama explaining how he deceived the American electorate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0_LNLA9GY

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

cfkerchner said...

Obama’s Own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Admits America’s Founders and our Constitution were Inspired by the Ideas and Values of Emer de Vattel
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/obamas-own-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-admits-americas-founders-and-our-constitution-were-inspired-by-the-ideas-and-values-of-emer-de-vattel-birtherreport-com/

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org

Robin Stazak said...

Minor V. Happersett is not a precedent setting case for fully determining the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen of Article 2.

That court did not fully solve the issue of a person born in the jurisdiction of the U.S. but not of citizen parents being considered a "Natural Born Citizen". It said that there were more than one class present in the issue and that there was no doubt to ONE of those classes. They did not attempt to solve the other class because it was irrelevant to the case at hand. Because that class was not solved it can not therefore serve as precedent to the issue of determining, defining or solving whether "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents" is considered a Natural Born Citizen.

This is revealed in the 9th paragraph of that court's opinion which was written by the chief justice:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

Robin Stazak said...

Minor V. Happersett is not a precedent setting case for fully determining the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen of Article 2.

That court did not fully solve the issue of a person born in the jurisdiction of the U.S. but not of citizen parents being considered a "Natural Born Citizen". It said that there were more than one class present in the issue and that there was no doubt to ONE of those classes. They did not attempt to solve the other class because it was irrelevant to the case at hand. Because that class was not solved it can not therefore serve as precedent to the issue of determining, defining or solving whether "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents" is considered a Natural Born Citizen.

This is revealed in the 9th paragraph of that court's opinion which was written by the chief justice:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

Puzo1 said...

Robin Stazak,

The doubts in Minor were about being a "citizen," not a "natural-born citizen." The Court told us that there were no doubts about who was a "natural-born citizen."

Mike said...

The framers of the 14th Amendment in 1866, did define what is a "natural born citizen" of the United States. In there discussions they determine that jus solis (born on the land,) was inadequate, and that jus sanguinis (born of the blood) was the appropriate means to determine the citizenship of any person, also known as the law of nations.

As is provide for by Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee stated, "Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

In is much as Barack Obama, Sr. the currently established father of Barack Hussein Obama, was as described by Mr. Wilson, a temporary sojourner, who was only visiting the United States, and never applied for citizenship, was a citizen of Kenya, and ergo, a British subject, by Mr. Wilson's description, Barack Hussein Obama, is by birth a subject of the British Empire, and not a "natural born citizen" of the United States of America, and is therfore, ineligible to seek, let alone occupy the office of President of the United States, under the qualifications set forth in Article 11, Section 1, Paragraph 4, of said Constitution.

This however, would also excluded Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, as eligible for the Office of President, as Senator Cruz's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth in Canada, and nor was the father of Marco Rubio, who became a naturalized citizen in 2005.

To further this, the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment would also exclude Mitt Romney from the office of President of the United States, in that, in as much as his grandparents, rescinded their U.S. Citizenship, when they moved to Mexico, where Mr. Romney's father George, was born, making him a Mexican citizen by birth, who was never naturalized upon his return to U.S. soil, Mitt Romney, is also by birth, a Mexican citizen.

When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.

Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.

I acquired this information from another blog, and can be read here:
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/