Friday, March 26, 2010

Obamacare and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

Some might wonder what does health care and the “natural born Citizen” clause have to do with each other. The answer is the survival of our Constitution and Republic by stopping the usurpation of government power.

In the context of speaking about slavery that existed during the Founding era, Obama told us that the Constitution is an “imperfect document.” It has now become apparent that the flaw that Obama sees with our governing document is much more fundamental and goes well beyond what he said related to the early slave experience. For Obama, that flaw is that the Constitution is obligatory, is a strong check on government power, and cannot be changed by just one person.

We have seen Obama brazenly ignore the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the highest and most powerful office in the land, the Office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We have seen how Obama has the audacity to be President and Commander without honoring and respecting the Constitution by showing that he is at least born in Hawaii as he claims and satisfying the definition of a “natural born Citizen” as originally intended by the Framers and Founders. That is a violation of the document he swore twice to “preserve, protect and defend.”

Such conduct by Obama lead many to ask if Obama does not respect and defend the Constitution and so publicly defies it once, what will stop him from doing the same a second and third time. These Americans were right in expressing such concern, for now we have Obamacare which is just another example of Obama flouting and ignoring the Constitution.

Now he wants to force upon the nation a health care system under the guise that the Federal Government can do so because that system does nothing more than regulate interstate commerce. Additionally, he wants to accomplish his plan without even adhering to legitimate legislative process. How he can honestly believe that a person who does not buy a good or service (such as health insurance) or who the government compels to do so under the threat of a camouflaged income tax is engaged in interstate commerce or gives the government the right to interfere in such personal decisions based on some other constitutional provision defies reason and common sense. Treating people’s refusal to buy health insurance as interstate commerce or triggering some other constitutional governmental power would in effect give Congress unlimited authority to control every aspect of people’s lives. When something defies logic, we have to ask ourselves what is the real motive involved. Upon close circumspection we can see that Obama’s health care plan is nothing more than the government taking more money from productive members of society and giving it to those who need money but do not have it for various reasons, with the central government in the process usurping great powers and control over the people’s lives including but not limited to violating their privacy rights over their own bodies, their medical and financial privacy, their right to decide how much medical care one needs, their right to free speech and association, their right to exercise their religion, doctors’ right to earn a living as they see fit, their right not to be illegally taxed, and their right to make end-of-life decisions. This is nothing but Obama and his Congress declaring a socialist revolution upon the American people and attempting to sneak that revolution right by them by dressing the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

There exists proof in the form of Obama’s own words that his health insurance plan is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth which the government has no power to do under our Constitution. Obama made some appearances as a guest on Odyssey, a talk show at Chicago Public Radio. Obama, then a State Senator and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, was on the program 3 times between 1998 and 2002. Here is an excerpt from the call-in segment for the Slavery and the Constitution show that aired in September of 2001. Here is the transcript from 2001 as posted at Free Republic at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2116060/posts:

“MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

“OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.”

Indeed, there we have it in Obama’s own words. There is little doubt that Obamacare is nothing more than Obama’s means of achieving what he perceives to be “political and economic justice in this society” by using “redistribution of wealth.” He even concedes that redistribution of wealth is a “radical” idea. He admits that the Warren court could not achieve such “political and economic justice” because it could not break free from the “essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.” And here is the real flaw that Obama sees with the Constitution: “it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

We can see that Obama does not accept that the Tenth Amendment says that whatever powers the Constitution does not give to the federal government or prohibit to the States is reserved to the States or the people. What is it that Obama wants the government to do “on your behalf?” One can only wonder why Obama believes that a government must do some unspecified thing for people. Is it love of power and control over people that compels him to harbor such ideas? We can see that Obama realizes that my right to sit at the lunch counter is freedom “as long as I could pay for it.” Hence, comes his plan to redistribute wealth. Obama admits that such radical change has not yet been accomplished through the courts. He also does not accept the “essential constraints” the Founders and Framers wrote into the Constitution. Hence, he offers a plan on how to get around those limitations. He tells us that such radical change must be accomplished through “political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change.” So there you have it very loud and clear. Obama admits that the Constitution does not allow him to engage in any such “redistribution of wealth” and that the Courts have never gone as far to permit it. But his plan is to accomplish it by changing the political structure of America which would give him the power to accomplish what is currently unconstitutional. Obama’s fear of the courts is evidenced from provisions that provide that no company can sue the government for price fixing and there will be no judicial review of government monopoly of health care. Of course, Obama’s plan necessarily includes also changing the current make-up of our courts. Maybe this is the “change” that he had in mind when he said that if he won the Presidency he was going to “change” America.

Obama has totally ignored the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the highest and most powerful office in the land, the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The problem with that violation is that we have a person sitting in the President’s and Commander’s seat who is not eligible to be there. Practically speaking, that is a grave national security matter that puts America at risk not only from attack from enemies both foreign and domestic but as we can see also threatens America’s basic political institutions and freedoms. I believe it is a fair question to ask whether we would have an attack on America’s fundamental political, social, and economic institutions from a President who was a “natural born Citizen?” The Founders and Framers included the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution believing that it would give America a better chance of avoiding such a person coming to power. The remedy for such usurpation is to immediately remove Obama from office and to secure that office with a replacement, all consistent with constitutional procedure.

During the Revolution, the People risked their lives, fortunes, and honor to earn the right to decide what powers they wanted to give to any national government that they would eventually constitute for the purpose of protecting themselves. The People drafted and ratified the Constitution as their written expression of their decision in that regard. Now through his new government-run health care system, Obama flouts the will of the People as expressed in the Constitution that the federal government stay out of the private affairs of the People. Obama and his Congress have now assumed powers that the Constitution does not give to the central government but rather leaves in the hands of the People and the States under the Tenth Amendment. And we have seen through Obama’s own words, that he knows that what he is attempting to accomplish is unconstitutional but he will nevertheless force it through by utilizing “political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change.”

Practically speaking, such usurpation is a government attempt at nationalizing over one-sixth (and probably even more once we learn by experience what the full impact of his plan really is) of the private economy. Add to that government ownership of some banks, auto makers, and insurance companies, and we have a very serious assault upon the free enterprise system and the American way of life. Thomas Jefferson told us that “[w]hensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force” and that "nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." Thomas Jefferson, November 16, 1798, Kentucky Resolution at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj080201)).

Jefferson also warned against construing the "necessary and proper" clause so broadly as to justify the assumption of undelegated powers by the general government. He said that the intent of the clause was to only enable the execution of limited powers, not to indefinitely extend the general government's scope. If a broader interpretation were to be given to the clause, this part of the Constitution would be used "to destroy the whole residue of that instrument." Jefferson also counseled the states to be vigilant against violations of the Constitution and not hesitant to attack unconstitutional measures by Congress or the President. He continued: "[F]ree government is founded in jealously and not in confidence" and therefore urged that "no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." In other words, the states and the People should not trust federal officials with non-constitutional powers simply because those officials might be otherwise trusted to exercise those powers benevolently. He warned that this kind of "confidence of man" leads to the destruction of free government. The next question we should ask ourselves is what other assaults upon the Constitution can we expect from Obama and his Congress? Let us keep open our ears and eyes. Let our great States follow Jefferson’s wisdom and protect our freedoms.

The Kerchner et al. v. Obama & Congress et al. case, which challenges both Obama and Congress over Obama having usurped the Office of President and Commander in Chief, is currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and is awaiting the Court’s decision on plaintiffs’ request for oral argument. Many States and private persons have recently filed lawsuits over Obama’s new national health care plan. It is hoped that the People closely monitor the progress of these law suits as they make their way through the courts and that they make themselves publicly heard on the matter.

This leads me to my final point. We the People need to understand that Obama will surely attempt to change the composition of or influence our judicial branch of government so that he can accomplish his unconstitutional ends. Now we can clearly see how important judicial appointments and an independent judiciary are to the survival of our Constitution and Republic and the freedoms we individuals all enjoy.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 26, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

23 comments:

William said...

Mario, you mention in part: ..“Upon close circumspection we can see that Obama’s health care plan is nothing more than the government taking more money from productive members of society and giving it to those who need money but do not have it for various reasons……”

Anyone that has ever studied the Democrat party, it’s history and transformation, whether they call themselves Progressives, Liberals, Socialist Democrats or whatever new catch phase they wish to use (all the same party), knows that this party has always stood for Slavery. Today, built from their recent loss fighting against the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, democrats have merely changed the demonizing word “Slavery” to “Redistribution of Wealth”.

Let’s look at what the great African-American slave Federick Douglass and Advisor to President Abraham Lincoln, stated about his personal experience as a slave or also known as Quasi-slave in his personal memoirs: .. “As a Baltimore ship's caulker I was to be allowed all my time; to make bargains for work; to find my own employment, and to collect my own wages; and in return for this liberty, I was … to pay him (Douglass' master) three dollars at the end of each week, and to board and clothe myself, and buy my own caulking tools."

Apparently, I and many other American Citizens have the Identical situation as Federick Douglass had in the past. Taking the fruits of labor from one person and given it to another person whom did not earn it, is both Slavery and Redistribution of Wealth. One word is simply despicable while the other is polictal correctness.

William said...

Mario (or anyone else)
Here is a link to the legal analysis of why the Health Care mandate is Unconstitutional and cites the cases related. You may have already reviewed this, if not I believe you will find it of interest. (you may have to copy and paste it into your browser)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/Why-the-Personal-Mandate-to-Buy-Health-Insurance-Is-Unprecedented-and-Unconstitutional

Incredulous said...

I agree with William. Detroit is the post-modern American Democrat plantation prototype, with wealth redistribution amounting to a permanent thug elite and oppressed classes with no productivity and an oppressed state beyond all levels of imagination.
Obamacare is the largest executive branch power grab in US history, and it obliterates by overweighting, the fine balances between the executive, judiciary and legislative branches.
When many of the ambivalent Dems who'd sought single payer were taken to the back rooms where deals are made, Charles Krauthammer said they were probably told that the fascist takeover of the entire healthcare industry WAS single payer, for they cannot move without the government's approval.
The truth is that the Democrats have always stood for slavery, not against it. The Democrats fought to keep slavery. Lincoln was a Republican. The KKK was the Democrats' terror arm to end reconstructionism post civil-war. The KKK murdered, in fact tortured and then murdered over 1,000 WHITE Republican reconstructionists and over 2,000 black Republican reconstructionists. Over 600,000 Americans perished in this war, and the price has been paid and then some. The Democrats started Jim Crow Laws. It was Eisenhauer who forwarded civil rights more than any other president. MLK was a Republican which was the party of historical origin for American blacks, and many are returning to their real roots. The Democrats simply replace 100 years of terrorism for 50 years of tokenism to STILL control those persons, the oppressed classes, for their own profits and powers.
Now we see the disbanding of ACORN, which is to be predicted as the "Mexislaves" will be the Democrats new class to manipulate for their own gain, and in so doing thieve from the American people AND the worker Mexicans.
Today, a South Korean ship was sunk by the North. The military will be abandoned slowly but surely by Obama, who like Il is a communist. To be a US soldier sitting on the North-South border right now, must be about the worst position in the world.
Those people in the media, shame on you. Take the risk and do the right thing, to hell with your "job" when the entire country will implode.
Lou Dobbs needs to start a radio talk show on the internet and smash the big guns, he has the pull, and he's seen the light.

Dixhistory said...

Mario,
DixHistory
would like your opinion on what happens if your legal action makes it to the SCOTUS.

Will any Judge appointed by Citizen (?) Obama including any SCOTUS be required to excuse themselves or not?

Sonny Perdue - Governor of Georgia?: has said he will bring legal action in the Health Care issue because it mandates a person to buy insurance. This is not the same issue that most other states are using.

They claim cost where as our Governor is using the proper issue of a limited US Federal Government.

Way to go Sonny, to bad our AG Mr. Baker who will be seeking the Governor's office, wouldn't do the same thing.

BTW..I have added ID for commets on my web page.

Brianroy said...

Lawsuits against the Healthcare Legislation are going up around the nation. The Thomas More Center in Michigan, the American Center for Law & Justice in D.C., et al., including and some 13 or 14 State Attorney Generals. The Achilles Heel to Obama is to utilize the Article III standing to oust and reverse his entire Administration and everything Obama signed or Executive ordered, and everyone Obama hired. This is a Constitutional action on the part of we the people. The goal is to uphold the Republic of these United States of America, to properly protect and represent (not victimize) "we the people", and to protect the US Constitution, and the rights and laws appertaining thereto.

We all need to use the argument that Obama is Constitutionally unqualified and unfit for the Presidency via Constitutional Article 2.1's "Natural Born Clause" while we have the Courts to do it with.

I liked the linked quote where the Resoultion was: "I. RESOLVED, that the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution, for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force:..."

"II...that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,"

VII. Resolved, that the construction applied by the General Government (as is evinced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence, and general welfare of the United States, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any department thereof, goes to the destruction of all the limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution--That words meant by that instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of the limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part so to be taken, as to destroy the whole residue of the instrument: That the proceedings of the General Government under colour of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject for revisal and correction at a time of greater tranquility, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress."

Thank's for quoting and linking Jefferson, and utilizing the unConstitutional Healthcare Legislation as part of your amended filing (if I understand your article and intent correctly). Thanks.

Puzo1 said...

Dixhistory,

I do not honestly see how any judge appointed by Obama could decide the question of whether he is eligible for the office he holds. If he is not eligible, then the legality of the judicial appointment itself is put into doubt. Such a scenario clearly presents a conflict of interest for any such judge.

William said...

My suggestion Dixhistory is to question the support of the next presidential candidate upon whom they would select as a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court if elected; and give them the name Mario Apuzzo as the only means to support such presidential candidate. One of which we truly know will uphold the U.S. Constitution as a Supreme Court Justice.

medical said...

May God help us all, everything is spinning out of control, plus logic and common sense are nowhere to be found in Washington.

avodlp said...

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

Dixhistory said...

William, I agree and will do that.

Just hope we have a better choice to choose from in the next presidential election cycle.

William said...
My suggestion Dixhistory is to question the support of the next presidential candidate upon whom they would select as a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court if elected; and give them the name Mario Apuzzoas the only means to support such presidential candidate. One of which we truly know will uphold the U.S. Constitution as a Supreme Court Justice.

Puzo1 said...

Before Obama and his Congressional supporters can impose their radical and unprecedented ideology upon Americans, they have to follow the dictates of the Constitution. That means that they have to first deal with the force and power of America, We the People. Let's see who is going to win this battle over the Constitution, Obama or the Rest of America who does not support his radical attempt to transform free enterprise into socialism/communism/marxism. Since Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," I think he either forgot or is oblivious to the fact that he is messing with America and not some other part of the world.

Giving Obama a chance to be President is one thing, but letting him destroy what Americans throughout history sacrificed so much and worked so hard to make is something completely different. Maybe Obama missed that lesson, too, but he will soon learn We the People did not.

jayjay said...

Mario:

An excellent observation about the battle going on with We The People on one side and two of the branches of Government on the other ... or is it all three of the branches???

We'll soon know, I think, with the Appeals Court ruling.

James said...

I hope you able to get Oral Argument. Without Oral Argument, I am not too optamistic about you winning. Your Oral Argument is the saving grace that will win your case.

rocketfett said...

God Bless. Wish there was something I could do to help. I'm full of anger and frustration at what this foreign born lying piece of trash is doing to this country. The Constitution means nothing to him, and everything to us, so if people don't man up in November, we're all going to lose something we can't get back. Obama should be recalled, and then deported. He's an illegal immigrant holding the highest office in the land against the express language of the Constitution. Period. If LAW means anything, he has to go.

Benaiah said...

Demand issued to Nevada Governor for proof of Obama’s Eligibility
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/28/demand-issued-to-nevada-governor-for-proof-of-obamas-eligibility/comment-page-1/#comment-6708

GINO DISIMONE, INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE FOR NEVADA GOVERNOR, DEMANDS THAT GOVERNOR JIM GIBBONS “IMMEDIATELY TAKE ACTION” TO DETERMINE OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT

by Sharon Rondeau

(Mar. 28, 2010) — The following letter has been sent to Governor Jim Gibbons of Nevada and submitted to The Post & Email for publication unedited:

Mr. Eugene “Gino” DiSimone
Candidate, Governor of Nevada 2010
17810 Thunder River Dr.
Reno, NV 89508

March 27, 2010

Mr. James A. Gibbons
GovernorState of Nevada
101 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701

Dear Governor Gibbons:

I adjure you, nay, I require you, as the duly elected Governor of my State exercising the duty of Commander in Chief of Nevada, to immediately take action to protect my freedom, liberty, property and wealth, as your duty utterly requires. To this end I require you file a legal challenge, Quo Warranto (D.C. Statute 35 §16-3501), on the authority of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO requiring proof that he is eligible to be President of the United States of America, and he has the constitutional authority to act as President of the United States and to execute the Health Care Bill. This Bill is a direct threat to my freedom, liberty, wealth and property. It threatens nearly every citizen of Nevada and nearly every business of Nevada as it will forcefully extract, under duress, my/our wealth and property. This is an acute direct security threat and I require swift aggressive intervention for assurances of security from my Commander in Chief of this great State of Nevada.

By virtue of this acute security threat to me and Nevada citizenry and businesses, as Commander in Chief, it is your solemn sworn duty to protect me/us from acute security threats, particularly threats to my freedoms, liberties, health, wealth and property. To this end I demand you exercise your sworn duty to protect us with expediency as follows:

[...]

Sincerely,

Gino DiSimone
1-775-544-2765

jayjay said...

Beniah:

... and the rest of Gino Simone's letter to the NV Governor is very much worth reading, too. Everyone should to see how stirred up the states are getting.

The Stacker said...

We've been saying this for months/years. Are things changing? I am not impatient I just want to know if the usurper is going to be outed some time in 2010 or early '11

United Natural Born Citizens said...

I am contacting you in hopes of finding you at a place and time that would allow you to consider the current status of my efforts and offer a bit of direction as I advance the cause.

I had applied with the USCIS on an N-600 form; Certification of Citizenship specifying my desire to be acknowledged as an NBC based on my birth circumstances including appropriate documentation. I based my believe that they had/have the authority to do so on the USCIS publication, ‘The Citizens Almanac’, M-76 and specifically the following paragraph found on page 4 of the ‘almanac’;

* Right to run for elected office.

U.S. citizenship is required for many elected offices in this country.
Naturalized U.S. citizens can run for any elected office they choose with the exception of President and Vice President of the United States, which require candidates to be native-born citizens.


The application was denied with the ‘decision’ stating that it having been determined by my BC that I was born a ‘citizen’ that they ‘NEED DO NO MORE’.

At this writing I am awaiting response from the AAO,(Administrative Appeals Office) and I am also awaiting response on a FOIA Request as to all information surrounding the publication of the identified paragraph in the ‘almanac’.

The ‘appeal’ was short and brief with the following providing as reasoning for my assertion that the Certification of Citizenship as requested should be granted;

“…Although an idiom used in M-76, ‘The Citizens Almanac’, is not found anywhere in the Constitution and may or may not be consistent with the circumstances intended by the Constitution it remains clear in reading and intent of the statement that the USCIS, under authority of the DHS, has assumed the ability and authority to determine, insofar as citizenship eligibility is concerned, who may and/or may not be a 'qualified/eligible citizen' for the purpose of obtaining to the offices of President and/or Vice President of the United States of America.

Therefore I renew my request for certification as a citizen Constitutionally eligible for the offices of President and or Vice President insofar as the subject of citizenship is concerned, that of being a (American) Natural Born Citizen.”

I fully expect the AAO to ‘punt’ my appeal down the road and this is where I am looking for a '‘hint, direction and/or guidance'’.

You may recall I am on ‘remand’ to the USDC Okla. from the USCA 10th.

I am having trouble determining if it is allowable to go directly to the USCA to appeal a Guv’mnt agencies decision or is it back to the USDC as Court of original Jurisdiction?

Any thoughts you may find time to offer will be greatly appreciated.

In all cases, my best wishes to and for you remain true.

Respectfully,

Slcraigre@aol.com

Puzo1 said...

United Natural Born Citizens,

"Should a petition or application be denied or revoked by the USCIS, in most cases you may appeal that decision to a higher authority. The USCIS's Administrative Appeals Office ("AAO") has jurisdiction over 40 petitions and applications. If you receive a denial notice, it will advise you of your right to appeal, the correct appellate jurisdiction (AAO or Board of Immigration Appeals, or "BIA"), and provide you with the appropriate appeal form and time limit. There are strict deadlines that must be met to properly file an appeal. The appeal must be filed with the correct fee at the office that made the original decision. You may file a "brief" (a written explanation) in support of the appeal. After review, the appellate authority may 1) agree with you and change the original decision, 2) disagree with you and affirm the original decision, or 3) send the matter back to the original office for further action.

"In addition to the right to appeal (in which you ask a higher authority to review a denial), you may file a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider with the office that made the unfavorable decision. By filing these motions, you may ask the office to reexamine or reconsider its decision. A motion to reopen must state the new facts that are to be provided in the reopened proceeding and must be accompanied by affidavits or other documentary evidence. A motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, and further establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the file at the time the decision was made. Any motion to reopen or reconsider must be filed with the correct fee within 30 days of the decision."

"You should review the Form I-292 or notice of denial that accompanied the adverse decision to determine whether you may appeal the denial of your petition or application. The decision will inform you of the proper appellate jurisdiction and provide you with the correct form.

"If you desire to appeal the denial of a petition or application, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of the decision. If you receive the decision by mail, you must file the appeal within 33 days of the date of the decision. If you wish to appeal the revocation of an approved immigrant petition, you must file the appeal within 15 days of the date of the decision, or within 18 days of the date of the decision if the decision is received by mail."

***

"If the Administrative Appeals Office has jurisdiction over the decision, the notice of appeal must be filed on Form I-290B (Notice of Appeal to the Administrative Appeal Office). The appeal must be filed with the office that made the original decision. A brief (explanation) may be filed in support of your appeal. The fee must be included, but you may request a fee waiver from the USCIS."

http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-visa/immigration-visa-appeals.html.

You can find a PDF version of the instructions on filing a Form I-290B at http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-290binstr.pdf

You can challenge an AAO denial of an I-290B appeal in federal district court. An AAO denial decision is considered to have exhausted all administrative remedies, a requirement for a federal district court challenge. The challenge in a federal district court of an AAO denial is significantly more costly and involved than an AAO appeal.

An appeal of the Federal District Court decision would then go to a Circuit Court of Appeals.

Good luck!

United Natural Born Citizens said...

Puzo1 said... Re: United Natural Born Citizens

"...You can challenge an AAO denial of an I-290B appeal in federal district court. An AAO denial decision is considered to have exhausted all administrative remedies, a requirement for a federal district court challenge. The challenge in a federal district court of an AAO denial is significantly more costly and involved than an AAO appeal."


Thanks for clarifying for me where I need look once the determination is made by the AAO on my 290b Appeal that they are now considering.

I will be relying on the previous grant of 'In Forma Pauperis' status at the USDC where the case resides on REMAND from the USCA 10th.

Assuming the Appeal to the AAO affirms the Decision of the ‘USCIS Field Office’ and I am denied a Certification of Citizenship with the requested designation of an ‘natural born citizen’ I believe that will constitute a ‘specific and individualized harm’ providing satisfaction to the ‘standing’ concern of the Courts and will file a Motion for ‘Leave of the Court’ to file a ‘Companion Case’ under the Rules of the Court on Remand that will renew my demand that a determination be made as to the Constitutional definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in light of the fact that Article II Section I Clause V has not been Amended by any words or words that require it.

The FOIA request regarding the subject paragraph in the Citizens Almanac is now at 109 having started on Track Two at 6 thousand plus in October.

The number you entered is: NRC2009064630

Your request is currently number 109 of 2848 pending requests in Track One.

Date received: 11/13/2009

Check performed on 03/29/2010 07:53:35 AM EDT
Status Information is current as of: 03/28/2010

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.8d416137d08f80a2b1935610748191a0/?vgnextoid=f3a2ba87c7a29110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f3a2ba87c7a29110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD\

Its progress can be followed here.

jayjay said...

United Natural Born Citizens:

Keep in mind that none of the groups/agencies/or other bodies you've mentioned are in a position to override the black letter law of the United States Constitution with respect to the interpretation of "natural born Citizen" as used in the Constitution.

Not even Congress may do that (although they've tried on different occasions). You might talk with Chiome Fukino a state government functionary in HI as she seems to believe she has the legal right to pronounce certain unnamed persons as such. Perhaps an offer of a few bucks under the table, or some promise of political high office would do the trick.

What the hey ... worth a try and it may even have been done before.

United Natural Born Citizens said...

jayjay said...

"...Keep in mind that none of the groups/agencies/or other bodies you've mentioned are in a position to override the black letter law of the United States Constitution with respect to the interpretation of "natural born Citizen" as used in the Constitution."

That is why I have mentioned the Citizens Almanac by the USCIS....
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-76.pdf

which states on pg 4;

* Right to run for elected office.

U.S. citizenship is required for many elected offices in this country.
Naturalized U.S. citizens can run for any elected office they choose with the exception of President and Vice President of the United States, which require candidates to be native-born citizens.

So it appears that while you are technically correct, 'Public Policy' is being used to circumvent the requirements of A2S1C5.

I pray that I am up to the task of confronting the Courts this time with 'standing' being satisfied and the 'illegality' of the 'Public Policy' being the 'actual harm' depriving me acknowledgment of my Constitutional form of Citizenship, equal in all ways to all other forms of Citizenship, save one.

jayjay said...

United Natural Born Citizens:

I don't think it's so much "public policy" so much as "political cowardice and expediency" that is being used to ignore (for now) the Constitution.

Keep in mind, the Federal Court system (including SCOTUS) is by long-standing law and precedence the check and balance to the other two mischevious branches and until this third branch does its job in its slow, plodding fashion we will not know whether or not we still have an effective Constitution.

My bet is that we do - and I see many others who believe this also. The present Appeals Court decision on Kerchner et al will be one indicator but the final one will be the SCOTUS decision since this case is clearly headed there.

The Citizens' Almanac also had this information:

"Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “The only title in our democracy
superior to that of President [is] the title of
citizen.”

In the United States, the power of
government comes directly from people like you and I via a written contract called the United States Constitution. To protect freedom and liberty, U.S. citizens
must participate in the democratic process and in their communities.

This means not only vote in elections, but make your concerns and objections known to the politicians - and if they don't "lissen up" ... get rid of them for some who do. For starters in a simple way you can log on to www.protectourliberty.org and use the "Donate" button to kick in, say, $10 or $20 to help the contunuing public education of others about the eligibility issue that the Kerchner et al action has brought to the forefront.

Another thing that might help give you more confidence it to read the original Kerchner complaint as well as the more recent Initial Appeals Brief.