Tuesday, June 1, 2010

On Obama’s Eligibility to be President, Who Is Protecting the Constitution and the Nation, the “Birthers” or Obama and His Enablers?

First, some of our founding principles:

“A Constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and government without a constitution is power without a right.” Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, Part the Second, Chapter IV, Of Constitutions (1792).

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." John Adams.

"If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great Security." Samuel Adams

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln.

With these time-honored principles in mind, let us now examine who is protecting the Constitution and the Nation, the “birthers” or Obama and his enablers. Let us review why the "birthers" maintain that Obama is ineligible to be President and by usurping that office is subverting the Constitution and presents a grave and present danger to our Nation. They make a two-part argument.

First, the "birthers" argue that Obama does not meet the original and only doubt-free, definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" which, apart that it is the only definition that best serves the national security interests of the United States, has been confirmed by religious and secular history, founding era evidence, U.S. Supreme Court cases, Congressional Acts, and many notable international and constitutional law scholars. That definition is that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born in the country (or its equivalent) to U.S. citizen parents (mother and father). Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 first edition which was written in French; 1759 first edition written in English). They argue that this, and not the English common law definition of a “natural born subject,” is the only definition of a “natural born Citizen” which, like the 35-years of age and 14-years of residency requirements, creates no doubts as to its meaning, and therefore would have been the only definition the Framers would have adopted when establishing the presidential eligibility standards in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. They argue that under the British Nationality Act 1948, when Obama was born in 1961, Obama’s father, who was born in the then-British colony of Kenya, was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was also born a British subject/citizen by inheriting that allegiance by descent from his father. Hence, because he is missing one of two U.S. citizen parents at birth, through his father, who never became a U.S. citizen or even a U.S. legal permanent resident, and through himself, Obama was born with as much natural allegiance to Great Britain which at age 2 converted to Kenyan as he was born with to the United States (if he was born in Hawaii). Hence, being born without unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States and rather with conflicting natural allegiance to Great Britain and then to Kenya, there is no way that Obama can be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and the President and Commander in Chief of its military.

Second, the “birthers” argue that Obama, who unjustifiably refuses to satisfy his burden of proof and present to the public his readily available 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate and his education, work, and travel documents, has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. Hence, presumably not being born in the United States and not being able to resort to any Congressional Act to make him a “citizen of the United States” let alone a “natural born Citizen,” Obama cannot be President.

How do Obama's enablers respond? Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 itself distinguishes between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and commands that today only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. But Obama’s enablers just forget about all that and argue that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” was finally clarified in 1898 (only 120 years after the Constitution was adopted) by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, despite previous Supreme Court cases defining it as Vattel did in 1758 and despite that the Wong Court was only asked the question of whether Wong was a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. They say, although without providing sufficient evidence thereof, that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is therefore a Wong Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." Then they take the Obama Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” and, with a quantum leap in logic and without any support from anything stated in the Wong majority decision, and despite the Wong majority confirming the same Vattelian original and only definition of a “natural born Citizen” which it recognized to be a different class of citizen from a “citizen of the United States,” equate him to an Article II "natural born Citizen." They justify their twisted reading of the Wong decision and the Fourteenth Amendment by arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment amended Article II's "natural born Citizen" clause which in effect would mean that it amended the Presidential eligibility requirements of the U.S. Constitution to say that anyone who is a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is also an Article II “natural born Citizen.” They do all this by arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment amended Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause even though the Constitution tells us in Article V how to amend it which does not include amending it by stealth, implication, and without notice to and vote by the People via ratification by 3/4th of the several states. 

On Obama's place of birth, despite that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Twentieth Amendment provide that a would-be President before qualifying for the Office of President must, among other things, show that he or she is a "natural born Citizen," they argue that it is up to those who question his place of birth to prove he was not born in Hawaii rather than up to Obama to prove that he was in fact born there. They have the face to make this argument even though they enable Obama to refuse to release to the public his 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate and education, work, and travel documents, they let him get away with not being otherwise transparent with the public, and they confuse the American people by telling them Obama has released his original birth certificate when in fact the only thing he did was release an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth, aka COLB, (which does not provide the name of the birth hospital, the delivering doctor, and other corroborating information) by posting a questionable image of it on the internet in 2008. Finally, on the question of whether their definition of a “natural born Citizen” provides the same national security for the American people and the Nation as does the birthers’ definition of the clause, Obama’s enablers will hear none of that and simply pooh-pooh the "birthers'" concern for the safety of America.

Now let us be honest. Who is protecting the Constitution and the Nation, the “birthers” or Obama and his enablers?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 31, 2010
Updated June 1, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

23 comments:

A pen said...

It certainly isn't the court system.

Incredulous said...

AND they confuse the American public with sole emphasis of place of birth and rule out parentage as critical to natural born citizen status.

jayjay said...

As your post makes abundanly clear, it AIN'T Obama and His Enablers.

They are more than happy to see a man who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies actually remain in that office, usurping it and helping further the destruction of the United States Constitution.

Actually, Obama's whole life seems to be nothing but a work of fiction. The man has never shown himself to be Constitutionally eligible.

If you'd like to see something from a different point of view, watch the two short videos below which, even though they start slowly and have a bit of fun, contain a wealth of factual data - more than we've seen from Obama.

In fact in the second video a famous senator is quoted speaking about someone that sounds for all the world like "Our Boy" and really strikes a chord.

Only thing is the senator was the Roman named Cicero speaking in 42 BC - but the message is still very directed and pertinent for all of us:

Three Little Words

Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!

Puzo1 said...

Magnus (https://me.yahoo.com/a/s_vuK4InvPm6AWDUcXuP0aht7F5j) has left a new comment on your post "On Obama’s Eligibility to be President, Who Is Pro...":

"Who is protecting the Constitution and the Nation, the “birthers” or Obama and his enablers?"

It is anyway not the stinking Obama and his rotten enablers, [editor's delition] included.

paralegalnm said...

Your quotes concerning unconstitutional 'amendment' and 'revision' of the constitution are on point.

I particularly appreciated the John Marshall quote obligating the courts to address alleged violations of the constitution; their refusal to do so being 'treasonous.'

In the Barnett v Obama case, a Perkins, Coie plant as clerk to Judge Carter cited Ashwander v TVA, totally misinterpreting it.

Ashwander held that when a case could be decided on statute or general law, the constitutional issue was secondary.

However, there is no statute defining ‘natural born citizen,’ and case law vaguely mentions natural born citizen in regards to naturalization law, not to Article II of the constitution.

Therefore, the Carter court had subject matter jurisdiction.

Article II of the Constitution is the only U.S. law that relies on the term of art, 'natural born citizen.'

There is no definitive case law (Liacakos, nor Wong Kim Ark define Natural Born Citizen) supporting the current misinterpretation of a native-born citizen being equal to a natural born one.

Therefore, when a question of presidential eligibility is tabled, a congressman's definition of ‘natural born citizen,’ or a court to rely on dicta to adduce its meaning is an unconstitutional revision of Article II.

Mick said...

The enablers love to frame the question.
It goes like this. "Who is a Natural Born Citizen? There is only 2 types of citizens described in the 14th Amendment, those Born and those Naturalized (totally ignoring the fact that there is indeed 3 types--A1S2C4,5).
So it only goes to reason that NBCs are those Born a US Citizen, and the USC Code describes a number of different types of "born" citizens, filling in the blank space of non definition of the term in the USC. (But of course those born in foreign countries of 1 US Citizen parent could not possibly fulfill the security requirement of A2S1C5, but don't let that leap of logic stop them).
It all goes back to Horace Gray and his purposeful blurring of the jurisdictional clause in 1898. Liberals have used WKA to increase there base and damage US Citizen sovereignty for 112 years.
Now there are rumblings (from Az.) that children of illegal aliens should not be given birthright citizenship. This is getting very close to the crux of the issue that has allowed Obama to usurp the office----Allegiance (jurisdiction).
Children of aliens can have US citizenship if A) their parents gain US Citizenship during the child's majority or B)The parents become legal resident aliens and the child chooses US Citizenship (ONLY) at the time of majority.
This is Natural Law, this is common sense.
Obama's enablers constantly tell us that what we see before our eyes is not what we actually see. How long can this go on? Why are we not marching on Washington, demanding that Obama prove his eligibilty (we know he can't)?

cfkerchner said...

I think a good question to start with the Obots is, "Why was the term 'natural born Citizen' originally put into Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and no where else in the Constitution and for no other office"? (Added for the VP later by constitutional amendment) If one must engage an Obot in debate, I think that is a good question to start with.

The answer is clearly stated in this summer of 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington. But, if one has to debate the propagandists, it is interesting to hear the Obots answer to that question as the starting place in any debate.
http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpg

Read the sentence Jay wrote with the key phrase "strong check" in it. How does one get the strongest check at birth from foreign influence on a child via birth status in order to guarantee sole claim and allegiance by birth of a child from only one country?

And for further ammunition, Attorney Apuzzo's excellent essay on unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is a good reference source (and the Euler diagram graphic) which shows that the Vattel definition of "natural born Citizenship" provides the STRONGEST CHECK against "foreign influence" at the birth of a child:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

We in this blog know the answer. But we must educate may millions more if we are going to remove the usurper and prevent others from trying Obama's grifter path to the White House again.

CDR Kerchner
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

A pen said...

My question on the matter is this, When a matter is obviously simple to deduce then what is the courts purpose, reaffirmation?

I'll put it another way, when there is an intruder in your house do you need to ask a judge if he is an intruder ? It seems to me that some things are just simply so obvious that there is no need to seek affirmation. One of those things is the reality that the definition of NBC is given by Vattel and no where else thus making it a fact. Given the "Law of Nations" is even given as congress' reference source as well, for crimes of certain natures where foreign policy must be considered as in citizens and their nations, it further solidifies that fact. Now, that the fact is indisputable to ordinary people, I'm not a lawyer so this fact being quite obvious to me seems rational to assume that my peers also agree, which they ALL do, that the only reason one would dispute it is because there is nothing else between guilt and punishment but the confession and they simply don't have the guts. Just like the intruder that you catch, if asked what he is doing in your home the answer won't be "because I broke in".

Some folks who are unable to resist must suffer the will of the intruder no matter what it is. Some folks don't hesitate beyond discovery before they act. I'm wondering what a court has to do with any of it other than to give the intruder a chance to get away with his life, or yours.

Mick said...

The question asked should not be, "whom is a citizen at birth?" like the enablers want to frame it.
The question should be "whom is a citizen at birth, and not a citizen of any other foreign power?" A Natural Born Citizen, of course.

avodlp said...

House Judiciary Committee Chairman ~ James F. Wilson March 1866
"We must depend on the general law relating to subjects & 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....children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments."

B.Obama Sr - sojourner, personified, in this nation

sojourn-to stay or reside temporarily

jayjay said...

Mario Apuzzo & Charles Kerchner:

I'll be listening to Dr. Kate's show with the two of you this evening at 9:00 pm Eastern. Break a leg!!

Link here:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2010/06/03/revolution-radio-obamas-constititional-disability

Puzo1 said...

avodlp,

Can you provide for our readers a source link to the quote of James F. Wilson.

constitutionallyspeaking said...

Mario, the Wilson quote is from March 1, 1866 House debate on rights of citizens beginning on page 1115. The specific quote is on page 1117, 1st column 1/2 way down.

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage

constitutionallyspeaking said...

OOPS, Sorry

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=156

avodlp said...

An accurate link to the Wilson 'quote' has been, subsequently, posted by "constitutionallyspeaking" There,in the "Congressional Globe", it appears in its more complete form :
"We must depend on the general law relating to subjects & 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 it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States"
Note Wilson's citation of Rawle("a writer on the Constitution") & additional commentary re that particular writer's disposition

Robert said...

It is truly a national disgrace that all three branches of government have blindly accepted Obama's online digital summary (Certification of Live Birth) of his 1961 birth record as the only evidence needed to establish Article II eligibility.

8by8 said...

Mario must add this to the court case. More solid evidence against Obama. Amazing detective work.

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/graphs-and-stats/

Brianroy said...

A fellow blogger
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=74560271&postcount=25065

discovered that someone checked into the alignment of the Hawaiian birth announcements, and found that the listing order at the time of Barack Obama's birth announcement appeared to be suspiciously over-aligned.

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/extra-extra-announcing-obamas-birth/

http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/graphs-and-stats/

Has anyone any actual original copies of the Hawaiian papers, or are they all microfisched and/or electronically entered (hence subject to Orwellian newspeak manipulation) only (such as by zealot geeks to the DNC and Communist-Socialist cause)?

A pen said...

Somebody needs to interview this man, Tim Adams. http://island-adv.com/2010/06/tim-adams-chief-elections-clerk-exposes-obama-birth-certificate-scandal/

A pen said...

Read John Yinger on pg 28 of the pdf. This is what we are suffering, his ignorance.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:96813.wais

The entire document is an insult.

cfkerchner said...

Hawaii Confirms Tim Adams Was 'Senior Elections Clerk' in the 2008 Election. Tim Adams is also a Hillary Clinton Supporter! Tim Adams says Obama was not born in Hawaii and that people in the Hawaii elections office and his bosses there knew it in 2008! | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/hawaii-confirms-tim-adams-was-senior.html

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/purported-former-chief-elections-clerk.html

CDR Kerchner

A pen said...

That is a smoking gun then. Adams should be deposed. The real problem is the courts stonewalling the issue. I guess they think it is all fun and games until somebody loses an eye.

cfkerchner said...

A long-form hospital birth certificate in Hawaii does not exist per Tim Adams who lived and worked in Hawaii for 10 years and worked in the Election Office in Hawaii during the 2008 Presidential Election:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=165041

Here is how the BIRTH REGISTRATION FRAUD was perpetrated by Obama's maternal grandmother who falsely and illegally registered here newborn grandson as being born in Hawaii, when he was not. This false registration resulted in creation of a falsified vital record and Certification of Live Birth and the subsequent newspaper notices placed in the local papers by the state's Bureau of Health Statistics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

When will Congress and the Main Stream Media do its duty and investigate this matter in a serious and legal manner? This is a national disgrace!

CDR Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org