Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Obama May Be a Naturalized Born Citizen but Not a Natural Born Citizen

 Obama May Be a Naturalized Born
Citizen but Not a Natural Born Citizen
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
"The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by William Blackstone - natural born and naturalized citizens." Rep. Wilson Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1116 (1866). The Constitution calls these two types of citizens, "Citizens of the United States."  All the "Citizens of the United States" are therefore comprised of either those who Article II calls "natural born Citizens" (are not naturalized) or those which the Constitution, treaties, and Congressional Acts call “Citizens of the United States” (not being natural born must be naturalized).  The "natural born Citizen" clause is nothing more than the people of the United States expressing their power of self-preservation.  Hence, only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. A naturalized citizen, whether naturalized "at birth" or after birth, is not so eligible. 

To better understand these two types of U.S. citizens (the natural born and the naturalized), I will call them "natural born Citizen of the United States, "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" (naturalized "at birth"), and "naturalized after-born Citizen of the United States" (naturalized after birth). Article I and II use the upper case "C" when writing "Citizen" and the 14th Amendment, Congressional Acts, and treaties use the lower case "c."  There is no significance to the capitalization.  I will use the "C" when writing the word. 

The first type, a naturalized "Citizen of the United States," whether "at birth" or after birth, is made, except for the first "Citizens of the United States," by positive law, to wit, the 14th Amendment, which makes "naturalized born Citizens of the United States" and which recognizes "naturalized after-born Citizens of the United States," and treaties and acts of Congress, which make "naturalized born Citizens of the United States" and "naturalized after-born Citizens of the United States" under Congress's Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 power to make uniform the laws of naturalization.

The second type is a "natural born Citizen of the United States." The Framers wrote “natural born” and not just “born,” and we have to give meaning to such an additional word. By using the word “natural,” the Framers told us that this type of citizen is made by nature and not by any positive law such as the 14th Amendment, treaties, or Congressional Acts which can declare someone to be a “born” “Citizen of the United States” by law. The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens are "natural born Citizens of the United States." If a person needs the 14th Amendment, a treaty, or Congressional act to make him or her a "Citizen of the United States," then that person cannot be a "natural born Citizen of the United States."

Also, Congress could for some social or political reason attempt to enact some law denying a "natural born Citizen of the United States" that very status or attempt as it has several times already to redefine the meaning of a "natural born Citizen of the United States," but to do so would be contrary to natural law, the law of nations, and also unconstitutional. Any change to the "natural born Citizen" eligibility clause can be done only through constitutional amendment. 

Examples of a naturalized "Citizen of the United States" are:

1. A naturalized "Citizen of the United States" so created by electing and adhering to the American Revolution. This person is among the early Presidents who were born before July 4, 1776 in the British colonies to British subject parents and therefore were born British subjects. This person is also among those who were born out of the British colonies but who either naturalized there or simply inhabited them. He or she naturalized through the effects of the Declaration of Independence and by electing to adhere to the American Revolution and by so doing the Constitution in Article I and II called him or her a “Citizen of the United States.” He or she was the first and original American citizen and he or she gained that status by transferring his or her allegiance for one foreign power to the United States during the revolution. This person was born before July 4, 1776 either in the British colonies or out of them and therefore out of the United States which had not yet existed.

2. A "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" under a Congressional Act or treaty which it calls a “citizen of the United States.” In Article I, Section 8, Section 4, the Framers gave Congress the power to naturalize persons. Hence, this citizen is created directly by the power of Congress to naturalize persons. This person, like a "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment, is naturalized "at birth" and needs no further naturalization. This person is born abroad and has one or two U.S. citizen parents. Under a treaty, there could be other factual scenarios. Except for a naturalization act it passed in 1790 which read “natural born citizen,” but which it changed in 1795 to read “citizen of the United States, Congress has always used this power to create naturalized citizens or who it has called “citizens of the United States” “at birth” but never a "natural born Citizen of the United States."  Again, this person is born out of the United States.

3. A "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment and Congressional Act which they both call a “citizen of the United States.” This citizen is created indirectly by the power of Congress to naturalize persons which it expressed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then which it constitutionalized by way of the 14th Amendment. This person is born in the United States to one or two alien parents and is born "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." This person is naturalized at birth and needs no further naturalization.

The explicit text of the Fourteenth Amendment declares these persons to be "citizens of the United States," not "natural born Citizens.” The text of the amendment itself tells us that its purpose is not to create “natural born Citizens,” but rather “citizens of the United States” which we know from other articles of the Constitution and Congressional Acts include naturalized citizens either at birth or after birth. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, through the grandfather clause, explicitly tells us that just being a “citizen of the United States” is no longer sufficient to be eligible to be President for those children born after adoption of the Constitution. The only reason that the Framers could have had for this disqualification is that they considered those "citizens of the United States" who were not "natural born Citizens" to be naturalized either at birth or after birth.

Every constitutional amendment has its own meaning and value and must be interpreted and understood in light of the purpose for which it was passed. The 14th Amendment was not passed to amend the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." Rather, it was passed to allow those who were born in the United States subject to its jurisdiction and who could not become "natural born Citizens" or even "citizens of the United States"-- because having been born to parents who were themselves not considered to be "natural born Citizens" or even "citizens of the United States" even though born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction or who under our naturalization laws could not even become naturalized citizens of the United States--to become "citizens of the United States."

We recognize that persons can be naturalized at birth by treaties and Congressional Acts. There is no legal impediment in concluding that a constitutional amendment can have the same naturalizing effect as a treaty or Congressional Act in matters of citizenship.  We have evidence in the Congressional debates on the Civil Rights Act that the Act's intended effect was to naturalize persons "born in this country." In the Congressional debates on the Civil Rights Act, Senator Edgar Cowan "ask[ed] whether [the Act] will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?" Senator Lyman Trumbull replied: "Undoubtedly. . . . [T]he children of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498. Indeed, Congress proposed the 14th Amendment and it was passed to ensure the Act's validity and indefinite survival. That this Congressional Act was elevated to constitutional status by the 14th Amendment does not change the fact that this type of citizenship is granted by operation of positive law rather than by nature. After all, the Constitution did not make the citizens. Rather, the citizens made the Constitution. The 14th Amendment, regarding children born in the United States, and given current interpretation of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause, did nothing more than amend our naturalization laws and extend naturalization at birth to children born in the United States to alien parents. Congress has even confirmed its power to naturalizing one born in the United States through 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) and (b). Hence, the amendment did no more than allow these persons to become members of American society by naturalizing them at birth.  Vattel recognized this type of “at birth” naturalized citizen when he stated:  “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.”  Emer de Vattel’s  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. 214 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759, and other subsequent French and English editions). 

Minor v. Happersett, said: "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" (footnotes omitted). Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 (1874).

Minor told us that “a natural-born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents. It said that there were doubts whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen.” Id. According to Minor, if one did not qualify for citizenship by birth, then he or she would have to get it by naturalization. Neither the 14th Amendment nor any Congressional Act nor any treaty declares anyone a "natural born Citizen." Hence, the only other logical choice is that the 14th Amendment makes naturalized citizen "at birth" and Congressional Acts and treaties make naturalized citizens either “at birth” or after birth. So, all those who get citizenship "at birth" who are not "natural born Citizens" as defined by Minor are naturalized citizens "at birth." So if someone gets "at birth" "citizen of the United States" status through the 14th Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, that person is a "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" and not a “natural born Citizen of the United States.”     

It also does not matter that one is considered a "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment or an Article II “natural born Citizen of the United States,” for these citizens enjoy equal rights, except that only the latter has the privilege of being eligible to be President.

The Constitution, including the presidential eligibility grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the Congressional eligibility clauses of Article I, Section 2 and 3; Congressional Acts; and treaties call these naturalized citizens, whether citizens “at birth” or “after birth” and whether born in or out of the United States, “citizens of the United States.”

This person could be putative President Obama, who was born to a U.S. citizen mother and a British father, if he was born in Hawaii, a fact which he has yet to conclusively prove. This is also Governor Bobby Jindal, who was born in the United States to a non-U.S. citizen father and mother. He was naturalized at birth under the 14th Amendment and needed no further naturalization. Again, this person is born in the United States.

4. A "naturalized after-born Citizen of the United States" under a Congressional Act or treaty which the 14th Amendment in 1868 confirmed to be a “citizen of the United States.” This citizen is created directly by the power of Congress to naturalize persons. This person is born out of the United States to two alien parents and is naturalized in the United States after birth. Before the 14th Amendment was passed, this person was also born in the United States to alien parents and also naturalized after birth. Hence, before the 14th Amendment, this person was born either in the United States or out of it. If born in the United States and a minor, he or she naturalized when his or her father naturalized, or on his or her own right if an adult. Since the 14th Amendment, this person is born out of the United States. Since this person is not naturalized at birth, he or she needs naturalization after birth. This type of citizen includes Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who was born in Austria to a non-U.S. citizen father and mother and who naturalized in the United States after birth under a Congressional Act.

An Article II “natural born Citizen" is:

There is only one definition of a "natural born Citizen of the United States."  This definition has never changed since the writing of the Constitution.  This definition is a child born in the United States (or its equivalent) to a father and mother who are both either “natural born Citizens of the United States” or naturalized “citizens of the United States.” Emer de Vattel’s 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, and other subsequent French and English editions) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”); David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) (concerning the children born after the Declaration of Independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6; “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7; citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6); The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 (in both acts early Congresses provided that, regardless of whether the child was born in or out of the United States, any child born to alien parents who later naturalized before the child reached twenty-one years of age was derivatively naturalized at the time of their parents' naturalization and thus "considered as "citizens of the United States," and thereby left out of such need for naturalization only children born in the United States to citizen parents); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cited Vattel and provided his definition of natural born citizens, stated “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”); Speaker of the House of Representatives, Langdon Cheves (1814) (“The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) (a majority of the Court which included Chief Justice John Marshall found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father); Massachusetts and South Carolina, The New Englander, Vol. III, 413-414, 434-435 (1845). ("The expression 'citizen of the United States' occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ' natural born citizen' is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states; in the other cases, the word 'citizen' is used without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. The discussions in the convention furnish no indication that there was any other distinction present in the minds of its members. (*Judge Washington, See 4 Wash. Circuit Court Reports, 516). . . . It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state. For the state and the citizen spring at once and together from the ordinance of nature, and from this natural relation between them result the essential rights and essential duties of both. The highest and most solemn enactment, even the fundamental, organic law of a state, does not by its proper force as positive law create, but only acknowledges this relationship”);  Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) (Daniels, J. concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel and said: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (provided the same Vattel definition without citing Vattel, stated: “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”); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (provided the same Vattelian definition and cited Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (provided the same Vattelian definition and cited Vattel); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Alexander Porter Morse, Natural-Born Citizen Of The United States: Eligibility For The Office Of President, Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905) (“Those resident in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted were made citizens. Thereafter the president must be taken from the natural-born citizens. If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth”); Breckenridge Long, Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution?” Chicago Legal News, Vol. 146, p. 220 (1916) (there is a distinction between a “native born” and “natural born;” a “citizen of the United States” is not the same as a “natural born Citizen;” a “natural born Citizen” is one made by the laws of nature and not by operation of law and from the moment of birth owes allegiance exclusively to the United States; a person who is born with dual or conflicting allegiances and citizenships, naturally caused by being born in the country to an alien father which causes the person to acquire one allegiance and citizenship by jus soli and the other by jus sanguinis, respectively, which birth circumstance causes a foreign power to be able to lay a claim of allegiance or jurisdiction over that person, cannot be a “natural born Citizen;” a child born in the United States to an alien father may become a “citizen of the United States” by becoming a citizen by naturalization either upon his father naturalizing before the child reaches majority or through his own naturalization application thereafter); and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (the Supreme Court declared a child who was born in the United States to citizen parents a “natural born citizen”).

If one satisfies the definition of a “natural born Citizen of the United States,” that person will have natural unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States. The overwhelming majority of citizens are "natural born Citizens of the United States."  One cannot be a "natural born Citizen of the United States" if he or she at most falls into one of the naturalized categories listed above (naturalized at birth or after birth) and therefore fails to meet the definition of a "natural born Citizen of the United States."  In fact, the text of the Amendment itself uses the phrase “citizen of the United States” and not “natural born Citizen.”  We know from the grandfather clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that a “Citizen of the United States” who was not a “natural born Citizen” was a naturalized citizen and only eligible to be President if born before the adoption of the Constitution.  For births after the adoption of the Constitution, the Framers did not allow a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President. Hence, one is required to be a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution only if one is born after the adoption of the Constitution and one wants to be President or Vice President.

Congress only has the power to naturalize. The Constitution does not give Congress any power to create a "natural born Citizen of the United States."  Under the Constitution, Congress has no power over this person's citizenship status because he or she is born in the country to citizen parents all of which makes him or her a "natural born Citizen of the United States."  If we accept that natural law and the law of nations prescribe that being born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents (who were “natural born Citizens of the United States” or “naturalized Citizens of the United States”) serving the armies of the state is the equivalent to being born in the United States, this is John McCain because he was born to a U.S. citizen father and mother who were in Panama serving the armies of the United States. Emer de Vattel’s  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. 217. This cannot be Mr. Obama because even though he might be born in Hawaii (which he has yet to conclusively prove), he was born to a British father who by right of descent under the British Nationality Act of 1948 passed his British citizenship to his son, Mr. Obama, who consequently was also born a British citizen. So Obama’s foreign natural birth allegiance is compounded by his father being a British subject when Obama was born and he also being born a British citizen. At age 2, Mr. Obama even became a citizen of Kenya whose citizenship he retained to at least the age of 23. The Founders and Framers simply would not accept a person born with such foreign natural allegiance to be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and eligible to occupy the singular and all-powerful Office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Finally, as we have seen, Obama’s ineligibility to be President is dictated not by foreign law but rather by U.S. common law grounded on natural law and the law of nations.   If Obama were born in the U.S. to citizen parents, U.S. common law--natural law and the law of nations which several U.S. Supreme Court cases have made a part of the law of the land and controlling on the question of national citizenship--would apply to the fullest extent, making him a "natural born Citizen of the United States." If Obama were born in the U.S. to a non-citizen father and U.S. citizen mother, U.S. law would again apply, making him a "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment and Congressional Act. He cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen of the United States" under U.S. common law because his father was not a U.S. citizen but rather a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948, and Obama himself was born a British citizen under that same act. Given his birth circumstances (assuming he was born in the U.S.), Obama can only rely upon the 14th Amendment, an expression of Congress's naturalization power incorporated into the Constitution (like Wong Kim Ark), or a Congressional Act for U.S. citizenship which means that he is a "naturalized born Citizen of the United States" (a "Citizen of the United States" who is naturalized "at birth") but not a "natural born Citizen of the United States" which needs no law to create.  Not being a "natural born Citizen of the United States," Obama is not and cannot be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 30, 2010
Amended December 13, 2010
Amended February 5, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
###

83 comments:

jayjay said...

Somehow that sounds quite corect - no matter the spin the Obama-backers (and the Maskell CRS memo backers) try to put on it.

He ain't eligible ... and he knows it!

Ted said...

And as Robert correctly pointed out in your previous thread, the SCOTUS and other Courts have never disagreed with you that "Obama can not be a Natural Born Citizen" and therefore not a POTUS under the Constitution -- but what they are essentially saying, or admitting, is that precisely because they agree with you they can provide no relief for plaintiffs.

United Natural Born Citizens said...

"...[I]t is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs, and common law. There is no principle which pervades the union and has the authority of law that is not embodied in the Constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our federal system only by legislative adoption...


WHEATON V. PETERS, 33 U. S. 591 (1834)

There is no ‘statutory law or Amendments’ that define 'natural born Citizen', notwithstanding the 1st Congress of 1795 attempt to ‘enlarge and / or modify’ the requisite circumstances through ‘naturalization law’, since repealed.

It can not be shown in words, or the words that require it, that natural born Citizen is defined in any way other than the idiom was intended to be when it was written into the Constitutional.

The 'citizens' under the Constitution are the 'sovereigns', not the British Crown, and as such derived the 'right' to claim their prodigy as being born as 'natural born American Citizens' with the father being citizen, then so to his wife and children.

‘English Common Law’, while being readily accepted in structure and form, did not find its way into the Founding Documents in all of its ‘statutory’ pronouncements as were agreeable to the Crown.

An 'idiom' is imbued with more meaning than the sum of the individual words.

In this case, aside from including the simple definition of a person born into specific circumstances is imbued with the additional ‘meanings and intents’ of its usage to separate that condition from any and all other means that may thereafter be promulgated to confer citizenship by the Congress and the further intent, as John Jay was obviously allowed to suggest, is meant to bar foreign influence and designs upon the Office of POTUS.


Perhaps it must 1st be agreed that in order for there to be a Constitutional POTUS there must be in the 1st instant a body of citizens that are Constitutional natural born Citizens, who, undoubtedly are not all seeking that office, but nevertheless, the only ones ‘eligible’ for that office under the Constitution.

That makes the ‘political aspect’ of the Constitutional idiom a ‘transient aspect’, being of Primary importance only once in every four years during the hours the polling booths are open, the outcome of the results of those hours conferring privileges and immunities on the one who was just hours earlier a ‘private citizen’.

It remains to be seen if those same results of the democratic process can ‘enlarge, abridge and / or modify’ the sanctity of the Constitutional imperative.

Nevertheless, the ‘definition’ of natural born Citizen, in the 1st instant, must be approached in the light of it being a ‘citizenship question’ in order to entice and invite the arbiter of Constitutional ‘cases and controversies’ to provide its imprimatur upon a Declaratory Judgement as to the Constitutionally correct, proper and ‘legal’ definition of the idiom.


Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 pg 174;

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, ……”

Elk Grove Unified School District et al v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).
Justice O'Connor, concurring in the opinion;

“There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution -- no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them”.

atticus finch said...

child's citizenship based on his or her birth in the United States is a personal birthright not dependent or contingent on his or her parent's citizenship status.
"United States citizenship is thus the constitutional birth-right of every person born in this country." Perez v. Brownell, 356 US 44, 66 (1958)

Moreover courts have observed that children of aliens born in the United States are citizens. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99, 164(1830) (Story, J., concurring )(" Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are SUBJECTS BY BIRTH.")

"My conclusion upon the facts proved is, that Julia Lynch was born in this state, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn. That they came here as an experiment, without any settled intention of abandoning their native country, or of making the United States their permanent abode. They never concluded to remain here permanently, and after trying the country, they returned to their native land, and there ended their lives, many years afterwards...In conclusion, I entertain no doubt but that Julia Lynch was a citizen of the United States."Court of Chancery, State of New York, Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 656 (1844)(emphasis added)

Your focus on the allegiance of the parents in determining the citizenship status of the child is misplaced since Blackstone wrote that "Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth." The United States Supreme Court in 1804 agreed with Blackstone's observation by noting "It is true that Blackstone speaks of that allegiance which is coeval [Contemporaneous] with birth." McIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 6 US 280, 299(1804). The court further added "duty of natural allegiance accruing at birth id at 309

As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States. "At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador." Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)(internal citation omitted)

atticus finch said...

Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of whom most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English. “The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917)

Moreover, Chief Justice Taft stated in Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925):“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted.”

Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning.“ A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37,42 (1979).

Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution have a common law meaning
then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.
"[G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911);

Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. "The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988)(internel citations omitted)

In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.

As such, the term natural born citizen is a derivation of the term natural born subject that was a judicially created concept as articulated by Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) then UNLESS the founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.

The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.

United Natural Born Citizens said...

"...It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs, and common law. There is no principle which pervades the union and has the authority of law that is not embodied in the Constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our federal system only by legislative adoption...

WHEATON V. PETERS, 33 U. S. 591 (1834)

United Natural Born Citizens said...

There is no ‘statutory law or Amendments’ that define 'natural born Citizen', notwithstanding the 1st Congress of 1795 attempt to ‘enlarge and or modify’ the requisite circumstances through ‘naturalization law’, since repealed.

It can not be shown in words, or the words that require it, that natural born Citizen is defined in any way other than the idiom was intended to be when it was written into the Constitutional.

The 'citizens' under the Constitution are the 'sovereigns', not the British Crown, and as such derived the 'right' to claim their prodigy as being born as 'natural born American Citizens' with the father being citizen, then so to his wife and children.

‘English Common Law’, while being readily accepted in structure and form, did not find its way into the Founding Documents in all of its ‘statutory’ pronouncements as were agreeable to the Crown.

An 'idiom' is imbued with more meaning than the sum of the individual words.

In this case, aside from including the simple definition of a person born into specific circumstances is imbued with the additional ‘meanings and intents’ of its usage to separate that condition from any and all other means that may thereafter be promulgated to confer citizenship by the Congress and the further intent, as John Jay was obviously allowed to suggest, is meant to bar foreign influence and designs upon the Office of POTUS.

Perhaps it must 1st be agreed that in order for there to be a Constitutional POTUS there must be in the 1st instant a body of citizens that are Constitutional natural born Citizens, who, undoubtedly are not all seeking that office, but nevertheless, the only ones ‘eligible’ for that office under the Constitution.

That makes the ‘political aspect’ of the Constitutional idiom a ‘transient aspect’, being of Primary importance only once in every four years during the hours the polling booths are open, the outcome of the results of those hours conferring privileges and immunities on the one who was just hours earlier a ‘private citizen’.

It remains to be seen if those same results of the democratic process can ‘enlarge, abridge and or modify’ the sanctity of the Constitutional imperative.

Nevertheless, the ‘definition’ of natural born Citizen, in the 1st instant, must be approached in the light of it being a ‘citizenship question’ in order to entice and invite the arbiter of Constitutional ‘cases and controversies’ to provide its imprimatur upon a Declaratory Judgement as to the Constitutionally correct, proper and ‘legal’ definition of the idiom.

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 pg 174;

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, ……”

Elk Grove Unified School District et al v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).
Justice O'Connor, concurring in the opinion;

“There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution -- no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them”.

The Court has been known to take on the high hurdles from time to time, but the bar is set very high when the subject of the case is the Office of the Chief of the Executive Branch, especially while the Congress is populated with two parties largely of the same feather.

IMO, the 'question' must be presented within a Bona Fide Petition asking, only insofar as citizenship is concerned and concerning only the status of the Petitioners condition as a result of his birth circumstances.

Of course, by extension, once the determination is made concerning the single Petitioner the resulting Declaratory Judgement would extend to all those of like circumstances making it a simple ‘matter of factual findings’ for any and all to determine for their selves whether they too are American natural born Citizens..

If there is NO distinction between NBC's and ALL other circumstances of 'citizenship' then there is either an Amendment under Seal somewhere, or, Marbury v Madison has been hit by a bus.

Puzo1 said...

atticus finch,

I do not dispute that the "natural born Citizen" clause is to be defined under common law. Were we differ is that you automatically assume without any analysis that on the question of national citizenship English common law applies rather than American common law which grew out of natural law and the law of nations. You cannot simply cite court decisions that relied upon the English common law as grounds that that law also is to be used to define national citizenship without showing the Founders and Framers made a connection between the two for the new republic.

There are many state issues which turn on English common law. But on national matters, the Founders and Framers told us that they were no longer relying on English common law but rather on the Constitution, treaties, and the "Laws of the United States." Those "Laws of the United States" did not include the English common law but rather the law of nations and of course, whatever other laws Congress would pass. The English common law only continued to have effect in the states where it could also be abrogated by legislation.

Hence, you have to clearly understand what "the common law" means and not simply assume it means the English common law. Take a look at the Minor v. Happersett decision where the Supreme Court relied upon "the common law" and it was not the English common law to define a "natural born citizen." The U.S. Supreme Court told us that a "natural born citizen" is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Clearly, this is not the English common law but American common law based on natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel.

Also, in my essay I cite numerous sources, even going back to the Founding, that address citizenship specifically and defined that citizenship consistently with the law of nations and not the English common law.

bdwilcox said...

Atticus Finch,

I'm not sure you noticed this, but English Common Law used the term Natural Born Subject while the founders used the term Natural Born Citizen. I know it's subtle [/sarcasm], but the two ARE NOT simply interchangeable, no matter how much you and your ilk wish them to be.

And no, English Common Law cannot arbitrarily be used to define terms in our Constitution. How do I know? Because the framers told us so:

"The common law of England is not the common law of these states." -George Mason, delegate from Virginia, in the notes from the Federal Constitutional Convention
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txt

Please read the above quote again.

Michael-Is-Great said...

Mr. Apuzzo, thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately, you fight against evil and this evil is composed by most of the judges of the Supreme Court of the USA I am sad to say!! Why? They take their decisions not based on law but based on their political inclination!!!

For this reason alone, most of these judges should be sent to jail for having acted completely dishonestly at their position of prestige. Nothing less.

Now, your comments are interesting but you forgot to mention one important point: what on earth could someone do to legally get justice on this matter of the non-eligibility of Obama? The answer is NOTHING can be done legally because most of the judges at the Supreme Court of the USA act in collusion with Obama to protect him from having to prove that he is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore Obama should stop immediately to carry on being an illegitimate president of the USA.

Your conclusion should clearly have stated that Obama will therefore inevitably finish his presidency with no one being legally able to ask him to prove that he is NOT a natural born citizen because most of the judges at the Supreme Court of the USA
act in collusion with Obama to shied him from having to prove that he is not a natural born citizen!!

Finally, you should also have concluded that the American judicial system is completely rotten and that no justice can be obtained even when one is legally right on a particular point if you happen not to be politically correct!!!

What one could do next, knowing very well that Obama will not have to respond in court for his non-eligibility to be president of the USA? An American revolution? That seems the only solution on this matter even if it surely would appear to be ironic to say that.

Well, I could tell you to keep fighting but what is the point to fight legally on this Obama case related to his eligibility when you know the outcome in advance that is when you know that even the Supreme Court will not ask him to prove his non-eligibility even though it is necessary to do so!!!!

Dixhistory said...

To Mario, Charles, and the other plaintiffs. God bless you all it was a noble effort.

While you can lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink.

You all have done all that any American patriot could do within the bounds of our laws.

The powers that be, have said more than once that our US Constitution is nothing but a damn scrap of paper.

That is unless it benefits their agenda. That is why they are called men with no honor by me.

DixHistory

United Natural Born Citizens said...

atticus finch said...

The choice of cases you posit in support of your position affords me the opportunity to assert an important 'case law' point.

That being that not a SINGLE case you point to had as the subject of the question presented the question of the definition of 'natural born Citizen'.

I won't go into the 'repugnance' of your assertion that somehow a 'subject', who under English Common Law is 'subject, by subjugation, to the whims of a citizen, is then synonymous to 'citizen...? An irreconcilable proposition by its own definition let alone in the context of the definition of a natural born Citizen, which as I point to has NEVER been the 'subject' of a Petition before SCOTUS, insofar as 'citizenship' is concerned, divorced from the 'transient political aspects' of the Constitutional 'idiom'.

So ALL of the orbita dictum pronouncements amount to dustbin refuse unless and until they are repeated in a case that asks the SINGULAR question of the definition of a natural born citizen, insofar as citizenship is concerned.

juniper55 said...

Question - would the actions of Kagan and Sotomayer (for failing to recuse themselves, being political appointees by BHO and thus having a personal interest in the outcome to maintain their jobs) fall under the category of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors?"

From Wikipedia: (sorry for the quick cut & paste)

"High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: 'The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.' "

" 'High' in the legal parlance of the 18th century means 'against the State'. A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or WHICH INJURES THE COUNTRY TO THE PROFIT OF AN INDIVIDUAL [OBAMA] OR GROUP [Progressives?? Soros' ilk?] [emphasis mine]. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections."

Could this possibly be a case for drawing up articles of impeachment for roadblocking the SCOTUS in its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution on what could be arguably the most important requirement of anybody in governbment - the guaranteed loyalty of the President stictly to the USA? Since the ladies hung around, 4 votes were needed. Had they split, three would have been. Of course, we don't know who else among the conservative side of the bench voted to deny. I would love WikiLeaks to actually do something useful and look into the whole Obama birth certificate issue...

cfkerchner said...

A U.S. Constitution Article II “natural born Citizen” Is Not the Same As an English Common Law “natural born subject”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.html

cfkerchner said...

A Citizen is Not a Subject & a Subject is Not a Citizen!
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/goatsledge/20090323%20Citizen%20Not%20a%20Subject%20&%20Subject%20Not%20a%20Citizen.pdf

bdwilcox said...

Hey, did you guys know Obama's dad served in WW2? Hear it from the horse's mouth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw
Since Sr. was born in 1936, he was, at most, 9 years old at the time. Maybe he was a hall monitor?
Every day the usurper's story becomes more and more unraveled.

Let us move forward said...

For a long time, I have wanted SCOTUS to formally define "natural born citizenship." Then it occurred to me that any formal government definition of NBC could be considered as a statute. The definition of NBC would become formally codified in "law" violating the natural law concept that an NBC is obvious to anyone. A SCOTUS definition could destroy the essence of NBC. Maybe that is why it has not been formally defined in the past.

How can SCOTUS remove Obama without formally defining NBC? Has SCOTUS formally defined NBC by refusing hear an eligibility case? Or is any formal definition of the natural law concept irrelevant?

Sotomayor and Kagan. Either the "ladies" are so cavalier to think that they had no conflict of interest, or they are protecting their guy. Kagan plays favorites and has kept the grades and other records quiet. It was payback time.

Need a fourth justice, that's what Thomas told Orly. Alito has no respect for Obama. The Equal Opportunity president is the product of a system that Thomas abhors. Scalia loves the Constitution. I finger Roberts, the guy that administered the Oath of Office twice.

All that can be done now is to keep the ads going, keep the question in the eyes of the public. And try to get something passed in the States so that candidates can be vetted by the a State, when their parties refuse to vet.

Ted said...

Let's sum it up (post Kerchner cert denial) this way:

While the Supreme Court can review, under Marbury v. Madison, acts of Congress for Constitutionality, it does not deem that extends to review of POTUS for Constitutionality. That resides in the People.

cfkerchner said...

@ Sonoran News of AZ:
LTC Terry Lakin may be last line of defense to Constitution

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2010/101201/frontpage-Lakin.html

bdwilcox said...

Never forget that Clarence Thomas admitted they were evading the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08

My bet would be on Roberts or Thomas being the deal breaker, maybe both. Roberts was the one with the most to lose since he administered the oath to the usurper.

Heck, it might have been Alito or Scalia, fearing the decision that may have come forth from this merry band of buffoons currently occupying the court.

After Kelo and the narrow decision in MacDonald v. Chicago, these clowns shouldn't be entrusted as dog-catchers, no less as the supreme arbiters of law.

"In the Judiciary, the judges of the highest courts are dependent on none but themselves. In England, where judges were named and removable at the will of an hereditary executive, from which branch most misrule was feared, and has flowed, it was a great point gained, by fixing them for life, to make them independent of that executive. But in a government founded on the public will, this principle operates in an opposite direction, and against that will. There, too, they were still removable on a concurrence of the executive and legislative branches. But we have made them independent of the nation itself. They are irremovable, but by their own body, for any depravities of conduct, and even by their own body for the imbecilities of dotage." Excerpt of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 06/12/1816

Thomas Jefferson tried to warn us. Too bad we didn't listen.

Ted said...

ROADMAP FOR LAST LINE OF DEFENSE:

NOT in the Court, BUT in the context of an Advisory Opinion from the Military as to what Lt. Col. Lakin should do inasmuch as he (Lakin) is “pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States”; specifically, demand an official Advisory Opinion from DOD to TELL HIM IN WRITING whether he (Lakin) is governed by orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that he (Lakin), by the weight of legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, BELIEVES IN GOOD FAITH that Mr. Obama is not an Article 2 “natural born citizen”.

And, Lakin says, hey, I’ll do what that advisory, but only IN WRITING addressing this inquiry, says!

Case closed.

United Natural Born Citizens said...

Let us move forward said...

Re: your concern, a Declaratory Judgment is NOT statutory law, but rather a 'finding of fact' by the SCOTUS.

That said, I believe it should be taken one step further with a Mandamus to Compel Congress to make uniform the laws of naturalization among the various States with the Requisite being to 'ACKNOWLEDGE' that 'natural born Citizen' id the standard upon which additions to the citizenry are to be compared to and made uniform with by the acts of nature and natures laws.

bacsi91b said...

" In America, there are only two types of citizens. One type is a naturalized citizen which the Constitution, treaties, and Congressional Acts call a “citizen of the United States.” The other type is a natural born citizen which Article II calls a "natural born Citizen." "

" (there is a distinction between a “native born” and “natural born..) "
....

If there are only two types of citizens it would have to be 'naturalized' and 'native', with 'natural-born' being a sub-set of 'native'. However, it would seem reasonable to say that for all practical purposes there are three distinct types not two.

cfkerchner said...

I think the first sentence in Mario's essay is referring to the logical break of all Citizenship types into two (2) major categories or types. Those created by "positive law", man-made laws and constitutions ... and those created by "natural law", universal laws observed by man worldwide created by nature and nature's Creator.

When you break these two major categories down into the various subsets and subcategories you can identify several more types as we keep subdividing the sets in to further subsets and groups depending on how they obtained their citizenship. For example here is a Euler Diagram showing more than two types of Citizens all of which are subsets of the two major categories "positive law" and "natural law".
http://thebirthers.org/misc/logic_files/image035.jpg

Here is another example, a chart detailing the five "types" of Citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

So if you read Mario's opening sentence in the context of breaking all law, including Citizenship status law, into the two major categories of "positive law (statutes and constitutional amendments)" and "natural law (created by the acts of nature and nature's Creator), that may make it clearer what is being conveyed in the opening sentence. Hope this helps.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

cfkerchner said...

Some more simple logic and set theory.

All trees are plants but not all plants are trees ...
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/of-trees-and-plants-and-basic-logic_05.html

CDR Kerchner (Ret)

js said...

natural law is the precedent...no court or congress can determine natural born citizenship...this is because you are born with a sole loyalty to one state...not a divided loyalty...congress hasnt the constitutional authority to deny citizenship to a child born to 2 citizen parents...the nation is built on that loyalty and such citizens dedication is immutable...this is a natural law that cant be changed...but...the 14the amendment citizenship can be changed...and take note that the 14th amendment makes no claim about, nor certifies authority over...any natural born citizen...it is only a tool for naturalization given as an inumerated power under the constitution...and neither the courts nor congress nor the executive branch can change it...

Puzo1 said...

I of II

bacsi91b said...
" In America, there are only two types of citizens. One type is a naturalized citizen which the Constitution, treaties, and Congressional Acts call a “citizen of the United States.” The other type is a natural born citizen which Article II calls a "natural born Citizen." "

" (there is a distinction between a “native born” and “natural born..) "
....

If there are only two types of citizens it would have to be 'naturalized' and 'native', with 'natural-born' being a sub-set of 'native'. However, it would seem reasonable to say that for all practical purposes there are three distinct types not two.
++++++++++++++
bacsi91b,

I must respectfully disagree with you. Under natural law and the law of nations, the words "native" and "natural-born citizen" mean the same thing. Vattel, in Section 212 of this treatise, The Law of Nations (1758French), instructs: "The natives, or indigenes (in the 1797English edition translated to “natives, or natural-born citizens), are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Vattel makes no distinction between the two words in terms of the definition he uses to define both words, presenting them as alternative terms by using the disjunctive “or,” and assigning to each the same definition. The Founders and Framers relied heavily upon natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel to justify the Revolution and in constituting the new nation.

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).

Puzo1 said...

II of II

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. Hence, the Founders and Framers probably used “native” and “natural-born citizen” interchangeably. Hence, "natural born citizen" is not and cannot be a subset of "native."

We also know that the Framers chose "natural born Citizen" rather than "native."
They may have made that choice because the word "native" probably had a more imprecise meaning. During the Founding, “native” also meant just born in the colonies or new states which is the meaning that it has today. But the Founders required more than just being born on U.S. soil in order to be a future non-naturalized citizen. They determined that the term "natural born Citizen" would better serve them because it meant a child born in the United States to citizen parents. It is to these children, to be born after the adoption of the Constitution, that the Framers gave the privilege of being eligible to be Presidents after the adoption of the Constitution. But over the years, “native” took on the meaning of one born on U.S. soil without any reference to the child’s parents. This was done to distinguish such citizen from a person who was born out of the United States and became a “citizen of the United States” by naturalization. Now we can see why the Framers rejected “native” and rather chose the precise term of art, “natural born Citizen,” which only had one and only one doubt-free definition under natural law and the law of nations. Hence, there are only two types of citizens, "natural born citizens (who under natural law are equivalent to "natives") and naturalized citizens. The former exist in nature and in time immemorial and do not need any law to be created. The latter are made by positive law, “[l]aw actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1046 (5th ed. 1979)) and which includes constitutions, treaties, and statutes. Finally, Article II requires that one be a “natural born Citizen,” not a “native” citizen.

Puzo1 said...

I left the following comment for Col. Dwight Sullivan at his blog, http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments

Col. Sullivan has taken some liking to attacking me for some unknown reason. I do not know him but nevertheless he feels as though he has to do what he does.

"Mr. Col. Sullivan,

You seem to have some special knowledge of how the Supreme Court decided the Kerchner Petition for Cert. Your opinion is that Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan did not have to recuse themselves because as you say the respondents waived their right to oppose the Petition and the Court did not ask for any response which you then say converts to the case never making it to any discuss list and therefore the Court not even discussing and voting on the case. You then add that all this means that there was no need for Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan to recuse themselves because they had no type of involvement in deciding the Kerchner case.

First, I find all your information rather interesting because what you are basically telling me is that none of the Supreme Court justice decided the Kerchner case but rather it was decided by the law clerks.

Second, may I ask you for your insight on how you would distinguish the Kerchner case from other cases decided by the Supreme Court and appearing on the same order list of 11-29-10 which had basically the same procedural posture as the Kerchner case (respondents waived their rights to oppose the petitions and there was no call for responses by the Court) except for Justice Kagan and/or Justice Sotomayor recusing herself/themselves in those cases. These cases are: 10-560 (Kagan), 10-7129 (Kagan), 10-7163 (Sotomayor and Kagan), 10-7231 (Kagan), and 10-7268 (Sotomayor). I will appreciate hearing from you."

I will be anxiously waiting for Col. Sullivan's response.

cfkerchner said...

Dwight Sullivan has a wiki page for himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_H._Sullivan

bdwilcox said...

From Comrade Sullivan's Wiki page:
"Prior to his role in defending the Guantanamo Bay detainees he worked with the Maryland office of the American Civil Liberties Union."

I think that pretty much sums up who Comrade Sullivan is. Mario, don't even waste your keystrokes on this tool. He is, as Stalin called them, "a useful idiot".

juniper55 said...

Is is still possible to ask the Supreme Court to consider a writ of mandamus compelling federal/state legislatures to clarify what is a NBC?

Forgive me if this was part of your filing (I'm not a lawyer), but if the argument was framed in terms of seeking clarification of the term since things that were once apparently obvious to all have faded to anachronisms (kind of like comparing the King James Bible - or better yet - the Latin Vulgate - to a modern translation).

Is it possible to file the request for the writ that seeks to address the question for the good of all, but not specifically clarification in the case of one individual (Obama)? Would one have to start at the bottom again or could you go directly to the Supreme Court?

Isn't Lakin trying this, and didn't Taitz? Would this work, or why hasn't it yet? (please, not "standing" again!)

Would this be seen as a back-door way of asking SCOTUS why they denied the writ of certiorari?

Please forgive my ignorance. I feel like it's square one all over again and don't know what to do.

Or here - if, for example, if Bobby Jindal was to ask SCOTUS the question since someday he might want to run? (then again, Allan Keyes WAS running, and tried to ask)

Or maybe we just want to try the constituational amendment route and bubble it up from the states?

United Natural Born Citizens said...

juniper55 said...
You ask a number of questions that some of which have been tried and some of which should be tried.

Each and every State has the 'right' to define NBC for their purposes. Of course the chances of their definitions being contested on one or more grounds is the probable course of events, and if followed to a legal conclusion would end up at SCOTUS.

There is another way, which I have pursued, formed largely from reading Donofrio and M.Apuzzo's works after learning that the crucial element that has given cover to the usurpation is the fact that there is NO 'acknowledged Constitutionally legal definition' of NBC.

Both Donofrio and M. Apuzzo have expressed doubts and concerns about my approach but your train of thought looking for direction reminded me of how I arrived at the conclusion I reached.

Without going into details here and now I will assure you that there is a way, following the Rule of Law and the Rules of the Courts to develop a case that will have the requisite elements necessary to present a Bona Fide Petition to SCOTUS asking the 'fundamental' question and seeking a Declaratory Judgment stating the Constitutionally legal definition of natural born Citizen, insofar as 'citizenship' is concerned.

juniper55 said...

Boy, I hope so. BTW I live in Maryland, that great land of conservative political thought - NOT! (at least I'm in one of the corners that has some on occasion)

I wish I could do more to help but I'm not a lawyer. But I do have a Library of Congress card....

Michael said...

Re: Calvin's case the case of the postnati, which is the favored English Common Law source relied upon by Horace Grey's court in Wonk Kim Ark & most others who seek to circumvent the US Constitution.

In Calvin's case for one to be an English 'natural born subject' one must have two qualities and they are
'nature' & 'birthright'

The 'nature' is the subjection of the parent to the sovereign & the 'birthright' is born in the land.

In Calvin's case, there are instances where one may be born in the England and not be a 'natural born subject.

The point is that in England, FIRST the paternal father, albeit an alien born, was considered a 'natural subject' by the Law of Nature, and if he produced a child in the realm...... (the 'nature' & the 'birthright') then the child would be a 'natural born subject'

Jus sanguinis AND jus soli.

The fact that the father may be an alien born has nothing to do with his status as a 'natural subject', all that has to do is land rights.

Michael said...

Further to my most previous post regarding Calvin's case.

It must be remembered that England was not driven by securing high-office from foreign influence by including alien born males, in amity, as English 'subjects' (who's children, if born in the realm, are 'natural born subjects'), because all they got to be, was a 'subject, & being a 'natural born subject' had no special purpose nor was afforded any special privileges.

US, unlike England, doesn't recognize aliens as 'citizens'.

In England the king is the sovereign.

In USA, the people are sovereign.

The sovereignty in England is passed from the sovereign parents to child.

So too, the 'Citizen' sovereignty of US is passed from sovereign parents to child.

It cannot be pass-on by a non-sovereign in England & cannot be pass-on by non-citizen in US.

suntango said...

Mario, God bless you sir for trying to illicit some justice in this country.

Myself and some others filed complaints to the Texas Attorney General charging the Texas DNC Chair with voter fraud because he did not verify that Obama met constitutional muster as is required by the Statutes of the State of Texas to get on the ballot.

Greg Abbotts office told me after telephone follow up to contact and file the complaint with the Texas Secretary of State which I did and they said McCain won Texas anyway so what difference did it make? "What difference?" I then said this, "you are telling me that after I was robbed at gunpoint in my store by the coast, since a storm washed away and destroyed my business a day later, you aren't going to prosecute them because my business was trashed?" "This gal then said if you produced a compelling case then it may be reviewed. "It's been there for over a year. They subsequently said, submit your complaint to the Attorney Generals Office! Are these people stupid or what?

I know this is a nuclear football but only to those who really know nothing about this fake and fraud in the white house.

Most politicians know the truth but are deathly afraid of ridicule by the ankle biter Chris Mathews types.

James said...

I just thought I would let Mario and Charles know...
Don't feel too bad about your attacks from Obot Dwight Sullivan. It appears that Dwight Sullivan has actually defended Gitmo terrorists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_H._Sullivan

This Dwight Sullivan will has actually defended the rights of ruthless killers of Americans but will condemn an 18 year Army Decorated MD for upholding his god sworn oath to defend the US Constitution.

terminu said...

suntango
please be sure to file a complaint with Arizona's Attorney General for not fulfilling Arizona Revised Code 16-311...they allowed Obama to "self attest" to his birthplace but the law requires facts of qualification...you cannot attest to your own birth since you can't witness it, the secretary of state is on record admitting they did not fulfill 16-311.

I don't think you'll get anywhere with TX Dem Com because it was their call to deem Obama qualified, the Secretary of State just trusts whatever they say, but the state itself has no laws per se.


Arizona has those law, and they were on the books in 2008.

suntango said...

terminu,
I will heed your advice even coming from an out of state citizen.

Texas has a law too but this one is not being enforced. The capital is full of cowards and so is the SCOTUS!

This is what the liberal streak is. The power goes after the weak to aid, make dependent, or beat. I've seen the Attorney General go after this scofflaw and that, but give him a real target complete with paperwork and they are out to lunch. I suppose they also feel this matter has been fully Google'd, Twittered, Tweeted, Aske'd, Wois'd Yahoo'd, Alexa'd, and Buzzed.

The real sad part is there is so much evidence out there like the Associated Press articles about the "Kenyon" running for US Senate and crap like that. Not that it matters but the Hawaii Health Department "Automatically" placed ads in the Hawaiian newspapers about a birth as a public service!

But halve the nitwits out there keep saying "I believe he was born here cause of the newspaper ads". These dunderheads also fail to see the blatant fraud on BO's CLB. In 1961 the proper nomenclature in preparation of legal documents such as a birth notice blacks were noted by an official manual to denote them as "Negros". Yet, this writ of wild fancy notes Obama as an "African American". A term dreamed up by Jessie Jackson from what I've learned. Also. only typewriters were used back then and the typeface on the CLB could not have been from an IBM Selectric.



If that were true then why don't they believe actual press reports un-refuted that say he was a Kenyon? Non of this makes sense to me anymore and there is no justice in this country.

giveusliberty1776 said...

Mario

If you file a case in the Richmond district, the majority of those federal judges are sympathetic to the NBC question. They are the rocket docket and go from filing to hearing the case on the merits in 60 days.

If you go after Obama's records the case could be won during discovery. No appeals court, no supreme court wait.


Steve at Give Us Liberty

Michael-Is-Great said...

You all made comments concerning this posting by Mr. Apuzzo (praises on him for his fight against Obama the usurper) but all of you failed to answer the basic questions that I formulated in one of my previous posts that is basically:
"What's next, considering the fact that Obama has most of the judges of the Supreme Court in his pocket completely illegally and unfairly (two Obama himself added recently)!! As most of these judges of the Supreme Court act not based on law but based on their political inclination!!!
The answer to this question is that legally nothing can be done when most of the judges of the Supreme Court (and of any court) act not based on law but based on their political inclination, something that is pure evil and completely illegal, to say the least.
So, again, what's next? NOTHING EXCEPT ...!!

The only plan of action is to leverage the GOP representatives and senators to take concrete action TO FORCE OBAMA TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND THEREFORE HE IS A USURPER OF THE PRESIDENCY OF THE USA.
More important, to ask these GOP representatives and senators to put in place laws in each state to force Obama to prove that he is a natural born citizen when running for the presidency and, if not (he is not, as his father was not American), then to force him not to rob a second time the presidency of the USA and trampled a second time on the Constitution of the USA.

It is time for you to carefully support these ideas so that you act concretely to save the Constitution of the USA from being trampled upon a second time by Obama!!

ACT, JUST DO IT! Contact the GOP representatives and senators and ask them to implement these ideas so that we do not see this desecration of the Constitution of the USA a second time by Obama. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.

I would like to ask Democrats too but I know it will lead to nowhere, as very few are inclined to help unseat an usurper of the Constitution of the USA when it is Obama!

terminu said...

Suntango: Read this article
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/10/12/why-bho-cannot-be-a-legal-president/
and the laws of AZ, HI, TX, SC, and AL are outlined. Arizona is the only one with a revised statute requiring proof with facts of qualification of candidates prior to balloting.

The Democratic Committee of each of the other states was required to vet, but they used no documentation. In South Carolina the D.C. treasurer flippantly scribbled that Obama was qualified on the spot, without any documentation, when the SoS noted the ballot request omitted the requisite language. Literally she scrawled that Obama is qualified onto the form, and the SoS let that pass. In Texas, the D.C. head is a snarky sleazebucket who knows already he's under the microscope and is displaying evasive tactics. In Texas, the D.C. documents are subject to FOIA requests but they've been ignored. In Hawaii, the D.C. is just are playing "lalalala I can't hear you".
The only hope I believe is to inundate the Attorney General of Arizona with complaints about civil rights violations or sue them for not upholding their laws. Jan Brewer is probably a controlled opposition operative because she won't speak up. Arizona state Senator Pearce may be a simpatico voice but he's got to be brought up to speed with the actual legalese.

The other thing that must be done is to inundate your reps, whether they be Dem or Rep, and especially if they've purported to support the military at all... to rail on about Col. Terrence Lakin, M.D., whose court martial is on December 14. In defiance of his rights, the judge Denise Lind has refused him discovery, or any witnesses, and he can't even speak in his own defense AT ALL. He is guaranteed to be C.M.ed and faces up to four years hard labor at Leavenworth all for asking for proof that Obama is even a legal president at all!
Lakin is a MARTYR in this cause, and will truly suffer as a direct result of the corruption of the judiciary and turning a blind eye by political representatives. They cannot be allowed to ignore this.

The other thing is to circumvent the gross media corruption, criminality and censorship, and call in to talk shows on the radio, be they for cooking, home interior decor, finance or politics, and slip in the language of usurpation. "My couch doesn't belong in my living room, it looks like it's from Kenya and has usurped the space!" ...this has to become part of the lexicon in whatever forms.

Keep us updated. I have called the AG of AZ and gotten hostility, which is a good sign. I have called the TX DC head and when asked which documents he used his secretary said she couldn't say. When asked, the, if any documents were used at all, yes or no, she said she could not answer yes or no. They all know they're guilty, they're just hoping to get away with it. At the very least let's give them ulcers!

terminu said...

Suntango: Read this article
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/10/12/why-bho-cannot-be-a-legal-president/
and the laws of AZ, HI, TX, SC, and AL are outlined. Arizona is the only one with a revised statute requiring proof with facts of qualification of candidates prior to balloting.

The Democratic Committee of each of the other states was required to vet, but they used no documentation. In South Carolina the D.C. treasurer flippantly scribbled that Obama was qualified on the spot, without any documentation, when the SoS noted the ballot request omitted the requisite language. Literally she scrawled that Obama is qualified onto the form, and the SoS let that pass. In Texas, the D.C. head is a snarky sleazebucket who knows already he's under the microscope and is displaying evasive tactics. In Texas, the D.C. documents are subject to FOIA requests but they've been ignored. In Hawaii, the D.C. is just are playing "lalalala I can't hear you".
The only hope I believe is to inundate the Attorney General of Arizona with complaints about civil rights violations or sue them for not upholding their laws. Jan Brewer is probably a controlled opposition operative because she won't speak up. Arizona state Senator Pearce may be a simpatico voice but he's got to be brought up to speed with the actual legalese.

terminu said...

The other thing that must be done is to inundate your reps, whether they be Dem or Rep, and especially if they've purported to support the military at all... to rail on about Col. Terrence Lakin, M.D., whose court martial is on December 14. In defiance of his rights, the judge Denise Lind has refused him discovery, or any witnesses, and he can't even speak in his own defense AT ALL. He is guaranteed to be C.M.ed and faces up to four years hard labor at Leavenworth all for asking for proof that Obama is even a legal president at all!
Lakin is a MARTYR in this cause, and will truly suffer as a direct result of the corruption of the judiciary and turning a blind eye by political representatives. They cannot be allowed to ignore this.

The other thing is to circumvent the gross media corruption, criminality and censorship, and call in to talk shows on the radio, be they for cooking, home interior decor, finance or politics, and slip in the language of usurpation. "My couch doesn't belong in my living room, it looks like it's from Kenya and has usurped the space!" ...this has to become part of the lexicon in whatever forms.

Keep us updated. I have called the AG of AZ and gotten hostility, which is a good sign. I have called the TX DC head and when asked which documents he used his secretary said she couldn't say. When asked, the, if any documents were used at all, yes or no, she said she could not answer yes or no. They all know they're guilty, they're just hoping to get away with it. At the very least let's give them guilt ulcers!

Pagina sobre el padre von Wernich said...

Exposed: Now we know why the anti-American obots love Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin Basher, Colonel Dwight Sullivan of CAAFLOG...


http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/now-we-know-why-anti-american-obots.html#comment-form



http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/now-we-know-why-anti-american-obots.html#comment-form

See

http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments



http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/#comments

Mario Apuzzo won the debate, Sullivan gave up. Messages backing Apuzzo most of the time
are not aproved.

The way Sullivan speaks about court cases about the usurper, make anyone think he is advising
on his web to someone could it be the courts, congress or the media. The time spent also at other sites on the same issue by his followers like NBC from http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/

or SueDB sounds like they have a job to do in their well trained assignment.

Michael-Is-Great said...

Mr. Apuzzo, I would like to address these comments to you personally.

I sent on this comments page two postings so far. In one of these two, I clearly explained that the legal path is a dead end and that we now have to find a plan of action outside of the legal arena so that we might still find a way to fully protect and upheld the sacredness of the Constitution of the USA.

Check my comments on this comments page starting by Michael-Is-Great, especially the one starting by "You all made comments concerning this posting by Mr. Apuzzo ...".
Then write a new article with a heading similar to the following one: "What plan of action could we adopt to still fight this case against Obama in order to upheld the Constitution of the USA?". Then, summarize the main ideas that you have along with the ones that I have proposed and let us all move forward to a fight we can win (not to a dead end with dishonest judges at the Supreme Court of the USA!).

Unfortunately, the fight in court is a lost cause as you have proven by your recent case at the Supreme Court.
THERE IS A NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A CONCRETE PLAN OF ACTION TO STILL FIGHT THIS CAUSE BUT THROUGH OTHER AVENUES: GP REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS, ETC.

Most, if not all, GOP senators and representatives should be able to understand that to be eligible to be president of the USA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. And TO BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA MUST:
1) BE AMERICAN HIMSELF.
2) BOTH PARENTS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA MUST BE AMERICAN.
AS OBAMA'S FATHER WAS NEVER AN AMERICAN, OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND THEREFORE OBAMA IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VOTES HE WON FOR THIS POSITION. END OF THE STORY. More information should be obtained from the articles you already wrote on this matter.
This simple explanation to any GOP representative and senator should convince them to adopt a plan of action to remove Obama from office based on the Constitution of the USA.

NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT AND JUST DO IT!
CONTACT GOP REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS AND GIVE THEM THIS EXPLANATION. REFER THEM TO THE ARTICLES ON THIS SITE. AND ASK THEM TO ADOPT A PLAN OF ACTION ON THIS MATTER TO REMOVE OBAMA FROM OFFICE. NOTHING LESS.
AND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!! WE HAVE ALREADY LOST TOO MUCH TIME THROUGH THE DEAD END WITH THE LEGAL AVENUE!

bdwilcox said...

Mario,

Like I said before, don't waste your valuable time arguing with someone as worthless as Sullivan. I know he was slandering you on his blog, but no more than he and his malignant brethren slander our Constitution every day.

You're too valuable a resource to be wasted preaching to those who've eagerly sold their souls to the devil. Instead, we need your energy, hard work and insight to help us in this struggle. Ignore the bum and his own perverse proclivities will do him in; after all, if your enemy is committing suicide, just stay out of his way.

I was going to go on his website and call him pond scum, but stopped because I'd be slandering pond scum.

bdwilcox said...

Michael-Is-Great,

I get the point you're making, but there are other ways to get the usurper out of office and proven a fraud. Never forget, Al Capone murdered people in cold blood but they had to nail his arse with tax evasion. (I know showing Obama's not eligible would be the silver bullet to depose him and begin the process of undoing his malfeasance, but at this point it seems EVERY branch of government is so compromised they will never advance the cause.)

To nail the usurper, I think Social Security fraud, violation of campaign finance laws in respect to foreign donations, racketeering for Sestak's seat in Chicago, etc. can all be used to bring him down.
(I suspect Issa's 'innocent lamb' act is to keep Obama's minions from panicking and destroying evidence.)

Once Obama's been impeached, indicted and incarcerated, an investigation can begin into his usurpation and those who aided and abetted this treachery. And then comes the tedious job of unraveling his illegal acts, orders, signatures and appointments. ("Goodbye czars, Holder, Kagan and Sotomayor, don't let the door hit ya' where the good Lord split ya!")

United Natural Born Citizens said...

The 'election cycle' of 2008 has shown us we can no longer trust or count on ANY elected officials of either party. There is no two party system in effect, but rather only two factions vying to control the splitting of the spoils to the extent even some Tea Party factions must be viewed with a skeptical eye.

The infiltration of the 'Communist/Socialist/Progressives insurgency' reaches from Main Street of the smallest community to Capital Hill, the UN and Capitals around the Globe.

Our last refuge is the Constitution and each of us that remain Loyal to it.

By some counts there have been 72 cases trying to get to the facts of the 'eligibility' issue all dismissed on Standing.

We need only win ONE.

But it must be pursued within the Rule of Law under the Constitution without relying on legal loop-holes as the Usurper has done.

Standing appears to be a moving target under many of the Rules of the Law and Courts constraining what remedies may be sought and what questions may be asked. But that is where the battle ground is, that is where the battle must be joined.

itooktheredpill said...

FYI, the "seal" on the Soetoro/Obama "COLB" does not match the official seal of the HDOH.

Please see:

http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/unveiling-the-hdoh-seal/

cpanon said...

If the Wikileaks are so damaging to our State Department under Putative President Obama, you would think one of our damaged "allies" under this regime would drop the dime on the usurper.

Michael said...

Mario.
Look into Calvin's case of the postnati.

You will find that to be an English 'natural born subject', FIRST the father (albeit alien born)is considered a 'natural subject' for his off-spring (if born in England)to be a 'natural born subject'.
There are two qualities for 'natural born subject'and they are to be born by 'nature' AND 'birthright'.
It doesn't matter that the father may be alien born.
What matters is that the alien father MUST be a 'subject' FIRST, to produce a 'natural born subject'.
Jus sanguinis AND jus soli to be 'natural born'.

Michael said...

Page 49
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3548&start=1200

chuck said...

@ Michael-is-Great

I received an email this week (Dec 2, 2010) from my Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) reminding me that Obama was born in Hawaii and his parentage has nothing to do with eligibility!
I forwarded a copy to Mario.

I had asked Barton to start investigating Obama at a Town Hall meeting in June 2009. He refused but said he might join if someone else started it.

They are all complicit in lacking to vet Obama. To acknowledge that would demand an apology and punishment. They do not possess the integrity to admit and correct their mistakes.

Still, I think we should keep trying to find someone in Congress who will make an attempt.

bdwilcox said...

Terry Lakin's trial is in 7 days. Will anyone be going? I'm personally going to stay away because I would end up arrested for contempt of court or worse and that wouldn't help anybody.

It's time to start visiting and calling your representatives to find out what they're going to do to support an American hero who is about to be thrown in jail simply because he doesn't know if the Commander-in-Chief is Constitutionally eligible.

If the active military brass protect Obama by allowing Terry Lakin to burn, they are traitors to the United State and to the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold. They, along with their beloved usurper, are a festering sore upon this nation that, unless excised, may surely kill the body politic.

terminu said...

Janice Okubo quit suddenly after her department released the official hawaii seal, which does not match the COLB seal whatsoever (the COLB seal has double lines, no stars, wrong font, and is inverted!--the seal is supposed to be raised!)

I wonder if she sent off the FOIA information then got canned, or planned to quit?

Abercrombie, governor (lots of voter fraud) elect, is a 1000% criminal communist, Obama's beard, and must be working on the long form draft. He will be forced to put many people on the line for treason, himself, Fukino, any doctors that sign off on it, hospital staffers. These are serious document forgery/treason charges and the entire country is watching them. I have no doubt they will be that audacious as to generate a birth certificate and I have no doubt the media will flaunt it, but IT'S TOO LATE! There's a point of no return, and it's already been exceeded. We all know, and if they want to willingly commit a crime in slow motion before our eyes, that will be interesting.
They will have to figure out how to fake provenance, put a seal on it which does not match the COLB's in order for it to match Hawaii's, put on a certificate number that makes sense which will differ from the COLB's number which makes no sense, and again implicate themselves right out in the open.

Okubo it seems, was the spoiler to their slick transition to the fraudulent LFBC.

United Natural Born Citizens said...

Re; LTC Lakin.

From the posts I've seen it seems the defense is resigned to accepting convictions on at least some of the charges with the hope of mitigating some of them with the defense of 'bad advise' from the previous legal team.

Left in the back of my mind is the thought, hope, that they would take that conviction as 'particularizing' LTC Lakin's 'harm' to go to the 'civil' court of the USDC, D.C., with a Petition for Quo Warranto.

It would seem his 'standing' would be sufficient with a conviction taking from him his 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' so it would remain to convince the court to take up the jurisdiction.

There are three ways for the Court to allow such a petition. The first being for the USAG and/or US Atty to present it directly in which case the court MUST accept it, (good luck with that). The second is to gain acceptance by letter of request to the court, (not probable). The third is to post a bond in the amount of a negotiated amount sufficient to cover the costs of the defendant should the defendant prevail.

I suppose the first thing needed would be to negotiate the exclusion of the millions the '0' has already spent defending his sealed history, then argue that any of the '0s' personal expense has already been compensated by the use of 'public atty's'.

The crux would still remain. There is NO acknowledged Constitutionally legal definition of NBC which would require a motion for Declaratory Judgment as part of the remedies requested which could be forwarded under Rule 11 to SCOTUS as a feature of the Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto.

Just a thought.

bdwilcox said...

Obama COLB's 'official' seal is recessed instead of raised, making it unofficial. Chiyome Fukino is fired or resigns after UIPA requests begin to uncover Obama's COLB fraud.

From article: Somebody Please Blow the Whistle in Hawaii!!
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/somebody-please-blow-the-whistle-in-hawaii/

bdwilcox said...

Michael,

I just want to thank you for the research you do into English Common Law and how it relates to Constitutional history. It's obvious that the Gray court misapplied and misinterpreted English Common Law so as to reach their predetermined conclusion.

"The common law of England is not the common law of these states." -George Mason, delegate from Virginia, in the notes from the Federal Constitutional Convention
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txt

I think that still says it all.

And this says it all in pictures:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205525.html

I get chills every time I read that article.

"'Subjects.'

That's what Thomas Jefferson first wrote in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence to describe the people of the 13 colonies.

But in a moment when history took a sharp turn, Jefferson sought quite methodically to expunge the word, to wipe it out of existence and write over it. Many words were crossed out and replaced in the draft, but only one was obliterated.

Over the smudge, Jefferson then wrote the word "citizens."


No longer subjects to the crown, the colonists became something different: a people whose allegiance was to one another, not to a faraway monarch."

Michael said...

We appear to have a reluctant concession from Politijabers, that to be an English 'natural born subject' one must be born of a 'subject' father. i.e. jus sanguinis.

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=4898&p=190892#p190892

It's a sore point for the obots, and so their only recourse is to assert that an alien who whilst in US is 'under the jurisdiction' and therefore the alien to US is equivalent to when the alien who visits England is an automated English 'subject' and subject to indictment of treason.

But in US, an alien who is 'subject to jurisdiction' is not accepted by US as a 'citizen' nor subject to indictment of treason.

G A said...

A researcher has discovered that the alleged Obama COLB features an unauthorized reproduction of the Hawaii Dept. of Health official seal.

http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/

Robert said...

Mr. Kerchner, the door to the Supreme Court has been slammed shut on you. This does not mean that your message has not reached the people who really matter - the citizens.

Take a look at any blog about these issues. Here is a new one:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/12/luke-scott-luke-scott-birther-baltimore-orioles/comments/page/2/

There isn't a one that does not have your message about the NBC issues, and a decent analysis of his unreliable and untrustworthy Certification of Live Birth in it. The seeds of knowledge have been planted. Of course, in these same blogs you can read canned speeches from the race-baiters, name-callers, and other Obama worshippers. This only supports the argument that they don't have the facts on their side and are hiding behind procedures engineered to keep the two political parties in power.

cpanon said...

Hello
The lawlessness of the Ursurper Regime continues...maybe not. As we hope, repugnantly quivering for our asserted and founding freedom, for Quo Warranto filing, we may have just been given it. In the link below "law professors" state the GM/Chrysler bailout was illegal. There it is now go get them, finally
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/12/027873.php

bdwilcox said...

Mario is praised again by Lame Cherry.
http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2010/12/outlaw-usa.html

Ted said...

IMPORTANT ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari on lack of standing in the Kerchner case, coming after the multitude of no-standing cases, essentially confirms that the SCOTUS will not extend Marbury v Madison to review alleged Congressional deriliction under the Constitution, as opposed to alleged Congressional legislative infringement under the Constitution. That's what Kerchner really means in legal terms -- the Court defers to Congress on Const. Art 2, Sec 1.

This does, however, set the stage for the House of Representatives (first at the Armed Services Committee) to review the upcoming Lt.Col. Lakin Court Martial in the event the Lakin Military Tribunal refuses discovery. In essence, the Congress WILL undertake discovery.

And so THAT is how things will end for Mr. Obama, and very well could lead to new House Speaker John Boehner becoming either the 45th President of the United States (or the 44th POTUS if Obama's 'presidency' were nullified, which POTUS nullification the SCOTUS felt it simply could not undertake as an extension of Marbury v Madison).

juniper55 said...

Yes, but will anybody in the House of Reps actually do that?

I've seen no assurance by any member of Congress that they will finally act on this.

Then again, maybe some disgruntled DEMOCRAT should be the one! They don't like BHO much these days either....

Ted said...

Inevitably the House of Reps will have to act --
"birther" is now becoming lib-mainstream, first of Leno the other night, and now on SNL last night!

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/12/snl-goes-birther-again-i-say-you.html

cfkerchner said...

CDR Charles Kerchner [Ret], Lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Lawsuit and Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, to Attend LTC Lakin Court Martial | See details @ SafeGuardOurConstitution.com
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/press-release/kerchnertoattend.html


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

juniper55 said...

From www.wnd.com (WorldNet Daily)

McInerny: Congress will review Lakin case
3-star general: Physician 'is not going to get a fair trial'

Posted: December 10, 2010
9:45 pm Eastern

By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney predicts the incoming Republican-controlled House of Representatives will launch an investigation if Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is convicted in next week's court martial.

See their website for more.

Again I ask - WHO in Congress will finally champion this??

Waiting for SCOTUS' Steven Breyer to ride the Metro from Union Station to Maryland on a conceal & carry to go hunting per his Second Amendment Rights... (60 Minutes)

Ted said...

IMPORTANT POINT:

The timing is perfect for the new House to take up a “Kangarood” Lakin (if he were denied discovery tomorrow), coming after SCOTUS tossing Obama’s NBC ineligibility back to Congress under the Kerchner case, while the new House can be excused from charges of hypocracy and guilt admission by only lately taking up Obama’s NBC ineligibility, since the Cheney led Congressional counting of electoral votes can be claimed to have relied on the newly FORMER Speaker Pelosi’s fraudulant certification.

The stars are aligned!

jayjay said...

Ted:

I can see no likelihood that this Congress has the stomach to take up the Obama elgibility issue either now OR later,

They are cowards in the extreme just as are the Supreme Court Justices (apparently all of them) abd the eligibility matter is a matter of Constitutional interpretation - which is NOT the province of Congress. The Congregational Cowards only may take up political issues and the eligibility issue is not that at all but is required to be "thus-and-so" by mandatory wording in that document. Having it not "thusly so" ten becomes not a political matter, but a criminal matter (along with the many other crimes committed along the way), A political solution to a criminal matter is not what is needed!!!

Congress as a body is now as craven as the Supreme Court and neither of these two Branches of "our" goverment actually give a good God Damn about the interests or desires of the citizens ... they are now officially considered "subjects" just as with King George III many years ago.

It was a nice Constitutional Repulic while it lasted - but Ben Franklin was right ...

The Oligarchs will merely to continue to vote themselves benes and more power over the subjects since it is now clear that neither of the two branches has the guts to stop them and are, in fact, now official Oligarchs themselves.

Get lost, subjects!!!

Michael said...

Update on the Politijabers getting nervous about 'natural born subject' not meaning what they thought it would mean.

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3548&p=192151#p192151

United Natural Born Citizens said...

The Constitution embodies the high ideals of centuries of mankind's longings for liberty and freedom from the tyrannies of Guv'mnts established to enrich those that guv'rn at the expense of those that are guv'rnd.......as highly as I cherish the Parchment upon which those ideals were written that established a New Form of Government, it is, after all is said and done, the ideals that must be supported, protected and defended.

It is by the manipulation of the laws that has allowed this usurpation to take place and until the every effort possible to use the law to bring it to an end been exhausted we must stay focused on our faith in the Constitution to protect us, even from enemies within.

Ted said...

jayjay:--

You miss my point vis a vis the importance of Lakin. The House Armed Services Committee WOULD BE REVIEWING LAKIN'S ENTITLEMENT TO DISCOVERY!!!! -- otherwise Congress is approving the Armed Services use of "kangaroo courts".

That's the beauty of Lakin -- following AFTER Kerchner.

Always keep your eye on the ball: The issue is DISCOVERY, NOT merely Obama! A GOP Congress will NOT, in the end, allow a kangaroo military court disallowing discovery. And a military tribunal which disallows discovery IS A KANGAROO COURT.

(... and then, discovery will be the end of Obama)

Ted said...

While Congressional culpability in its January 2009 Cheney led approval of electoral votes can possibly be excused by reliance on Speaker Pelosi’s, now shown as fraudulent and/or deficient, certification of Obama eligibility, Speaker Boehner will have an obligation, not only to Lt. Col. Lakin, but to the American people, to lead review of Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Obama certification’, or Congressional culpability remains on the new Congress.

Lisa said...

Mario and Charles, et al. - I know you guys are really smart and I am blown away by all you have done so I'm surprised I am even suggesting I could have any input.

In the headline about the auto insurance canard in regards to the federal appeal on the unconstitutional judgment against the healthcare reform legislatue, it is questioned, "Is this the best you can come up with?"

I wondered if there isn't some kind of law that states by default of lack of evidence, after repeated requests for production, lawful declaration can be made to the "truth". Seems silly, I know, but isn't that how it's working for Obama? Isn't that how McCain was declared a natural born citizen.

If: Obama has not been able to produce anything better than the two fakes on the Internet, a better forgery has not been produced, an original has not be leaked, an investigator has not be able to find, an employee has not copied, etc. In other words, "Is this the best you got?"

Couldn't a Grand Jury accomplish this?

I'm not a legal scholar, and I don't pretend to be one. I do want to help in anyway possible. This just hit me like a lightning bolt this morning, and I felt compelled to share it.

God bless you, and our great nation.

elspeth

United Natural Born Citizens said...

I believe that the institutions of our Guv'mnt are in a state of siege being held hostage by forms of blackmail, extortion, and intimidation held together by those that are the infiltrated insurgency that are the perpetrators and fellow travelers in pursuit of the various goals of the socialist utopia pipe-dream under the color of the flags of both the DemoRat and RINO Parties.

American tolerance and complacency in the face of the growing socialist movement over the past 50 years will not be overcome by a slim margin of majorities in the Congress or State Guv'mnts.

The Socialists must be rebuffed, repudiated and opposed at every turn of events until the public awareness reaches a critical mass of understanding. Overcoming the usurpation and insurgency can not be expected to be overcome by a single act or circumstance but only by sustained opposition to its every evil.

Ted said...

A MUST read:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/crucible_of_a_hero.html

Ted said...

Commander Kerchner:--

Just saw onlne the video played at the Terry Lakin Court Martial and simply must ask, WHY NO MENTION OF OBAMA'S DAD PRECLUDING OBAMA AS A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"???

He only speaks about the Hawaii Birth certificate.

The Hawaii Birth issue is a RED HERRING, RED HERRING, RED HERRING.

Since you met with Lt Col. Lakin, I MUST ask, do you suspect anything "fishy" there??? (I would hate to believe this, but, but, but, i.e., planted Obot set up to divert from real issue?)

Please give your opinion.

Ted said...

As I stated over at Citizen Wells:

"Maybe Lt.Col. Lakin was duped by Team Obama so the likes of CNN can divert from the real legal impediment to Obama’s eligibility (his dad was British) to the Hawaii birth certificate — and THAT IS the conspiracy!"

A pen said...

I have a new tac. Civil rights. Title 42 S1985 sub 3.

Has Charles been discriminated against by the standing rule?

S res511 defined McCain as qualified as a NBC and in words defined those qualifications. They spoke to the constitutionality of McCain. That opened the door for the question to be asked of both the senate and the supreme court as to what is the real definition as we all know the senate does not interpret the meaning of the constitution.

Refusing to hear the question is in itself a violation of the law as stated above. Kerchner has an equal right to both speak and question the government as the government has to speak and interpret the law. How else is legality determined?

United Natural Born Citizens said...

A pen said...
I have a new tac. Civil rights. Title 42 S1985 sub 3.

Craig v US tried that track and was rebuffed not able to show particularized harm that is not suffered by all other similarly situated.........

....Craig v US #2 is filed and will be reported when Marshal's service receipts are returned.....based on the inability to obtain administrative relief for the harm and exhausting all appeals attempted with no other relief available......

.....long story short, the 'citizenship question' is on track to be litigated in the Fed Courts........SCOTUS by October...?