“The colonial history of Kenya dates from the Berlin Conference of 1885, when the European powers first partitioned east Africa into spheres of influence. In 1895, the British Government established the East African Protectorate and, soon after, opened the fertile highlands to white settlers. In 1920, Kenya officially became a British colony. From October 1952 to December 1959, Kenya was under a state of emergency arising from the Mau Mau rebellion against British colonial rule. Kenya became independent on December 12, 1963, and the next year joined the Commonwealth.” http://www.uiowa.edu/~africart/toc/countries/Kenya.html.
Now let us apply this historical background to a factual scenario. We are in the time period after the Constitution is adopted in 1787. A man is born in a British colony as a British "natural born subject." He comes to America just to study, with the intent to return to that British colony upon completion of his studies. While in America, he impregnates an American citizen. The two then marry and have a child who, let us assume for sake of argument, is born in one of the United States in 1961. The British man then finishes his studies and goes back to his native land, leaving both his wife and son in America. The wife eventually divorces this man.
Query: Would the Founders and Framers, who wanted to assure the preservation of the new constitutional republic which they built with blood, sweat, and tears shed in a war with Great Britain, and who wrote in the Constitution that after its adoption only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President, have allowed the child of that British "natural born subject" father and American citizen mother to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military in 2009?
Your comments and analysis are welcomed.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
http://puzo1.blogs.com
December 16, 2010
Modified on January 9, 2010
###
Of course the Founders and Framers would not have allowed that, as confirmed under Const. Art. 2 Sec. 1.
ReplyDeleteTHAT IS PRECISELY WHY I'VE ASKED THE QUESTION IN YOUR LAST THREAD, maybe Lt.Col. Lakin was duped by Team Obama to argue solely on the red herring of the birth certificate so the media can continue its diversion from Obama's real legal impediment (his dad was British) --and THAT IS the grand conspiracy!
(what really puzzles me is why the Rush Limbaugh's, Mark Levin's, Glen Beck's, Laura Ingraham's, Michael Savage's and VIRTUALLY all the rest of Conservative media make the same diversion??? -- they certainly know the real issue of Const Art. 2 Sec. 1 -- as you succinctly post)
In any event, to move things along, I'd suggest that from your unique position as counsel carrying this to the Supreme Court confirming that its review does not extend here, but lies in Congress, that you direct this succinct query and thread to each and every member of the Congress, and do so, repeatedly, each and every day, until you receive appropriate response.
ReplyDeleteI'm aware that you and Commander Kerchner have already expended considerable time, money and effort -- and your countrymen are more than thankful -- so perhaps you can generate a volunteer team to carry out this important patriotic effort, especially now that there's a real Lt Col Lakin in the slammer over this (albeit he focused on the wrong point -- see above).
This is a chess match. Perhaps the American people are close to checkmate against Team Obama after all. The next move is on the new GOP House, but overwhelming sustained concentration must be made on that move.
I know the constitutional requirements to be one are less stringent, but have we ever had a situation where a sitting member of the House or Senate was found to be lying about his eligibility to be elected? What was the outcome? I know we've had a few people removed from office once found out, but was there ever a criminal penalty assessed for what amounts to false representation of your credentials?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, is there any CURRENT member of the House or Senate who will decidedly bring the eligibility issue up and actually act on it once the new congress is seated?
The answer is: YES they would have. The framers of the Constitution allowed even criminals to be eligible to run for president, and they said not one single word about forbidding Tories (the Americans who fought against the Revolution) from being eligible to be president. Their principle was to exclude as few people as possible. They allowed voters to make the choice.
ReplyDeleteThose under 35 are excluded. Those who have not lived here for at least 14 years are excluded. Non-citizens are excluded because the president must be a natural born Citizen, and naturalized citizens are excluded because the president must be a Natural Born citizen.
But US citizens who were born in the USA are not excluded because they are natural born. The meaning of natural born at the time referred to the common law and to the laws in the American colonies and early US states, and it referred only to the place of birth--not to the parents. John Jay, who wrote the letter to Washington about the need for a Natural Born citizen was a lawyer--highly familiar with the common law, who never (like all the others at the time) in any of his writings used the term Natural Born to refer to the parents of a citizen.
And pivotally the Hawaii birth certificate red herring enabled the Lakin Military Tribunal to rule against Lakin once the Judge disallowed discovery on the birth and birth certificate.
ReplyDeleteI say pivotally because with the argument as properly framed (Obama's dad British) THERE IS NO DISCOVERY NEEDED (no Obama facts in dispute causing embarrassment per the Judge). It's SIMPLY a ruling on law. (Again, that's why I say "birther red herring" conspiracy by Team Obama.)
All natural born citizens have zero first generation blood or soil ties to a foreign nation.
ReplyDeleteThat hasn't changed.
Look at the grandfather clause: Article II allowed "citizens" if alive at the time of ratification to be president, but not afterward. So what is the difference between a "citizen" and a natural born citizen as far as the founders were concerned? A citizen was anyone whom they'd deemed by law or treaty or declaration to be so. A natural born citizen could only have existed starting at 35 years after 1787. So by 1788, if that was your birthdate, you had to be "different" from someone alive in 1787...so what was that difference?
Well since the founders had established the category of citizen to include persons with at least one first generation link to a foreign nation, that meant that natural born citizens had to only include persons with NO first generation links to any foreign nation, aka "natural born Citizens".
why restrict this to just a British national....would it be any different is say...Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev or Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev...from the USSR...had visited and solicited a prostitute that became pregnant...the issue would not be any different.
ReplyDeleteIn this blog post there is a newspaper article circa 1952 on Dewy releasing his long form birth certificate when his eligibility was challenged.
ReplyDeletehttp://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/the-congressional-research-office-agrees/#comment-774
The time is coming when Americans will wake up to find that they no longer have a home of their own.
ReplyDelete"He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it anyway," O'Beirne [the Army Prosecutor] told the jury, asking members to send a message with their sentence and telling them they could "write the headline" that appears in papers about Lakin.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101216/ap_on_re_us/us_army_birther
If you pulled down O'Beirne's pants, I wonder if you'd find Obama's glove still firmly lodged.
smrstrauss, I'm fascinated at your statement: "The meaning of natural born at the time referred to the common law and to the laws in the American colonies and early US states, and it referred only to the place of birth--not to the parents." Could you please show us proof that natural born came from common law rather than natural law? And if it did indeed come from common law, which common law? American common law? English common law? And where in either of the two aforementioned common laws is the exact term "Natural Born Citizen" found? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteCDR Kerchner;
ReplyDeletePlease respond....I have identified a reversible error in the LTC Lakin Court-Martial but do not know how to reach his team ....
Judge Lind based her decision on a faulty assumption of Law....She, and for that matter NO ONE can KNOW if the '0' is a 'legally' elected POTUS.....you know me, you know the case I am pursuing...but I do not know the Rules of Courts-Martial and if there is a review process.....but I do know that Judge Lind made a critical error that I wish a Judge would make in my case.........
Attorney Apuzzo:--
ReplyDeleteYou say that the "British colony... natural born subject...comes to America just to study, with the intent to return to that British colony upon completion of his studies...The British man then finishes his studies and goes back to his native land..."
BUT, Pastor Rick Warren stated in Obama's Inaugural Invocation:
"Now, today, we rejoice not only in America’s peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time. We celebrate a hingepoint of history with the inauguration of our first African American president of the United States. We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African IMMIGRANT can rise to the highest level of our leadership..." (emphasis added)
An IMMIGRANT is not someone who intends to and does go back to his native land; quite the contrary, an IMMIGRANT is defined as someone who wants to settle in the new land.
Was Pastor Warren duped? The American people sure were.
(at best daddy Obama was on a student visa, and certainly had no green card)
By the way, when I first heard that invocatation in real time on TV, I was jolted when I heard the word "immigrant" in that context.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to run this by Pastor Warren. (Did some member of Team Obama 'assist' the Good Pastor in writing/editing his remarks? Clever, verrryyyy clever!)
I was trying to find out whether a person of DUAL citizenship could serve in our military (google search), specifically if they could become a high-ranking officer. (We've had some who were NATURALIZED citizens become officers)
ReplyDeleteI am not talking about people who wish to become citizens, or people who are working with our military (on JSF, for example)
I am talking about people who already hold dual citizenship who do not want to relinquish that citizenship of the other country (hostile to the US or not).
Is this possible? (I have a followup depending on the reply)
Ted:
ReplyDeleteAside fromn thae fact that the poser "smrstrauss" is a notorious, frequent, and long-term Flying Monkey of ill-repute that was "outed" by name along with his wife, lodging, and other personal its, let's rightfully ignore him (and wifey Ann too).
Instead, let's look at what the military court system has done - which in fact seems to be the clear equivalent of the Supreme Court. By convicting Col . Lakin they have, in fact, said implicitly that Obama is legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies. Any other conclusion flies in the face of both common and legal sense since if not legally eligible then the entire trial is nothing but sham. It matters not whether Lakin claims Obama is ineligible, but merely that the convicting court must so have judged otherwise the orders at issue ARE NOT LAWFUL and the government has no case. Lakin could only be found guilty if the orders were lawful which is what the court is and has been poretending all the way along this particular kangaroo court proceeding yeet Obama has never shown himself legally eligible as required by the Constitution.
So the UCMJ folks are doing the equivalent protect-Barry song and dance with their "you may use no evidence at all nor even menton eligiility" ruling as did SCOTUS
with their "standing" legal fictions as they make the pretense of all militrary orders start onlty within the military and the CIC (Chief IslamoCommunnist) is never involved with them or other such military matter.
Sheer and utter nonsense!! Who do these Bozos think we are?? Some sort of fools and inept morons??
Both of these courts have now done what Chief Justice John Marshall proclaimed in Cohens v. Virginia in 1821 was "Treason to the Constitution" and both bodies are those that are sworn by "solemn" oath to uphold the Constitution.
They may think it's a joke but most of us think it's not funny at all - in fact it's sad to se our country destroying itself by sweallowing its own tail.
jayjay, the point I was making is that with the lack of discovery Lakin had no basis or evidence to show illegality -- he couldn't argue illegality of orders OR Obama as POTUS.
ReplyDeleteIf the issue were Daddy O's Britishness, there was no discovery for the Military Court to deny -- and it would have been stuck ruling on the law -- being were the Orders and Obama lawful or not lawful.
As it turned out, the Military Court never had to get there; the issue was simply did Lakin violate the Orders -- no argument even considered as to whether the Orders were lawful or not.
jayjay; indulge me and riddle me this;
ReplyDeleteIf there is NO 'legally acknowledged' definition of natural born Citizen by any 'controlling legal authority' in re: A2S1C5, no Declaratory Statement or Judgement, no promulgated Statute, nothing under the color of Law, yet Judge Lind, from the bench and under the color of authority stated that the '0' was 'legally' elected when asked for discovery to determine if he was legally elected under A2S1C5.
Where's an atty when you need one...?
the obots always say all "born citizens" are natural born citizens...
ReplyDeleteso then why put in the grandfather clause? If indeed born citizens were eligible before and after 1787, why say anything if they're the same as a natural born citizen?
that does not pass the smell test
Ted,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. An "immigrant" is someone who has a "green card." In our immigration laws, that person is called a "legal permanent resident” (LPR). Someone who enters the United States legally on a student visa cannot have intent to be an immigrant. If that were his or her intent, then that person would not be able to legally enter on that student visa.
So, since Obama's father entered on a student visa, he did not legally have the intent to be an immigrant. Nor was he ever an immigrant, for he never acquired legal permanent status which would have been evidenced by him having a "green card." Without any intent to make the United States his permanent home and by his return to his native land, Obama Sr. was also never domiciled in the United States.
All this shows that Pastor Rick Warren made an error when he referred to Obama's father as an "immigrant." Such an error is a serious one, for it could have caused the American people who voted for Obama who did not look further into the matter to believe that “immigrant” meant that his father was a “citizen of the United States.”
United Natural Born Citizens,
ReplyDeleteCommander Kerchner has been away for several days attending the Lt.Col. Lakin court martial trial. I do not believe he is back yet. He will respond to your question, if he can, when he returns.
Many of us have been approaching the question from the wrong perspective for some time.
ReplyDeleteAfter the Declaration of Independence the various Colony/States wrote their own State Constitutions and the State 'Committee' Representatives wrote, voted on and passed the Articles of Confederation. Each of those States had similar processes of identifying who was and may be a citizen of their state. With the adoption of the Constitution it was only those citizens, already identified among the various States, who were the 1st citizens of the United States under the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
There were NO jus Soli Grants of Citizenship among the various States Constitutions and there were NO Jus Soli Grant of Citizenship under the Constitution until the 14th, ergo, insofar as American Citizenship is concerned, Jus Soli is relegated to being ONLY one of the circumstances requisite to the idiom of natural born Citizen.
Our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and where promulgated laws are established there is NO need to look elsewhere for definitions, meanings and intent.
That is not to say that other sources and the history of any given subject can not inform as to what may be useful to the needs of the civil society, but once the Laws are written and passed we have consented to be bound by them.
PLEASE don't publish the first version I sent, use this one because I found some other historical facts:
ReplyDeleteEpiphany?:
The grandfather clause allowed "citizens" to be president if alive at time of ratification in 1787.
Obots always argue these "citizens" were oath-naturalized.
But there were no oath-naturalized citizens prior to 1790, when the first Naturalization Law in the USA was implemented.
Therefore "citizens" could NOT have referred to oath-naturalized, rather this had to mean birth-naturalized citizens.
So the grandfather clause simply means all birth-naturalized citizens could be president if born before 9-17-1787.
Indeed all of the first 5 presidents were "birth naturalized" All early US presidents are 2nd generation jus soli from
both parents except for Thomas Jefferson whose mother was born in England. BHO and the other usurper Chester Arthur
are the only "presidents" with a non-US citizen parent at the time of their birth. BHO, whose father was born in UKC,
never was a US Citizen. BHO would not even have been considered "birth naturalized" in 1787 even if born jus soli, thus ineligible even then.
There simply was no such thing as an oath-naturalized citizen before 1790.
George Washington had early loyalists swear an oath of allegiance to fight with him, but this was not a citizenship oath.
So Obots destroy their own argument, for in all cases the grandfather-clause presidents who were "born citizens", could not have been
oath-naturalized, and thus the term "natural born Citizen" has to mean something besides what a "born citizen" means.
Since all born citizens have at least one first generation tie by blood or soil to a foreign nation, then natural born citizens
have to be those who have zero first generation ties by blood or soil to a foreign nation. And so it does.
http://history.sd.gov/Archives/Data/Naturalization/default.aspx
Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother but she was a US citizen before his birth.
Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in England but was a naturalized US Citizen.
Chester Arthur's father did not naturalize before his birth and was born in Ireland, so Chester was the first usurper.
James Buchanan both had an Irish father who naturalized before his birth.
Thomas Jefferson's mother was born in England and she could not have oath-naturalized but this was covered by the grandfather clause, since
Jefferson was born in Virginia and was a "born citizen".
Andrew Jackson's parents were both born in Ireland but naturalized in the USA.
Chester Arthur's Irish father naturalized after Chester was born.
ReplyDeleteObama's father never naturalized EVER!
So post-grandfather clause, BHO is the only "president" with a foreign father.
SMRSTRAUSS said ....
ReplyDelete"The meaning of natural born at the time referred to the common law and to the laws in the American colonies and early US states, and it referred only to the place of birth--not to the parents. John Jay, who wrote the letter to Washington about the need for a Natural Born citizen was a lawyer--highly familiar with the common law, who never (like all the others at the time) in any of his writings used the term Natural Born to refer to the parents of a citizen."
You should take a good look at the 'Common Law' and you will find that in England & according to English Common Law, to be an English 'natural born subject' on must be born with TWO qualities, i.e. 'nature' and 'birthright'.
An alien visitor to England, in amity was considered a 'natural subject' and the child of such a 'subject' was a 'natural born subject'
Over time the US courts have screwed & twisted the 'alien' aspect of this Common Law precedent, to make it mean other then what it ACTUALLY means, putting aside the fact that the 'alien' was actually a 'subject' to be able to produce a 'natural born subject'.
You see, in England, there are those who may be born in England but NOT be 'natural born subjects'.
UNLIKE England, US doesn't accept alien visitors as a part of the body of US citizens, so to be in line with English Common Law, the alien in US would need to be first accepted as a citizen of US to be able to produce a 'natural born Citizen' and have a child as such due by 'nature' and 'birthright' to be consistent with the Common Law.
.
mountaingoatshoes; Not to nit pick.....but...;
ReplyDeleteThere were NO ‘birth naturalized’, one was either born to citizen parents who possessed the ability to convey ‘birthright citizenship’ or they were born to non-citizens of various circumstances and would be ‘naturalized’ as a minor when their father ‘naturalized’ or they would have to wait and apply when they reached the age of majority, (21 yrs old in most instances).
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/18th.asp (Articles of Confederation and the State Constitutions as existed at the time of adoption of the US Constitution)
The Grandfather Clause does indeed proscribe ‘naturalized and Dual Citizens’ from the Office of POTUS once those that were Citizens of one of the various States at the TIME of the adoption of the Constitution passed away.
It is an arguable proposition whether any person who ‘naturalized’ AFTER the adoption but still of the Founding Generation would have been eligible or not, the circumstance never arose.
But see Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution for a clear understanding of the Grandfather Clause;
…. “It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country…..”
But please get it out of your thoughts that there was ANY Jus Soli Grant of Citizenship among the various States under the Articles of Confederation at the time of adoption of the Constitution and there was no jus soli grant of Citizenship under the Constitution until the 14th Amendment, which arguably is unconstitutionally practiced now in that the ‘original intent’ of the ‘born clause’ of the 14th has long since accomplished its purpose.
United: No please feel free to nitpick...scrutiny refines
ReplyDeleteMy main focus was on the discovery that not until 1790 was there a law to naturalize an alien by oath.
So the obots always saying the grandfather clause refers to oathed-naturalized cannot be correct, it's impossible.
And given that this is not the meaning they were obviously referring to birthright-citizens.
And since they differentiated birthright citizens from natural born Citizens, the distinction had to be that (am I on the right track?)....
Massachusetts in 1646, and other of America’s Colonies instituted Natural and Divine Law to supplement and fill in where Magna Charta (et al. Constitutional) and Common Law allowed. The Constitution of Vermont, July 4, 1786 @ 2.12 and the Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776 @ 2.10 requires all its representatives to swear they "acknowledge the scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration...." The Constitution of Delaware; September 21, 1776 @ Article 22
ReplyDeleterequires its representatives to swear: " I, A B. do profess faith in G-D the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one G-D, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
With the signing of the Virginia Treaty of March 12, 1651, when the Virginia Colony’s House of Burgesses entered into a Free Trade Treaty (et al.) with Great Britain (cf. Thomas Jefferson’s “A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA”), America's legal relationship was by precedent established as distinctively unique from those laws (including those Common Laws) that governed the United Kingdom and other English citizens and subjects, and this all began (as Jefferson recorded for us to know) with the unique Treaty and political experience between the Virginia House of Burgesses and England in 1651. Natural and Divine Law merged in Christian Interpretation in the American Experience of Jurisprudence -- Rector, etc. of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 456 (1892); School District of Abington TP. V. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963); Van Orden v. Perry, 545 US 677 (2005) -- to such an extent that we must include such a perspective as true Founder's Intent and Founders' Constitutional Originalism. In Matthew Chapter 1, and Luke chapter 3, it is the Father who passes on national identity and citizenship by bloodline. So it is also in the Old Testament. That perspective from that time to at least 3 decades ff. Perkins v. Elg, was that a US Citizen Father (though naturalized, as Steinkauler was, though Liberals lie and call him an alien) who has a child on US Soil, that child becomes a US Natural Born Citizen at birth.
So unless the British NBC became a naturalized US Citizen, and swore fealty to the US alone, and THEN the US Citizen mother bore the child on US Soil...in 1787- 1789, the child was ineligible to serve even on the US Senate, as well as was disqualified from seeking the US Presidency or any Cabinet Offices.
Ted:
ReplyDeleteYes - that's the whole point, to make the UCMJ rulings that were made they had to have implicitly ruled (whether stated by Lind or anyone else) that Obama was eligible to hold the office he occupies for his orders to be lawful.
In fact, there is legally no way they can make that ruling since to do so overrfides the Constitution that requires the office to be held by a nbC as we know. A military court does not override the U. S. Constitution therefore the entire sham of Lakin's trial is beyond the lawful scope of US (including military) law. For the orders to be declared lawful either implicitly or in fact is a ruling that violates the Constitutional precept of saying the holder of the office "shall be" a nbC and the entire trial and conviction is a shameful fraud upon our entire legal system (as is the refusal of SCOTUS to grant cert so that the Kerchner et al case may be heard on merit,
Both types of Courts have done what Chief Justice Marshall described as "Treason to the Constitution" ...SCOTUS since it was its clear duty to hear such a grave constitutional matter (and rule on the nbC definition) and the military court since its members had ALL taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution rather than to fraudulently interpret it which is WAY above their pay grade.
All of those involved in both Courts have performed the Marshall-defined Treason to the Constitution.
"Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution"
ReplyDeletePolitijabers are eveading the point and going silent.
Funny to watch.
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3548&p=193906#p193906
Obama posted a COLB with a verifiably forged seal, it's an inverted, mismatches seal unlike the official raised seal from Hawaii's DOH (this seal was received by Miss Tickly upon UIPA request).
ReplyDeleteWell this alone is a class B felony, 10 years. Then using a forged document to attain position falsely is another federal statute violation, 15 years.
Why aren't these obvious crimes being prosecuted? The seal is out there, it's forged. This is as clear cut as things get!
Why should American citizens follow any rules when these people don't follow ANY?
Quick question - let's say that Barry's biologtical father turns out to actually be a US citizen, but Obama Sr. still agrees to marry Stanly Ann and assume the role of father (this situation is not THAT uncommon) and has his name placed on Barry's birth certificate as the father. Which "Father" governs the "born in the US to two US parents" in this situation? The biological father or the "father" on the birth certificate? I guess I would argue that the "Father" on the birth certicate controls, but not sure if the US Supreme Court would agree.
ReplyDeleteLance&Lisa, if Neil Abercrombie fudges and cooks up a new birth certificate with this scenario on it, Obama "paid for by Barack Obama" put out there a forged COLB...he will try to distance himself from it, but he used it to gain office. He'd be guilty of federal statute violations, felony document forgery, and using a false name and social security number and NOBODY would have sympathy or believe him if he chooses the "I am a bastard" lie.
ReplyDeleteWe all know they know, they know we all know, that he's the puppet head of a coup, and Terry Lakin is his second political prisoner.
To answer your question, Mr. Apuzzo, it is obvious that the founders and framers of the Constitution of the USA would NOT have allowed Obama to be president of the USA for the simple reason that it violates a very specific part of the Constitution of the USA that they very carefully worded and crafted. And especially because Obama's father was a British citizen!
ReplyDeleteNow, read this article "Supremes facing eligibility challenge to Obama, again -
Taitz's case distributed for conference among justices on Jan. 7" at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240913
My prognostic on this particular case coming soon to "attention" of the Supreme Court of the USA is that most of the judges of the Supreme Court will, once again, trampled on justice and on the Constitution of the USA only to serve, support their own personal political agenda and their own personal political inclination.
And you know what, it will prove once again to all of you that Justice is dead in this country, the USA, and that a drastic reform of the Supreme Court is painfully needed!
A question to all of you.
WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO DO TO FIGHT THE FACT THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS INCAPABLE TO GIVE A FAIR JUDICIAL DECISION CONCERNING OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY? In one of my previous postings, I suggested that you contact your GOP representatives and senators and ask them to act, to prepare a plan of action to remove Obama from office based on the fact that he is not a "natural born citizen" because:
1) a president must be American. He never proved that with a long form certificate.
2) the parents of the president must both be Americans.
ACT NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. JUST DO IT!
Lance & Lisa said...
ReplyDeleteQuick question - let's say that Barry's biologtical father turns out to actually be a US citizen, but Obama Sr. still agrees to marry Stanly Ann and assume the role of father (this situation is not THAT uncommon) and has his name placed on Barry's birth certificate as the father. Which "Father" governs the "born in the US to two US parents" in this situation? The biological father or the "father" on the birth certificate? I guess I would argue that the "Father" on the birth certicate controls, but not sure if the US Supreme Court would agree.
Well, there are several 'matters of law' involved in your hypothetical, which, when I considered if F.M.Davis might have been the little '0s' real daddy0 I looked into.
Under the LAW, the Big0 'legitimized' the little '0', insofar as 'self expressed assertion' by the '0', so the Big0 was/is the '0s' 'de Facto', daddy0 at the least, if not 'de jure'.
Should it be that the '0' manufactured an alternative biography to shield from embarrassing facts he is subject to charges of FRAUD, which would make MOOT any 'legitimizing' of his NBC status.
As with any legal hypothetical the verifiable and admissible evidence and facts would guide and rule the nature of allegations and the final judgment.
http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/2010/12/president-military-court-and-common.html
ReplyDelete-Noz
Brianroy said...
ReplyDeleteYou are going back too far and miss the point that the Constitution is and has been the Supreme Law of the Land since its 'adoption'.
'Adoption' is a key point, in that the 'citizens' of the various States, under their individual Constitutions and in 'union' known as the United States under the Articles of Confederation 'Adopted' the form of Guv'mnt expressed in the Constitution and 'CONSENTED' to abide by IT and to 'support, protect and defend, IT.
So when looking for definition and understanding of the 'legal definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen it is not necessary, nor is it or would it be 'legal' to go beyond the Founding Documents of the the 'United States', which begins with the Declaration of Independence and ENDS with the Constitution.
There was NO jus soli grant of citizenship in ANY of the colony/states and there is NONE in the Constitution.<period (pre 14th Amendment)
Aside from the 1790 Naturalization Act, repealed by the 1795 Congress, there have been NO Amendments or Legislation that has 'enlarged, abridged and/or modified' the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, ergo, it remains as it was on the day it was written into the POTUS qualification Clause of the Constitution.
Obama could not be a Navy nuke! And yet he has the lauch codes! (enlisted recruiting manual spells it out the most clearly)
ReplyDeleteHow can the CIC be a dual citizen if no one else in the military can?
Title 10 USC Chapter 33 Section 532
DOD INSTRUCTION NUMBER 1310.02
COMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1131.2C - Chapter 2 Section 1
CNMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1130.8G - VOLUME I - CHANGE 1 Chapter 4 Section 2
Links:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C33.txt
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/131002p.pdf
http://www.cnrc.navy.mil/officer/manual.htm
http://www.npc.navy.mil/NR/rdonlyres/0B0046BD-4567-44D6-89D3-1C002EB792EC/0/11308G_Chp4_CH_1.pdf
I'd post the descriptions but it would fill up the page. Would have posted sooner but it's final exam week and I'm a little busy.
Question: how can civilian lawyers in a civilian justice system utilize this?? Will any congressman or senator run with this?
I'm sorry Mario but I didn't recall if these were referenced in your filings - I am guessing they were but just in case.
Happy holidays to all, by the way - and a lunar eclipse too, yeah!
Mario.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to appeal to say Justice Clarence Thomas of SCOTUS to have the dicta of Wong Kim Ark case corrected?
It seems the Horace Grey court in WKA got it wrong when they suggested that an English NBS is the equivalent to a US NBC in their reasoning that because a child born of an alien father in England is a NBS then a US NBC must be one born on an alien too.
Two important points.
1) In England, the alien born father is accepted into the body of subjects FIRST, for his child (if born in England)to be a NBS.
(Ergo: jus sanguinis & jus soli)
2) In England there are those born in the realm (jus soli) who are NOT English NBSs, so it doesn't apply to ALL aliens.
In the dicta of WKA, the court has focused on only the alien aspect, but over-looked the fact that the alien is FIRST a subject for his child to qualify as an English NBS (due by nature & birthright)
US (unlike England), does NOT accept aliens as members of the body of citizens, and so to be consistent with the English Common Law (as the judiciary in WKA insists Common Law is the source) in US, the alien father would need to become a US citizen FIRST, for his child to be qualified as a US NBC.
Furthermore another glaring inconsistency is that the English Common Law did NOT provide for ALL aliens' children to qualify as English NBS, but the Horace Gray court in WKA has created a general belief that in US, it is ALL aliens that are to be considered.
Go here and read particularly on 'Originalism'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis
Due to commitments which have taken Mario out of town for several days he will be unable to answer direct questions at the moment. I am sure he will check in to his blog when he can, if he can. If not you will have to await his return for answers to your direct questions to him.
ReplyDeleteI ask all here to visit the SafeGuardOurConstitution website to assist in any way you can to support LTC Lakin and his family.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteLTC Terry Lakin stood up for us all in his effort to support and defend the Constitution. The Congress has failed him when he wrote letters as a soldier to Congress people asking for a Congressional Inquiry into Obama's exact legal identity like that same Congress investigated John McCain. The Congress did nothing. The legal system in the USA both civilian and military failed him. He has now paid the price for his courage. As I write this he is imprisoned in Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas starting a sentence of six months. His wife was a stay at home mom raising their three young children. As part of his punishment he has lost all pay and benefits and any future retirement opportunities. Upon release from prison he will be dismissed from the Army. We must now stand up and financially support Terry Lakin and his family in his moment of need. Please visit this website and make a financial contribution large or small to this specialized fund dedicated to supporting Terry and his family while he is imprisoned. I have.
http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/
I thank you in advance for any help you can give.
Sincerely,
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
CDR Kerchner,
ReplyDeleteYour indulgence for a moment on some legal points as it relates to LTC Lakin and 'purported statements' made by Judge Lind from the bench.
I've read through the order dated 2 September, 2010 and do not find 'written' what has been 'reported' that the Judge stated that the '0' was 'legally elected'.
Was there an 'oral' statement to that effect, or was that 'journalistic license'.
I see that she puts the 'entire' responsibility on the 'political question doctrine' failing to note that the Congress would have NO authority over A2S1C5 except by means of an Amendment, whereas the SCOTUS MUST at some point answer the question of 'definition'.
UNBC,
ReplyDeleteAs I had been 110% involved with my own lawsuit up until it was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court a few weeks ago, I have not been following along closely all the nitty gritty details the in and outs and who said what and when in the LTC Lakin case. I attended his court martial to show my support for him as a fellow military officer. I posted the request for help for LTC Lakin here for the same reason ... one officer trying to help another in need. I do not know the answers to your military law and specific questions about who said what in the Lakin case. I am not a JAG officer either. If others care to comment on your question please feel free to do so.
CDR Kerchner,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response and your efforts. You must know that I am very familiar with your case and only wish I could have pushed mine faster in that it is still my 'belief' that once the 'citizenship question' is answered the 'political question' bar on collateral attacks on the usurper falls away.
Mr. Appuzo's Petition was brilliant and I'm sure pushed and tested the limits of resistance of many of the Justices, but 'evasion and avoidance' appears to be the M.O. there and at the Military Courts as well.
Keep the faith, I've filed my case now that all of the Administrative remedies have been exhausted and hope to be back at SCOTUS by summer.
We'll see if I can get the US Guv'mnt to acknowledge that natural born Citizens exist and are distinguishable within the population of citizens or if we're all just 'citizens of the World' now.
I'll keep looking for the answer on the LTC Lakin question.
Thanks
UNBC,
ReplyDeleteThe Kerchner case presented the U.S. Supreme Court the best opportunity to date since the Constitution was written to clearly define in a court of law exactly what is a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards as it applies to who can be President per Article II, Section 1. What did they do with this historic opportunity to clarify once and for all this specific term used only one place in our Constitution ... nothing ... out of political cowardice or their own willingness to let the constitution be bent and twisted to meet some progressive agenda that now even permeates and controls our Supreme Court. We are no longer a nation of laws subservient to the Constitution, the fundamental law. We are now a nation of men subject to the temporary whims of 51% of the electorate (dependent on bigger and bigger government) which elections can be easily manipulated by charlatans and a major media out to destroy the USA completely.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
I received a request to post this message here to help LTC Lakin. Here it is:
ReplyDelete-----------------------
PLEASE CALL MAJOR GENERAL HORST, 202-685-2808 on the next business day who has the power to change Lt Col Terry Lakin's sentence. Terry has already been sent to Ft. Leavenworth to begin serving his 6 month sentence. Let me encourage you to do this. When you make the call you should mention that Lt Col Lakin had his due process rights removed from him to present the defense that orders from Obama were "UNLAWFUL orders" by the presiding judge before the trial even began and that Lt Col Lakin had the support of high ranking retired military who said that the Military Code permits officers to question unlawful orders. Also that it is the sole duty of all commissioned officers under their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution ... PERIOD ... the fundamental law of the land against which all other laws and orders must be judged. That is it. That is the prime directive for all commissioned officers. The commissioned officers oath is different than the enlisted person's oath. The enlisted person's oath also required compliance with orders from the President and officers appointed above them and the UCMJ. Senior commissioned officers wishing to testify but which were not permitted to included Lt General Thomas McInerney and Maj General Paul Vallely. These witnesses wanted to testify for Lt Col Terry Lakin but WERE NOT PERMITTED TO DO SO. Former Presidential candidate Alan Keyes also supported Lakin and was not permitted to testify.
-----------------------
I hear your frustration and share it. So many of us have watched, hoped, prayed for your and Mario's success so we could get down to the hard work of undoing the damage the usurpation has caused to date.
ReplyDeleteI know there are still doubts about my approach at avoiding the 'political question' by seeking the 'legal' definition of natural born Citizen, insofar as 'citizenship' is concerned without any reference of the 'o' and leaving the 'transient political aspects' of the idiom to the concerns of the Court.
But that IS the legal loop-hole the man of NO character crawled through so once a 'legal' definition is made he will be trapped by his own deceit in a hole he chose to enter.
The Summons will be delivered before Christmas to the US Atty, DHS/USCIS so the Guv'mnt responses, if any, should be in before mid Feb and I'll know then what arguments they will make as to why I have no right to be acknowledged as an American natural born Citizen.
The most ironic answer I can think of would be because; "We don't know what one is"........
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) and William Baer (who attended the LTC Terry Lakin court martial convened on 14-16 Dec 2010 at Ft Meade Md) will be on the Live and Let Live radio show on the Rule of Law network out of Austin TX on Sunday, 19 Dec 2010, at 10 p.m. EST to discuss that trial and other matters regarding the Obama constitutional ineligibility to be President and Commander in Chief issue.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ruleoflawradio.com/
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org
The below is what those of us that thought we were a Republic a nation of laws have to get our mind around. We have to deal with the facts as they are and not as we wish them to be. I get sick, every time I hear a person who should know better, say we are a democracy. Because we are in fact that or worse.
ReplyDelete"We are no longer a nation of laws subservient to the Constitution, the fundamental law. We are now a nation of men subject to the temporary whims of 51% of the electorate (dependent on bigger and bigger government) which elections can be easily manipulated by charlatans and a major media out to destroy the USA completely.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
December 18, 2010 6:17 PM"
Be well and prosper.
DixHistory
CDR Kerchner, I must ask, again, with more than the upmost respect for you, LTC Lakin, and Attorney Apuzzo, please, if you will, address these two points which are from the first comment posted on this thread:
ReplyDeleteFIRST:
"...maybe Lt.Col. Lakin was duped by Team Obama to argue solely on the red herring of the birth certificate so the media can continue its diversion from Obama's real legal impediment (his dad was British) --and THAT IS the grand conspiracy!"
SECOND:
"...what really puzzles me is why the Rush Limbaugh's, Mark Levin's, Glen Beck's, Laura Ingraham's, Michael Savage's and VIRTUALLY all the rest of Conservative media make the same diversion??? -- they certainly know the real issue of Const Art. 2 Sec. 1 -- as you succinctly post)"
The phone number provided for Major General Horst appears to be just the regular number for the base. I doubt that any staff member there would put callers though to the Major General.
ReplyDeleteFort McNair
103 3rd Avenue
Fort McNair, D.C. 20319-5058
PHONE 202-685-2808
You need to remember who Congress, SCOTUS, and the military are. They are all federal employees, and their job and economic security depend upon the stability of this country. In their eyes, any removal of Obama would affect this stability.
Gone are the days of patriots who would risk it all for their country. We now have people in power who are more concerned about their Ipods, big screen TVs, suburban homes, SUVs, and pensions.
Moving along, everyone should read the Declaration of Independence http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html where the signers listed their reasons for it. We need to make a modern day list for ourselves.
On a final note, if I remember correctly, wasn't Obama the one who ordered the troop surge in Afghanistan? Why shouldn't any officers refuse to deploy there if they have a good faith belief that the orders are coming from someone who isn't qualified to be President? What if the president had dual citizenship with North Korea and he ordered a troop surge into South Korea to quell their current conflict?
A person who becomes a NATURALIZED citizen of the United States was at birth a citizen or subject of another country and as such would have conflict of allegiance between the country of birth and his or her adopted country by naturalization. This problem of conflicting allegiance is not present of a child born in the United States regardless as to the status of his or her parents since it is a common law rule that allegiance and birth occurred at the same time or as Blackstone wrote: "Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth."
ReplyDeleteJames Madison, father of the United States Constitution, agreed with Blackstone's statement when he wrote: "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance."
The United States Supreme Court in 1804 concurred 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)
CDR Kerchner, I could not find the old link to send Mr. Apuzzo a message, so I emailed (erols account) him on Fri, 17 Dec 2010 21:26:06 California time. The email contains an important update that he had asked for. Can you tell him to look for it?
ReplyDeleteatticus finch said...
ReplyDeleteWe are a Republic by consent and that consent binds us to the Rule of Law under the Constitution but for those things that are/were reserved to the various States.
Show me the promulgated Laws codified to Statutes that provided for jus soli grant of citizenship sans citizen parents prior to the 14th Amendment and notwithstanding 'judicial naturalization' by dicta 'deeming' one so 'as if' from birth.
Until then consider your Queen Anne Statutes not admissible under Marbury v Madison.
The Framers Used Emer de Vattel, Not William Blackstone to Define a “Natural Born Citizen”
ReplyDeleteby: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/framers-used-emer-de-vattel-not-william.html
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteI just learned about a new WordPress blog which has been started by an eyewitness to the court martial of Lt Col Dr Terry Lakin. Here is the URL:
http://justafly.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/the-kangaroo-court-martial-of-ltc-dr-terry-lakin/
You may wish to ask that person some questions in your comments about what they observed. The more eyes and ears of eye witnesses to that even that report on that event, the better.
Please stop by his site and read his first post and post a comment welcoming him to the fight to save our Constitution and Republic and to get justice some day for Terry Lakin and undue to wrong done to him by that court martial.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org
Posted by Dr. Kate in her blog. She attended the Lt Col Lakin court martial in Ft. Meade MD and witnessed many interesting things thereat.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy Commander versus Col. Obot | by Dr. Kate | @ drkatesview
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/the-navy-commander-versus-lt-col-obot/
Can we get a copy of the transcript of the proceedings? Perhaps one of the visitors to this blog will see something of legal significance that the others do not.
ReplyDeleteIt has been established without any doubt that to be an English 'natural born subject', one must be born of a member of the body politic (i.e. a subject) and born in the realm. (according to Lord Coke - by 'nature & birthright')
ReplyDeleteIf US is to rely on English Common Law (as proposed by the Horace Grey court in WKA), then to be a US 'natural born Citizen', one must be born of a member of the body politic (i.e. a Citizen) and born in the realm.
Seeing as aliens in US are not members of the body politic of US (i.e. NOT Citizens) then it is impossible for a child of such an alien to be a 'natural born Citizen' of USA.
Quote:
"A body politic, usually expressed as the body politic, refers to "the people of a nation, state, or country considered collectively as a body of organized citizens"..........."
The 14th Amendment may well deem such children as 'citizens of the United States', but it is certain (according to English Common Law) such children are not 'natural born Citizens' of USA.
Atticus:
ReplyDeleteAll natural born Citizens have zero first generation birth-ties to any foreign nation by blood or soil.
You're saying a baby deliver on US turf suffices, alas that is not even a statutory US Citizen if the parents are non-citizens. If the parent's country has jus sanguinis citizenship claims over that child, they are born in the allegiance of a foreign country and are not subject to US jurisdiction.
You see that is why US Code 1401 goes on to say that if even one of the parents is a US citizen THEN the child can be a naturalized-at-birth or "born citizen". You see the code would not have to mention the one-US-citizen-parent requirement if indeed there was no-US-citizen-parent requirement at all. Capiche?
Let me put it this way, if your argument was correct, (it's not, but for the sake of discussion) saying that jus soli only sufficed, then the other permutations of USC1401 would be completely redundant and unnecessary. Yet, there they are, as if to mock you, as if to chide you for the fool that you are to think that jus soli only suffices as to being a naturalized-at-birth statutory citizen.
And amazing isn't it that the parameter for TWO US CITIZEN parents born IN-COUNTRY is utterly missing along with the term "natural born Citizen" from all the definitions for naturalized at birth or by oath US "Citizens"???
That is because natural born Citizens do not need any laws, they are citizens by nature.
Interesting arguments here on 'natural born Citizen'
ReplyDeletehttp://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/birthers-the-original-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/comment-page-1/#comment-57561
US Department of State
ReplyDeleteDUAL CITIZENSHIP – SECURITY CLEARANCE IMPLICATIONS
COULD OBAMA GET A SECURITY CLEARANCE?
See the link: http://careers.state.gov/docs/DualCitizenship.pdf
Bureau of Diplomatic Security is required to consider dual citizenship (EO 10450 and 12968, 32 C.F.R. Part 147 and 12 FAM 230)
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (1) the exercise of dual citizenship; (2) possession and/or use of a foreign passport; (3) military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country; (4) accepting educational, medical or other benefits, such as retirement and social welfare, from a foreign country; (5) residence in a foreign country to meet citizenship requirements; (6) using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country; (7) seeking or holding political office in the foreign country; (8) voting in foreign elections; (9) performing or attempting to perform duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: (1) dual citizenship is based solely on parents' citizenship or birth in a foreign country; (2) indicators of possible foreign preference (e.g., foreign military service) occurred before obtaining United States citizenship; (3) activity is sanctioned by the United States; (4) individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship.
If he never renounced dual citizenship, he can't serve in the US military nor (likely not) can he get a State Department security clearance. So how can he head up either one?
natural born citizenship is something that no government can give...its a natural result of birth...an individual without any allegiance to any other nation...born to 2 parents who are citizens of the same nation, as a natural citizen of its parents nationality...no authority can reject the citizenship of the natural born citizen...
ReplyDeletethe child of a foreign citizen can be a citizen of either of its parents nation, dependent upon the laws of each nation involved, and by choice of the child as it ages...through not natural laws, but man made laws...hence... the "natural born citizen" are not subject to any law but the natural law which is not under the authortiy of men, instead, being an inalienable right that men cannot reject...
Obama’s lawyers do not believe the COLB is valid
ReplyDeleteHas anyone else considered that IF the COLB posted on the internet WAS a valid, legal, authentic document, why was it not used in ANY of the lawsuits or prosecutions by the lawyers for Barry, as proof [sic] of his Hawaiian birth?
justafly said...
ReplyDeleteIt is also curious that none of the 'defense' team of the '0' has ever argued that the '0' IS a 'natural born Citizen'.
Why...?
Because they know or should know that would be a statement of 'facts not in evidence' because there is NO 'legally acknowledged definition' of natural born Citizen, notwithstanding protestations to the contrary.
I have seen from several sources that during LTC Lakin's sentencing, the prosecutor told him that it is not his (Lakin's) job to safeguard our Constitution.
ReplyDeleteIf this is true, since the officers oath is ONLY to the Constitution, couldn't this be used during an appeal or something? I have been rolling this around in my head since I read about it and checked several sources to see if he said it and it appears that he did. Could he have been "signaling" that an appeal should be made?
The US Solicitor General Holmes Conrad breif on WKA 1897.
ReplyDeletehttp://holmes.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/Reply%20Brief1.pdf
Bill Cutting said...
ReplyDeleteThe US Solicitor General Holmes Conrad breif on WKA 1897.
http://holmes.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/Reply%20Brief1.pdf
Great read, thanks...,
"within the jurisdiction of" is the next great battle.....my suggestion...?....have each state that has an 'un-documented alien' problem....round 'em up and take them to the Federal Zone....
The Wong Kim Ark 1898 U.S. Citizenship case "Reply Brief" from the U.S. Solicitor General is provided below as a hot link. The Wong Kim Ark decision by the Supreme Court in 1898 granting U.S. Citizenship to a legally domiciled Chinese person of Chinese non-Citizen parents, both of whom were legally domiciled in the USA when the child was born is often cited by the OBOTS. Obama's father was never legally domiciled in the USA, i.e., never a permanent legal resident. He was an alien sojourning here to attend college. While that WKA case granted the person Citizenship it did NOT grant the person natural born Citizen status since only nature and the laws of nature can do that. No man-made law can make one a natural born Citizen. No man-made law is needed for a true natural born Citizen, one born in the country to two Citizen parents.
ReplyDeleteThe decision said that WKA was ... "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen ...". It did not say that WKA was a natural born Citizen nor logically identically equate the two terms Citizen and natural born Citizen.
Logically let us look at that sentence and substitute types of cars. "A German made VW car is as much a car as an American made Ford car". Once can clearly see that both are cars and have similar utility but a VW is not a Ford. They are both types of cars but not identically equal.
Read this essay on ... of trees and plants for more on basic logic:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/of-trees-and-plants-and-basic-logic_05.html
Reading this brief is good background information for discussing the WKA 1898 decision.
The US Solicitor General Holmes Conrad brief on WKA in 1897.
http://holmes.uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/Reply%20Brief1.pdf
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org
ALERT ALERT ALERT
ReplyDelete"HE CAIN'T CAMPAIGNE THERE"
When campainging in OR he said "57" blah blahe states".
That's IT. Find it guys!
Mario-Charles--in my opinion our courts, including SCOTUS, are linked to the Progrssives of both parties, and all factions thereof; there are those hell bent on amending our constitution by acclamation, and those who would like it ammended to allow any citizen to run for president, but find it a huge hurdle to go through the amendment process i.e. Sen. Hatch, and other of his ilk, who not only espouse, and have tried to do so in past congressional sessions only to come up short even to get a bill out of committee.
ReplyDeleteThis is the reason we need to totally change our congressional representatives; we made excellent progress in November 2010, now we need to build on that momentum for 2012, and beyond until we get our nation back to its founding principles. God speed to both of you; and we will see a better day.
Chief
To all who have read or responded to smrstrauss; you will notice he has not been back; reason is he is an Obot; and you all are more knowledgeable in the constitution and constitutional law than be ever will be; I have sparred with him numberous times in my own blog, and other's blogs, and each time he reaches a point where he cannot further his cause for Obama and moves on. He probably will not even respond to this blog entry.
ReplyDeleteNot only is SMRSTRAUSS an Obot he is one of the worst offenders and trolls in spreading disinformation all over the net for his boss, Obama. His tactic is to scroll a blog with false, misleading, and intellectually dishonest arguments repetitiously over and over again. I believe he is a trained mind bender and manipulator and propagandist, KGB style. That user ID may even be a paid team of Obots because it/they seem to be online 24x7 using the same User ID but with different IP addresses per reports by other sites which track the IP addresses of their visitors. He consistently violates the rules of this blog and is then subsequently blocked from further posting, goes away for awhile, and then later comes back to once again try to seed a blog post thread with false and misleading information or to just post and post and post repetitious and misleading info to scroll the blog. For those not familiar with the rules, here they are again:
ReplyDeleteTHE RULES: Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal attacks, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Mr. Kerchner at times assists me as a moderator and editor. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you.
so...is it over...are there no steps that can be taken...no further fight that can oppose..the usurpation of power ...of the office of the POTUS...???...
ReplyDeletejs said...
ReplyDeleteso...is it over...are there no steps that can be taken...no further fight that can oppose..the usurpation of power ...of the office of the POTUS...???...
Nope, I don't hear no fat ladies singing...!
As soon as I get the Marshal's return of Service receipts I'll post the 'Citizenship Question' case that should go all the way to Declaratory Judgment....
Merry Christmas Mr. Apuzzo and everybody!!! Here is a Christmas carol I wrote about Obama. I hope everybody enjoys it:
ReplyDeleteWhat Child is This???
by Squeeky Fromm
What child is this, nobody knows
Tho' Long Forms we are demanding.
It's such a crime, each and every time,
When Courts hold that we lack standing!
Chorus:
Barack, Barack! I bet you will
Try to dodge the Birther Bill.
Twenty twelve - a new campaign.
Oh Hail! The Texas Primary!
Why does his Social Security
Number come from Connecticut?
While sweet Michelle, to hear her tell
Obama was born in a Kenyan hut?
Chorus:
Warrants bring and subpoenas, too!
Ferret out everyone who knew!
Haste, haste there's lots to do,
While we wait for the Texas Primary
But still he sits in the Oval O.
While Lakin's going to Leavenworth.
OH! What a mess, while most express
Doubts about his place of birth?
Chorus:
Help! Help! Raise a fuss!
Obama flipped a bird at us!
Hid! Hid! Documents he did!
Oh pray for the Texas Primary!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Meet Neil AberCOMMIE -- The new Governor of Hawaii:
ReplyDeletehttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1lGFYYNkw_o/TRQ1bmmm-GI/AAAAAAAACUQ/K-FTi2DNTsM/s1600/abercrombie-23.jpg
The detailed report confirming that Neil AberCOMMIE is a Marxist/Socialist/Communist
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/neil-abercrombie-is-socialist-dsaer.html
Post this everywhere so people know who the new governor of Hawaii really is and why he ran for governor of Hawaii ... to protect the usurper in chief ... another Marxist/Socialist/Communist. The Progressive Caucus in Congress is full of Marxist/Socialist/Communists who bored from within and control the Democratic Party. We know it. But let the world know it too.
Update: Obot SMRSTRAUSS' [or the disinformation team using that user ID] Links Are Being Scrubbed From Google Prior To Presidential Campaign [or for some other reason] | by Jefferson's Rebels:
ReplyDeletehttp://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/12/update-obot-smrstrauss-links-are-being.html
With a new Presidential election now getting underway, we have a golden opportunity to help ourselves. Most ‘serious’ people think we are crackpots, conspiracy theorists, racists, sore losers, redneck rubes – or that simply put, we suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome.
ReplyDeleteThe opportunity we have is to disprove most of these things and thereby give ourselves a tremendous boost in credibility.
We need to start crying out – with equal enthusiasm – about the ineligibility of the likes of Jindal, Rubio, and Schwarzenegar (and maybe even McCain).
We need to make it bloody clear and beyond doubt that we are foremost constitutionalists and patriots.
I don’t know who pays for them or how to arrange it, but we all need to contribute to an ad in the Washington Times – like what you have been running about Obama Eligibility. How ’bout an ad with the same sort of message, same sort of overall design and artwork, but does not mention Obama at all. Just maybe the three indicated above?
I strongly believe that one of the biggest reasons that The Left thinks they can get away with this is because they think The Right will want to take advantage of the precedent – therefore being ill disposed to complain too much now.
So, again, the task falls squarely on us to complain!
cfkerchner:
ReplyDeleteAberCOMMIE!! Very apt!!!
Here is a Post & Email Editorial on the Lakin "trial" and, while not calling it a kangaroo court, the implicatuion is VERY clear:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/12/22/the-military-cannot-presume-obama-is-qualified/
Mario & Charles.
ReplyDeleteMore evidence of Vattel's influence on the framers can be found here.
Remarks of James Wilson in the Pennsylvania Convention to Ratify the Constitution of the United States, 1787. - James Wilson, Collected Works of James Wilson, vol. 1 [2007]
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2072&chapter=156431&layout=html&Itemid=27
Quote:
"In some governments, it may come within the gentleman’s idea, when he says it can do no harm; but even in these governments, you find bills of rights do not uniformly obtain; and do those states complain who have them not? Is it a maxim in forming governments, that not only all the powers which are given, but also that all those which are reserved, should be enumerated? I apprehend that the powers given and reserved form the whole rights of the people, as men and as citizens. I consider, that there are very few, who understand the whole of these rights. All the political writers, from Grotius and Puffendorf, down to Vattel, have treated on this subject, but in no one of those books, nor in the aggregate of them all, can you find a complete enumeration of rights, appertaining to the people as men and as citizens."
Obama Can't Prove He's American | by Dr. Kate | @ drkatesview
ReplyDeletehttp://drkatesview.wordpress.com/
CDR Charles Kerchner Speaks out about the Court-Martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin -- “HIS OWN DEFENSE ATTORNEY BROKE HIM”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thepostemail.com/2010/12/28/cdr-charles-kerchner-speaks-out-about-the-court-martial-of-lt-col-terry-lakin/
"Would the Founders and Framers Have Allowed the Son of a British “Natural Born Subject” Father and U.S. Citizen Mother Be President and Commander in Chief of the United States in 2009?"
ReplyDelete"NO", and a hell of a lot of us have tried to expose this fake and fraud.
Obama cannot prove he is a citizen of this country let alone qualify for the position he is in. Clearly his total incompetence has proven that out time and again.
He is an example of why we need natural born (mom and dad both born on US soil) citizens to sit as president. In a court case shortly after that fool was placed in office he had to answer to a challenge to his eligibility where he said he was a "natural" American citizen, not natural born. So, he's already admitted he is not qualified. The elephant is the room is the entire capital of fools actually give this fake and fraud the time of day. He deserves NO respect and should be questioned and government shut down until this POS can prove his qualifications starting with US citizenship.
Then, we need to find out why he has a SS# from a state he had never worked in. We also need to know why his draft notice was signed the day before the official recorded date? We also want to know why Nancy Pelosi provided "TWO certificates of nomination" for BO and Biden? "one copy mentioned that they met Constitutional Requirements that some states require and one that made no mention of the constitution, why?"
Many of us sent written complaints to assess this issue to our state representatives and they've all been out to lunch. "Sissies", just like BO except when it comes to lying to the American public.
I believe that the leaders of the democrat party know he is ineligible but proffered this fake anyway and the republicans refuse to admit they know the truth. Anyone who is not openly questioning his eligibility is promoting this lie and accepting his legitimacy incorrectly on behalf of this country are complicit in the lie.
Obama is a fake, a fraud, should resign before he gets this country in even more trouble. The truth is out there and more is discovered every day. We need an honest man in Washington to do the right thing and make the demand that puts a stop to this incredible charade.
If BHO's father had been Nikita Khruschev or Momar Khadafi we would not be struggling with this controversy, would we?
ReplyDeleteThe violation of the NBC clause would be so flagrant that I think John McCain would have mustered the cojones to stand up for the Constitution.
As much as the new GOP House may like to avoid this, it won’t be able to. The Obama eligibility question is MORE THAN THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!
ReplyDeleteLet us stop arguing over legal points and LET US START ACTING TO REMOVE OBAMA FROM OFFICE FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA BECAUSE HE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
ReplyDeleteHE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN EVEN IF HE WOULD HAPPEN TO BE BORN IN THE US!! BY THE WAY, HE HAS YET TO PROVE THAT WITH A LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY CHECKED TO PROVE VALID.
2 CONDITIONS TO BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN:
1) OBAMA MUST BE BORN IN THE USA.
THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS NEEDED AND MUST BE THOROUGHLY CHECKED! I remind you that he could produce a genuine long form birth certificate but that probably would not be valid because false data would be on it despite being a genuine long form birth certificate!
2) OBAMA MUST HAVE BOTH PARENTS AMERICAN.
HIS FATHER WAS NEVER EVER AN AMERICAN.
Therefore, the discussion on his place of birth is completely irrelevant, as Obama does not meet the second condition to be a natural born citizen!!
END OF THE STORY.
ACT NOW!!!
CONTACT YOUR GOP SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND ASK THEM TO REMOVE OBAMA BASED ON WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN JUST ABOVE. Ask them to check the articles on this site for the legal expertise to support these points.
I hear a few of you still (!!) asking me to wait for the dishonest (most of them at least) judges of the Supreme Court to take a decision on this matter. The truth is that the judges of the Supreme Court have, for most of them, an agenda of implementing their own political bias instead of implementing the Constitution of the USA! Therefore, any further legal fights are pure waste of time concerning Obama's eligibility! The judges of the Supreme Court will NEVER EVER make a fair decision on this matter and they will avoid dealing with Obama's eligibility at all costs and deceptively silently, without even justifying their silence!!
CONCLUSION: ACT NOW AND REMOVE OBAMA THROUGH YOUR GOP REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS.
IT IS TIME TO ACT NOW OR NEVER!!
Allowed is the key here. I think Federalist 28 and the Declaration of Independence clear up any question of what would be allowed and just what should be done if we were so assaulted by our government as to suffer fewer insults than they had. I'm certain there would have been a confrontation by now and very likely around the time FDR was playing fast and loose with his powers as president. In this lazy state we are in it will take a true leader to make a stand and draw fire. Actually that situation is exactly what the entire gov. fears. It is exactly the thing that they will attempt to create though as that is their MO. The answer should be directly denying all federal authority by right.
ReplyDeleteIn for a penny, in for a pound. Obama has been in office for nearly two years now. Not one branch of government has addressed or will address the merits of the eligibility issue. To do so now would be to admit that our government officials have failed to do their constitutional duty and that my friends, won't get them reelected, or appointed, or promoted to a better job.
ReplyDeleteThis may be a hard pill to swallow, but it appears that Obama will finish out his full term in office. Now that is not to say that we can not or should not keep up our efforts to educate the people about these issues. By doing so with drive, determination, thorough research, advocacy, and persistence, maybe one day the truth will come out and justice will be served.
We are a Republic that is intended to operate under the Rule of Law.
ReplyDeleteThere are Three Branches of the Guv'mnt with a wall of Separation between them.
In spite of the farce of the SR511 that declared McCain a natural born Citizen it was a put up diversion to make the public THINK that there IS a legally acknowledged definition of natural born Citizen.
Why the public does not understand the implications emanating from that FACT, that there is NO legally acknowledged definition of natural born Citizen and the obstacle that fact places upon the Congress and the SCOTUS can only be attributed to the superficial nature of the daily news cycles.
Congress CAN NOT define it and without a definition there is no reason to investigate because they can not impeach or convict without a known definition upon which to base their investigation, impeachment and conviction.
SCOTUS does not give advisory opinions nor can it, or any other civil or military court, answer the question when it is presented as a 'Political Question' alleging ineligibility based on a 'proposition' of definition.
The condition of being a natural born Citizen in conformity with the Constitutional usage is, in the 1st instant, a citizenship question.
Once that question is answered by the SCOTUS, insofar as citizenship is concerned, then the determination if a person is in conformity insofar as the 'transient Political aspects' are concerned becomes a 'matter of FACTual findings'.
The Rule of Law requires that the horse be hitched to the front of the cart in order to move down the road.
May it please the Blogspot;
ReplyDeletehttp://eligibilityquestions.com/uploads/2010-12-29_Steven_L._Craig_NBC_Court_Filing_12-14-2010.pdf
I am not a U.S. Citizen.
ReplyDeleteI am a natural born Citizen.
My blood/soil permutation is not listed under US Code 1401. So when I get a government form that requires I check a box that I am a US Citizen, can I cross it out and write in "natural born Citizen" since by legal definition, I am not a naturalized US citizen?
Hmm. Your constitution ('yours' as I'm Australian) also seems to install your US Supreme Court as the adjudicator of legal disputes.
ReplyDeleteWhy aren't any of you interested in following the part of the constitution that makes the Supreme Court the final place where disputes are settled, including determining whether a case is worth listening to? Why, instead, do you urge disobedience and disrespect of this aspect of your constitution?
Chris,
ReplyDeleteIt is a pleasure to see an Australian taking interest in such a complex constitutional issue the proper resolution of which is fundamental to the rule of law and the balance of power in the American constitutional republic.
You said: "Hmm. Your constitution ('yours' as I'm Australian) also seems to install your US Supreme Court as the adjudicator of legal disputes.
Why aren't any of you interested in following the part of the constitution that makes the Supreme Court the final place where disputes are settled, including determining whether a case is worth listening to? Why, instead, do you urge disobedience and disrespect of this aspect of your constitution?"
First, you are correct that the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be the final place were our legal disputes are settled. But it is not that easy. As you well know, our U.S. Supreme Court has just refused to review the question of whether my clients, Commander Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrel James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., have standing to file their claims in a court of law in which they have raised the issue of whether Mr. Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen." The Court refused, without stating any reason, to accept the case for review. Each individual Justice, exercising his or her own judicial discretion, could have his or her own personal reason for refusing to review the case. In no way did the Court tell us that it disagreed with the merits of petitioners' legal arguments concerning the question of whether Obama is eligible to be President. All that we know is that fewer than 4 Justices were willing to review the case for some reason personal to each of them. Hence, we do not have a dispute that is "settled."
Second, the lower courts in the Kerchner case also said that the constitutional question of whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President must be resolved not in a court of law but rather in the voting booth. Hence, please do not tell me that you are now advocating that interested Americans can neither go to court to get an answer to their question of whether Obama is eligible to be President nor can they publicly debate about it so that they can make the right decision when they go to the polls to vote which is the very remedy the courts offered to interested people. In any society in which the people and not the government are the final arbiters of what is good for them, the people need to be well informed as to what their government is or is not doing and what is happening in their society. What you term “disobedience and disrespect” for the Constitution we term in America exercising an individual’s First Amendment right to “freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” all of which is critical for the efficient and proper functioning of our republic.
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeleteNo indeed, the military judge in the Lakin case did not RULE by stating that Obama was legally eligible.
She did something that is even coarser, more dishonest, and quite a bit more illegal. She - by implication in her rulings - made the decision of the court to be that Obama was eligible to hold the office he now occupies even though he has never shown himself to be so eligible.
In making this sort of ruling convicting Terry Lakin it should be obvious even to the military itself that Lakin could be convicted of disobeying orders IF those were given by an eligible CIC, otherwise Lakin would be convicted of disobeying illegal orders ...??? Surely no judge or court would make such a foolish ruling. In fact the order really involved in the whole shenanigan was the Presidential Order delploying the "surge" troops to Afghanistan.
So the military judge has clearrly overstepped the bounds of that court in the scheme of things as the eligibility matter is a direct Constitutional mandate not a lower court issue. The military courts were establised by Congress under the authority of the Constitution and therefore cannot possibly overrule the Constitution (nor can Congress) on such as matter, making the military court nothing but a kangaroo court.
In fact the military court judge was excessively concerned about "embarrassing" the CIC wshich is doubly ironic since her court not only could not rule on his eligibility, they were never asked to do so. Despite that they took up the cudgel to implicitly rule Obama as eligible whan they have no right or jurisdiction to do so. Instead, they should have suspended proceedings and passed the eligibility issue to SCOTUS (who does have the mandate to rule on Constitutional matters) for a resolution on eligibility which would then allow the lesser (military) court to proceed accordingly in the Lakin case. That would be a proper legal proceeding on all counts and would result in a valid legal path beng taken by all.
That might affect either or both Lakin and/or Obama but the UCMJ certainly would have "standing" in the eyes of SCOTUS and the particular matter is clearly NOT a "political issue".
THe military courts blew it and by ignoring the "road not taken" have poured shame upon their part of the judidicial system as well as to their own oath to protect and defend the Constitution rather than attacking it as they have done!!
Here is the scribed page where you can read the ‘Order’
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/37116443/United-States-v-LTC-Terry-Lakin-Ruling-on-Motions-Discovery-%E2%80%93-September-2-2010
The opening paragraphs of the order spell out the Rules of Evidence and ‘Relevance’ in regard to the ‘charges’.
Now, if LTC Lakin had charged ‘Treason’ and asked to call the TWO WITNESSES to corroborate, well, that’s one thing.
But he claims ‘ineligibility’ and NOTHING on his list of ‘discovery’ could or would establish ‘ineligibility’ insofar as being or not being a ‘natural born Citizen’ simply because there is no ‘legally acknowledged definition’.
Note that in the order Judge Lind references ‘natural born Citizen’ a number of times and asserts throughout the Adjudicative facts states that it is irrelevant to the charges if the POTUS is ‘eligible or ineligible’.
That LTC Lakin was ‘compelled to do something’ makes him a Hero in my book. That he has sacrificed his Liberty and Fortune will not be soon forgotten.
But the Rule of Law stands and although it seems to be being used against us it must be supported to the last breath.
Maybe this will comfort you;
“[I]t is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted…”
Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) will be the guest tonight on the Andrea Shea King radio show at 9 p.m. EST. He will be discussing the LTC Terry Lakin court martial.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.blogtalkradio.com/askshow
Funny, but the foundation of Cdr Larkins case was that all authority resided in the POTUS as Commander in Chief of all US Forces.
ReplyDeleteHow then, can it be constued in effect that the same authority to prosecute Cdr Larkin comes without any expectation from the same source, that justice could ever be delivered by a Court Marshall under the Command of the same authority/individual/office as the alleged crimes that compelled Cdr Larkin to do what he did.
js:
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your conundrum presented is that the military court had no valid jurisdiction to rule on Oama's eligibility one way or the other.
Eligibility is a matter that should only have been involved/invoked with SCOTUS and not the military and the fact that the military court made an implicit ruling that the man was eligible is WAY beyond their pay grade and should never have been allowed to happen. If they made no such implicit ruling then the case could not have continued as it would have been against a man violating illegal orders - e.g., complete nonsense!!
Instead, that court should have held its process in suspension and forward the matter to SCOTUS requesting it use its original jurisdiction on a matter of first instance for a Constitutional ruling on eliibility. With such a decision, the military court could then proceed with any trial of Terry Lakin they felt might be merited (if any).
After all, Lakin did not ask the military to rule on the eligiility issue; merely that it be resolved. The correct and concretely legal way to do that was for the military to request SCOTUS rule on the Constitutional matter rather than have the military overstep its bounds to usurp a jurisdiction that they did not validly have.
Had the smilitary court done that they would certainly have the "standing" that the civilian courts use as a shield to ignore cases they do not wish to hear and also in that case it is certainly not a "political question" - another of the artificial shields used for the governmental "dodge-em" game.
A more precise explanation of how the Office of Potus can preside over a Court-Martial questioning the legality of its current occupant proves the 'transient Political aspect' that attachés to a natural born Citizen by their engagement in the political process.
ReplyDeleteThe Military justice system was established by the Congress and by 'delegation' extends from the Office of the POTUS, as CIC, regardless of the current occupant, and continues in its Administrative function, under the Rule of Law.
SCOTUS rules on cases and controversies arising from the conflicts of Laws they affect and or effect from circumstance to circumstance.
In this instance there is NO Law as to what a natural born Citizen is, not insofar as citizenship is concerned nor insofar as the 'Political aspects' that attachés by virtue of A2S1C5 is concerned.
In other words, 'No one but,..., Shall be eligible', a legal loop-hole made so by lack of 'legal definition' which leaves a legal hole in any supposed 'case and controversy' questioning 'eligibility'.
There is NO 'law' there defining the condition requisite to be in conformity with the mandatory condition of citizenship.
'Eligibility' refers ONLY to the 'political aspect' and is therefore a purely 'political question' which, as the courts have repeatedly 'suggested', belongs in the 'political arena'.
That is not correct in the final analysis, but in order to get that sorted out it will be necessary to approach the subject of natural born Citizen from the 'citizenship question' in the 1st instant.
The birthright citizenship bill will be unveiled on January 5, 2011. Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, and Rep. John Kavanagh will attend a January 5 press conference at the National Press Club to introduce model legislation whose purpose is to force the U.S. Supreme Court to give its opinon on the 14th Amendment which as currently interpreted grants the status of "citizen of the United States" (not to be confused with the status of "natural born Citizen") to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. Lawmakers from 14 states who plan to introduce the bill will also attend.
ReplyDeleteLegislators in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah plan to introduce birthright citizenship bills in 2011.
AzCapitolTimes, Dec. 28, 2010http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2010/12/28/date-set-for-unveiling-of-birthright-citizenship-bill/
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeleteI do not agree in that the eliibility issue is, indeed, a question of interpretation of the Constitution and is in no way a political issue as you present it. There most certainly is a definition of the terms used in the Constitution even if the definitios is not directly within the Constitution and your pretense to the contrary does you no credit.
Apparently you've missed the many legal treatises by Mario Apuzzo in the Kerchner et al action which clearly show that there not only IS a definition but that it would be quite discernible from a legal standpoint in a court of law if heard on merit.
The language in the Constitution is both specific AND mandatory in that it uses the "shall" wording and Obama has not shown himself to be eligible thereunder. It is up to the SCOTUS to make the call as to the definition, not the Congress since the province of Constitutional interpretation falls to the Supreme Court. Congress may create statutes but may NOT interpret whether they are valid under the Constitution and the Supreme Court has that interpretive duty to Congressional statutes plus the interpretation of the Constitution ... otherwise there is no need for SCOTUS and Congress may run roughshod over the citizenry - which Congress has been attempting to do a good bit of in the last few generations in case you've not noticed.
This (interpretaton of the elibility issue and the "nbC" clause) is clear from many precedent-setting cases dating back to at least John Marshall's time if not earlier and calling eligibility required by the wording of the Constitution a "political question" is like calling a headlong fatal auto crash a "fender bender". You may call it that, perhaps, to try to minimize its legal effect but that does not make it a fender bender but rather remains a headlong fatal auto crash.
If Obama is not legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies (and neither he nor anyone else has ever shown him to be) then his actions in the office have no legal effect. That, of course, includes his orders to the military to deploy to a foreign country during the imminent, ongoing, life-threatening, state-sanctioned hostilities which the "progressives" do not like to call (but which really is) "war". If the CIC is not Constitutionally eligible to give those orders then certainly no lower-level court such as the Lakin military court has the jurisdiction or authority (nor does Congress since it is not a political question) to override the Constitutional eligibility requirement and determine either explicitly or implicitly that the man is or is not eligible - which they have done in the Lakin case.
JayJay,
ReplyDeleteIt is my fault if you mistake what I posit as the crux of the circumstance that there is NO 'legally acknowledged definition' of natural born Citizen.
As I asserted in the 1st case I submitted to the courts I believe it IS as Vattel says.
But the FACT remains, there is NO 'legally acknowledged definition' of natural born Citizen, ergo, it is not POSSIBLE to determine under the Rule of Law if someone is 'eligible or not' by virtue of being or not being a natural born Citizen.
'Eligibility' IS a 'political question' and who is or is not a natural born Citizen IS a 'citizenship question'.
That the latter determines the former gives me cause to assert that in order to ask the courts to determine the 'legally acknowledged definition' of natural born Citizen it must 1st be asked 'insofar as citizenship is concerned', which once determined, the 'transient Political aspects' automatically attach by virtue of the usage as a requirement of the Executive qualification Clause.
With the 'citizenship question' answered any necessity to determine 'eligibility' of an individual then becomes a simple 'matter of FACTual finding', i.e., is the individual in conformity with the definition 'insofar as citizenship is concerned'.
It does seem in some respects that I am arguing some form of semantics, but under the Rule of Law in the light of the jurisdiction of the Courts and the wall of Separation of Powers I am arguing a method of untangling the conundrum as if using Alexander's sword to cut the Gordian Knot.
Would it be reasonable & practical to ask the US electors to express concerns & subsequent clarification on 14th Amendment 'born citizens' and/or to force SCOTUS to decide the meaning of Article II 'natural born Citizen'?
ReplyDelete"A referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. This may result in the adoption of a new constitution, a constitutional amendment, a law, the recall of an elected official or simply a specific government policy. It is a form of direct democracy. The measure put to a vote is known in the U.S. as a ballot proposition or measure."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
so what part of the UCMJ...establishes the punishment for failure to uphold your oath to protect and defend the constitution...and how would a member of the US Military present those charges against the officers that conducted the court martial...
ReplyDeleteif that ever hits the fan...the proverbial xxxx is gonna fly...
the constitutional requirement established for qualification as POTUS is not a political question...that was demonstrated when the Democrat controlled congress passed a non binding resolution that McCain was qualified to be POTUS...only the will of the congress to enforce it is a political issue...which was an act (or omission) to protect on of thier own...the division of the political establishement and the constitutional duty has been obscured and denied so they can avoid doing thier duty...which includes thier oath of office to uphond and defend...the Constitution of the United States...
ReplyDeletewhen they refuse to act on petitions of grievance from citizens across this nation on the question of eligibility...it evades that duty as well...this question is not one of a nature that it has no impact by congress's failure to address...it is in fact a matter of national security and of upmost importance to this nations security...so effectively, every sitting member of congress...is also in violation of thier oath of office...which is an impeachable offence (or should be)...the refusal to resolve our grievance in the eligibility issue does not make Obama eligible..it only damages the United States Congress...
I read a lot of blogs about the issues and I keep running across the same race mantra -- Obama black, McCain white; therefore, it must be about race.
ReplyDeleteFor them, the issue is and always will be race. For me, the issue is and always will be the Constitution. They and I are not the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is.
Race-biased people like them are the tear in the fabric of the American society. If they do not stop playing the race card and start caring about the Constitution, they will wake up one day to find they no longer have a home of their own. Keep it up...
js;
ReplyDeleteSR511 was/is NON-BINDING, as in, has NO legal force. They did NOT declare the 'definition' of natural born Citizen. In effect, all they did was express that McCain fell into the definition of the 1790 'naturalization act' that was repealed in 1795 and in the and was nothing more than a diversionary tactic to take the focus off of the '0'.
There IS no 'legally acknowledged definition' of natural born Citizen.
'Eligibility' IS a 'political question'
The question of who is or is not a natural born Citizen is a CITIZENSHIP QUESTION.
The 'POLITICAL' aspect of natural born Citizen did NOT attach until AFTER it was included as a POTUS qualification. the idiom of natural born citizen was NOT constructed to conform to a political structure in the making of the office of POTUS.
You cite Vattel, and I will cite Aristotle 2,000 years earlier, to prove that natural born citizens are from the natural citizen parents without realizing that there is nothing 'political' about that 'definition' other than being a 'citizen' of a civil society, until it was 'inserted' into the Constitution as a POTUS qualification.
Lacking a 'Constitutionally legal definition' the 'Political question' of whether someone is 'eligible' or not, insofar as being a natural born Citizen CAN NOT be answered...!...
http://eligibilityquestions.com/uploads/2010-12-29_Steven_L._Craig_NBC_Court_Filing_12-14-2010.pdf
I have a question:
ReplyDeleteSince Obama failed the 20th amendment, he simply "is not" president.
End of story? What else matters? The oath didn't make him president. Nor did the vote. It takes a combination of qualifications (article ii), legitimate vote (he was illegitimately balloted in AZ, HI, NC, TX, etc.), and oath (which was botched) AND being QUALIFIED BY CONGRESS. The latter is indisputable, he simply was never qualified, and this is a requirement, and so he is just not president.
McCain was qualified per the 20th amendment, by Obama no less, who cosponsored SR511.
United Natural Born Citizen,
ReplyDeleteAll using and confirming the definition provided by Vattel (see Section 212 of the Law of Nations), The Venus (per Chief Justice Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons), Scott v. Sandford (per Justice Daniel, concurring), Minor v. Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark have all acknowledged the legal definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e. a child born in the country to citizen parents.
The historical record shows that the Founders and Framers relied heavily upon Vattel in justifying the American Revolution, writing the Constitution, and constituting the new Constitutional Republic.
Eligibility was a political question during the debates on the drafting and adoption of the Constitution, for it is through that political process that the People decided who would be eligible for President. But once the People exhausted that political process and defined eligibility in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 with objective factors (citizenship, age, and residency) and provided a bright line rule for Presidential eligibility based on those factors, it no longer was a political question but rather a constitutional legal one.
The question of who is a “natural born Citizen” is a legal constitutional question.
A “citizen of the United States” is a member of American society. A “natural born Citizen” is a child born to parents who are members of American society, i.e., “citizens of the United States.”
A “citizen of the United States” is any one whom Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 decides to make a member of American society through its naturalization powers. The Fourteenth Amendment also tells us what persons born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” may be “citizens of the United States” and thus also members of American society. Because these citizens may be born on foreign soil or to alien parents, they do not enjoy natural Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance and are therefore not "natural born Citizens."
A “natural born Citizen” is not made by any law such as the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act. He or she occurs in nature as a consequence of birth at which time both U.S. soil and U.S. citizen parent status must unite in the child to produce natural Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance in the child.
United Natural Born Citizen,
ReplyDeleteAll using and confirming the definition provided by Vattel (see Section 212 of the Law of Nations), The Venus (per Chief Justice Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons), Scott v. Sandford (per Justice Daniel, concurring), Minor v. Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark have all acknowledged the legal definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e. a child born in the country to citizen parents.
The historical record shows that the Founders and Framers relied heavily upon Vattel in justifying the American Revolution, writing the Constitution, and constituting the new Constitutional Republic.
Eligibility was a political question during the debates on the drafting and adoption of the Constitution, for it is through that political process that the People decided who would be eligible for President. But once the People exhausted that political process and defined eligibility in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 with objective factors (citizenship, age, and residency) and provided a bright line rule for Presidential eligibility based on those factors, it no longer was a political question but rather a constitutional legal one.
The question of who is a “natural born Citizen” is a legal constitutional question.
A “citizen of the United States” is a member of American society. A “natural born Citizen” is a child born to parents who are members of American society, i.e., “citizens of the United States.”
A “citizen of the United States” is any one whom Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 decides to make a member of American society through its naturalization powers. The Fourteenth Amendment also tells us what persons born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” may be “citizens of the United States” and thus also members of American society. Because these citizens may be born on foreign soil or to alien parents, they do not enjoy natural Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance and are therefore not "natural born Citizens."
A “natural born Citizen” is not made by any law such as the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act. He or she occurs in nature as a consequence of birth at which time both U.S. soil and U.S. citizen parent status must unite in the child to produce natural Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance in the child.
In keeping with English Common Law & the principles of the Law of Nature.
ReplyDeleteIn England, only sovereign can beget sovereign.
In the constitutional republic of US of A, the citizens are sovereign.
Ergo:only sovereign citizens can beget sovereign citizens
puzo1 said,
ReplyDelete"The question of who is a “natural born Citizen” is a legal constitutional question."
Absolutely.
In order to ask the question there are two approaches that can be made to SCOTUS; 1] within the context of 'eligibility' which is inherently a 'political question; 2] or, 'insofar as citizenship is concerned' of a private individual who has exhausted all administrative processes of Guv'mnt agencies as a personal matter of respecting their own parentage and heritage claiming to be a natural born American Citizen.
The former, 'eligibility challenge', has been tried and rebuffed numerous times for lack of 'standing' and want of jurisdiction to adjudicate a 'political question' invoking the "separation of Powers".
The later, a case now filed again after a previous attempt before any 'administrative processes' had been 'exhausted', asks only 'insofar as citizenship is concerned', leaving any political aspects to the concerns of the court.
It is the lack of 'legal definition', as if a lost 'nail' that allows the shoe to fall from the horse and the King soon shouts, 'A horse, a horse, my Kingdom for a horse'.
Speaking of the 'plenary power' of Congress over 'naturalization', I keep having a 'conflict' of understanding when I read the Constitution and then try to reconcile how the mandate is applied.
ReplyDelete"...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;..."
The original text uses the indefinite article, 'an' uniform Rule...denoting precise language.
Rule is defined variously with the primary being; 'a guide or principle for guv'mnt action; regulation.
The Constitutional language calls for a 'Rule' of naturalization and for 'Laws' of Bankruptcy.
Yet I can find NO guiding principles within the 'Laws' of naturalization.
It bugs me.
United Natural Born Citizens,
ReplyDeleteI do not know why the Framers used "Rule" for naturalization and "Laws" for bankruptcies. I suspect they intended the terms to mean the same thing. We do know that the First Congress immediately passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which clearly is a "law" and not just some "rule." We also know that Congress followed that first naturalization act with many more which are all "Laws of the United States" under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.
I will put it in a way that the Obama followers can understand.
ReplyDeleteA man applies for a job that requires a college degree. During the interview, the employer asks to see the degree. The man says, “Prove that I do not have it.” When the employer cannot meet this burden because the man has refused to produce the degree, the man then says, “Your complete lack of evidence means that I am indeed qualified.”
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeleteYou needn’t apologize for something that does not exist!! I understand your position perfectly with respect to “eligibility” and “political question”. I also know that these are positions held (or at least espoused as you’re doing) by almost all of the Flying Monkey crowd and that they are inherently incorrect. The gibberish about “... no legally acknowledged definition ...” of eligibility is the equivalent of saying “... if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it fall, there is no noise ...” and merely because the cowardly ones in our justice system refuse to hear the eligibility issue on merit certainly does not mean they have ruled it is not possible to define the condition under the rule of law - but merely that they are afraid to hear it on merit in spite of the vast amount of evidence that the fellow is NOT eligible.
Interpreting the meaning in the Constitution is up to SCOTUS, not Congress as there is no possibility that Congress is tasked with determining Constitutional eligibility since it is a Constitutional matter. Congress may tally and record the votes in the Electoral College (but in this case they failed to do that as directed by the Constitution) however that is merely a mechanical recording of numbers ... not a political decision of eligibility. It is also true that the military court, being created by Congress under the auspices of the Constitution and therefore subservient to the Constitution, cannot rule on the eligibility issue either explicitly (as you would like to proclaim it I suppose) or as they have actually done - implicitly by convicting Terry Lakin.
Did you sit in judgement on the Lakin court marshal??? You should read more of Mario Apuzzo’s blog to learn that in fact “citizenship” is something separate and distinct from the Constitutional phrasing “natural born Citizen”; with citizenship being a necessary but not sufficient thing as Commander correctly Kerchner puts it. If not a citizen, there can be no eligibility, but even IF a citizen that alone does not fulful the “natural borb Citizen” portion of things.
Perhaps your deliberations should be pursued in more depth and with more thought!
I just sent the Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii a message. Let's see if he responds. It reads:
ReplyDeleteDear Sir,
If you genuinely want to address President Obama's birth certificate issues then I invite you to read my analysis at www.birther.com. You will be surprised at what you learn that is not being reported by the media.
With all due respect, you and everyone else like you claim that there is a mountain of evidence of his birthplace in Hawaii. Sir, the only evidence of birthplace President Obama has ever produced was the Certification of Live Birth that he posted on his website under the title: "Barack Obama's Official Birth Certificate." This Certification of Live Birth" is not an original birth certificate. It is merely a certification, which is a brief summary of his 1961 vital record(s) on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. What we do not know, however, is what 1961 vital record the Certification of Live Birth is summarizing.
In 1961 there were at least six different Hawaii state procedures available to generate a vital record (birth certificate) that the online Certification of Live Birth could be summarizing. Five of the six procedures lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they created opportunities for fraud. Even the United State government's Office of Inspector General concluded in a 2000 report on Birth Certificate Fraud that these kind of birth certificate practices create opportunities for fraud. You can read the U.S. government report, and the actual Hawaii Revised vital records laws in effect at the time of Obama's birth at www.birther.com.
Moving along, these 1961 procedures ranged from the traditional hospital and doctor documentation to Hawaii Revised Law Section 57-9 that read: “If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided (referring to 57-8), is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” Did you get that? -- An unattended birth reported by any 3rd person?
Governor, President Obama's online Certification of Live Birth is only as reliable and trustworthy as the procedure that was used to generate his original 1961 vital record. Do you know what 1961 procedure was used? Only President Obama knows, and he is not telling.
On a closing note, I can give you a way to satisfy the "birthers." Nobody has a privacy right to the original form of the birth certificate. Release a copy of President Obama's original birth certificate with all information redacted but his name. This will answer the question of whether or not the President has a "long form" birth certificate on file from 1961.
One more thing, aren't you the least bit concerned that the President has never once admitted that there is a long form birth certificate on file with Hawaii's DOH? Where's the invasion of privacy interest for such an admission?
Well, what bugs me about it is IF the Congress had used the 'precise language' rule in regards to the usage of the word "Rule" then they would have used a 'Preamble' to the Laws of Naturalization explaining the guiding principles of 'citizenship and naturalization' in the Republican form of Guv'mnt.
ReplyDeletePerhaps expressing Vattel's premise of the 2nd generation being born of natural parent citizens, or even Aristotle's view of 3rd or 4th generation of the same, as being the Goal for all newly naturalized citizens or atleast the Jus Sanguines rule in the general with jus soli as the specific to the indeginous Citizen, well, then we wouldn't be sitting here with NO 'legal' definition of what should be the NATURAL understanding, being left with only 'novel' leaps of faith with which to build a case.
Following is a brief summary of an exchange I had with Representative Denny Rehberg (R-MT) in August 2009 (from a letter published in the Daily Interlake, Kalispell, MT, on 10/16/09):
ReplyDeleteI approached Rep. Rehberg about Obama's natural-born-citizenship issue. Given the general knowledge of this issue prior to the Nov. 4, 2008, election, I asked him why he (or any other members of Congress) did not object when the electoral vote was counted by Congress on Jan. 6, 2009.
His response was that since the Democrats held a majority there was no point in objecting as they would simply vote to override the objection. It was a question of "practicality." He indicated that we ordinary citizens did not understand the "rules." I do not know what "rules" Rep. Rehberg was referring to, but I know that Congress enacted legislation (Title 3, United States Code, Section 5) by which any electoral vote can be challenged for any reason.
It appears that Congress assumed the right to waive the Constitution of the United States for “practical reasons” simply by majority vote.
Now that the Republicans hold a majority in the House maybe they can do something about it for “practical reasons.”
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeleteThe only "novel leaps of faith" I see on this thread are yours when you offer the pretense that eligibility is a political question and that somehow the interpretation of the nbC term cannot vaidly be done by SCOTUS when it is precisely its province to do so bys dlooking at the issue in the context of fhr founding time - which you clearly have not done.
I suggest you study the legal writings by Mario Apuzzo in the Kerchner case and stop flossing your teeth with "flights of fancy".
I am pleased to announce that the ProtectOurLiberty.org Fund is paying for and running a full color two page center fold ad in support of LTC Terry Lakin and further exposing to the public the Obama eligibility issue in the Washington Times National Weekly this week -- the 3 Jan 2011 edition pages 20 & 21. You can see the ad and link to get a down load of the two pages at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/mostrecentad.htm
Please if you can, make a donation to the Terry Lakin Action Fund to help support his wife and children while he is in prison. He stood up for us and our Constitution. Now its our turn to stand up and help him.
http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
JayJay said;
ReplyDeleteI don't know what in the hell jayjay is saying.
He hasn't got a single point of my position correct.
There is no 'legally acknowledged definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen'
The Congress could have back in 1790 'established' its meaning by including a 'preamble' to the naturalization laws, but it did not.
So now ONLY SCOTUS can define and interpret its meaning and can only do so in the course of taking jurisdiction over a Bona Fide case and controversy of which it has jurisdiction.
The SCOTUS has rebuffed EVERY 'eligibility question case' without comment leaving any interested observer to conclude the lower courts assertion that 'eligibility' IS a 'political question' outside of their jurisdiction.
JayJay, I know you are a faithful follower of Puzo1, as I am, but I also have the ability to think for myself and have a strong desire to find a way to 'resolve' the impasse within the courts over jurisdiction and standing.
Please note that when I used the word 'novel' I had it in quotations referencing back to the several occasions different courts have referred to the various assertions in cases as 'novel'.
So I will just leave you with this and maybe you'll 'get it' and maybe you won't;
the question of what and who is a natural born Citizen is in the first instance a 'citizenship question'.
If a "Born Citizen" is the same as a natural born Citizen, then Congress can, illegally amend A2S1C5 by changing USC 8, Section 1401.
ReplyDeleteIn order to change US Code 1401, Minor's holding would have to be overruled, because it says the 14th does define a natural born Citizen.
ReplyDeletepolitical or constitutional..defined or not defined...you are absolutley confusing...you said to my post that it was political...and another that it was constitutional...no wonder ppl are confused..
ReplyDeletethe way i figure it...is that the interpetation of "natural born citizen" was establised by the writters of the constitution...it was not a political matter (just like mario stated above) after they penned the constitution and signed it...its meaning was clear and intent...
the SC is not there to define the meaning...its only duty..and its obligation...is to insure that the meaning that the founding fathers used, when they penned the constitution...is the only meaning that is applied...they are not free to re-construe that meaning...and if/when they do...it is a violation of the constitution and their oaht to uphold it...
Humor me on this, take a literal read of Title 50 S212.
ReplyDelete"after the President shall have declared by proclamation that the laws of the United States are opposed" Has he not opposed them himself by proclamation?
@smrstrauss, I see history has been lost to you. Loyalists were not considered even true citizens after the revolution. Many lost their property and some states actually passed laws preventing them from holding any public office. Those that hid in Canada were given special designation after their names, U.E., to designate their status as loyal to the empire. So, your opinion stands solely on your bias not on the evidence at hand.
ReplyDeleteJS said:
ReplyDelete"the way i figure it...is that the interpetation of "natural born citizen" was establised by the writters of the constitution...it was not a political matter (just like mario stated above) after they penned the constitution and signed it...its meaning was clear and intent...
the SC is not there to define the meaning...its only duty..and its obligation...is to insure that the meaning that the founding fathers used, when they penned the constitution...is the only meaning that is applied..."
Too true JS.
If people were to think about it this way, (given the fact that the 'citizens of the United States' are sovereign) ...
'natural born Citizen' = natural born sovereign .......... there is no other sovereign, according to English law and the Law of Nature, than a sovereign by descent.
When the framers sought to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence they MEANT ANY foreign influence.
js said...
ReplyDeletepolitical or Constitutional
..defined or not defined...you are absolutley confusing...you said to my post that it was political
...and another that it was constitutional...no wonder ppl are confused..
______________________________
Well, I understand that.... I've had a difficult time understanding the Laws and Judicial Opinions I've read that seem to conflict when two different things are said of one subject.
But what I've come to understand that it is always important to look at the CONTEXT in which the subject is being viewed or questioned in order to make sense of the discussion.
The 'fundamental FACT' of this entire issue is that there is NO 'legally acknowledged definition' of the Constitutional id om.
If there were a 'definition' NOW we would not be having this discussion because in order to answer the Political Question of 'eligibility' we could simply compare the 'citizenship' circumstances of the one whose eligibility is being questioned to the 'LEGAL' definition, i.e., a matter of FACTual findings.
CONTEXT.
I'm sure we all agree that the 'definition, meaning and intent' of the idiom has not changed since the day it was inserted into the Constitution in that there have been NO Congressional Acts, Amendments or Judicial Declaratory Statements/Judgments made to change it, no words that say so and none that require it, notwithstanding the repealed 1790 Act, various Judicial dicta and SR 511 that attempts to 'enlarge' it.
Context.
Lacking the 'Constitutionally acknowledged legal definition' any and all questions as to the nature or application of the idiom IS / ARE 'Constitutional questions'
Context.
However, attached to that, when addressing 'eligibility' and when lacking a definition, it is always a 'political question'.
With a Legally acknowledged definition' it is no longer a 'political question but rather a 'matter of FACTual finding'.
Context.
The nature of a 'natural born Citizen' within the population of the Representative Republic is in the 1st instance a 'citizenship question', the 'political Act of adopting the Constitution having already made their existence a Constitutional imperative.
The 'transient political aspects' being secondary and only of impotence insofar as 'eligibility' is concerned.
Context.
The circumstances and conditions required combine to make a person a natural born citizen in the 1st instance and the usage within the Constitution attach to those combined required circumstances and conditions the 'transient political aspects' as secondary attributes of the Constitutional idiom.
Context.
All of the cases to date, therefore, have been presented as 'political questions' due to the questioning of 'eligibility' and notwithstanding both the well and poorly constructed arguments made to overcome the Separation of Powers concerns raised by the 'political question' the courts have been consistent, albeit ungracious, in rebuffing the approach.
Context.
My attempt has been to acquire the requisite 'standing' so that I might have the opportunity to present the court with a Bona Fide 'case and controversy' that asks the for the 'legal Constitutional definition' of natural born Citizen, insofar as the Citizenship of an private individual is concerned.
The 'citizenship question'.
Context.
When a horse is hitched to the front of the cart they will both move down the road together toward their destination.
js said...
ReplyDeletepolitical or Constitutional
..defined or not defined...you are absolutley confusing...you said to my post that it was political
...and another that it was constitutional...no wonder ppl are confused..
______________________________
Well, I understand that.... I've had a difficult time understanding the Laws and Judicial Opinions I've read that seem to conflict when two different things are said of one subject.
But what I've come to understand that it is always important to look at the CONTEXT in which the subject is being viewed or questioned in order to make sense of the discussion.
The 'fundamental FACT' of this entire issue is that there is NO 'legally acknowledged definition' of the Constitutional id om.
If there were a 'definition' NOW we would not be having this discussion because in order to answer the Political Question of 'eligibility' we could simply compare the 'citizenship' circumstances of the one whose eligibility is being questioned to the 'LEGAL' definition, i.e., a matter of FACTual findings.
CONTEXT.
I'm sure we all agree that the 'definition, meaning and intent' of the idiom has not changed since the day it was inserted into the Constitution in that there have been NO Congressional Acts, Amendments or Judicial Declaratory Statements/Judgments made to change it, no words that say so and none that require it, notwithstanding the repealed 1790 Act, various Judicial dicta and SR 511 that attempts to 'enlarge' it.
Context.
Lacking the 'Constitutionally acknowledged legal definition' any and all questions as to the nature or application of the idiom IS / ARE 'Constitutional questions'
Context.
However, attached to that, when addressing 'eligibility' and when lacking a definition, it is always a 'political question'.
With a Legally acknowledged definition' it is no longer a 'political question but rather a 'matter of FACTual finding'.
Context.
The nature of a 'natural born Citizen' within the population of the Representative Republic is in the 1st instance a 'citizenship question', the 'political Act of adopting the Constitution having already made their existence a Constitutional imperative.
The 'transient political aspects' being secondary and only of impotence insofar as 'eligibility' is concerned.
Context.
The circumstances and conditions required combine to make a person a natural born citizen in the 1st instance and the usage within the Constitution attach to those combined required circumstances and conditions the 'transient political aspects' as secondary attributes of the Constitutional idiom.
Context.
All of the cases to date, therefore, have been presented as 'political questions' due to the questioning of 'eligibility' and notwithstanding both the well and poorly constructed arguments made to overcome the Separation of Powers concerns raised by the 'political question' the courts have been consistent, albeit ungracious, in rebuffing the approach.
Context.
My attempt has been to acquire the requisite 'standing' so that I might have the opportunity to present the court with a Bona Fide 'case and controversy' that asks the for the 'legal Constitutional definition' of natural born Citizen, insofar as the Citizenship of an private individual is concerned.
The 'citizenship question'.
Context.
When a horse is hitched to the front of the cart they will both move down the road together toward their destination.
OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK,
ReplyDelete.......Now, tell me how you are going to get the SCOTUS, Congress, the Executive and the PEOPLE to all agree at once that your 'definition' is what the FRamers intented.........'Legally', 'Legally' 'Legally' 'Legally' 'Legally' 'Legally' 'Legally' 'Legally' 'Legally'
...under the Rule of Law....
.........because I would like nothing better than to have this problem solved...........
lots of words, you should learn to be more explicit in your explanations and get directly to the point...
ReplyDeletecontext
if the founders and framers had intended for precedents to alter the meaning of our constitution, they failed to put it in writing
context
the supremes only option is to determine that original definition and insure that it is the only definition applied
end of context
i disagree that infinite power to reinterpet the constitution was given to the judicial branch
the judicial power of the supreme court is not given over the constitution, but only laws under it...the only authority that can change the constitution, by amending its definition or exeptions to the definition of the constitutions articles...is the sole power of the states...and the people who live in them...not the supreme court
Please take a look at this letter from Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
ReplyDeletePrivate Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://usurpador.blogcindario.com/
js:
ReplyDeleteYour observations about SCOTUS and its powers over the Constitution and what the courts proper role is is right on the money.
It is We The Prople that have the power to change it, not the courts (civil or militart) nor Congress.
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeleteYour quote:
"I don't know what in the hell jayjay is saying.
He hasn't got a single point of my position correct."
Clearly you DON'T know what I am saying, and you make little or no effort to consider it. I know precisely what you mean by your "points" as you call them. It is that I find no merit in them at all and believe they are profoundly misguided, but then your belief that I am a “faithful follower” of Puzo1 (whether or not you might be) is also off base. The fact that much of the legal work espoused therein controverts what you claim is the reason I mention it since it seems to be gilding the lilly to show you those same arguments that you’ve apparently not been able to discern by reading them through your “faithful following”.
The 1790 Act you mention is of little merit since Congress was authorized under the Constitution to pass laws regarding that subject, the definition of “natural born Citizen” was clearly understood by those at the drafting Convention (which, BTW, was not a “Congress” as you claimed it to be but was a document drafted “In Convention” as it says in the presenting Resoluting to be PRESENTED to “the United States in Congress assembled” - check your copy thereof) as not needing the “preamble” to any later law passed by Congress as you feel should have been done.
Part 1; more later ...
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeletePart 2 -
Keep in mind that President Washington signed the 1790 act into law and, should have he felt it not definitive enough, could have vetoed it or requested that Congress clarify it. Almost immediately (in the governmental speed of doing things) by 1795 the term was removed from the language as almost the only change and Washington again signed that into law as it remained for a long, long time and he could also have vetoed the 1795 Act were it deficient in his view. If you’re attempting to convince us that Washington presiding over the Constitutional Convention and then later signing both the 1790 and then the 1795 Acts into law knew not what they said or meant, I think you’re full of beans, my man. Congress NEVER had the legal ability to define the terms used the Constitution - and still doesn’t - but it is very clear in various high court rulings (including those of SCOTUS) that (which guy was it, now, that said something to the effect of ...) “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;...”?? Oh yeah, I think it was that guy they named the honorary head of the Tournament of Roses Parade after ... the Grand Marshall or his relative John - and IIRC it was in -- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803). That also was shortly after the Constitution was drafted.
Someone else said:
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. -- South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905). “ And this BTW was in a case with SCOTUS having original jurisdiction.
And along those lines, we have this”
“The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. -- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.
(More later in Part 3)
Keep in mind that President Washington signed the 1790 act into law and, should have he felt it not definitive enough, could have vetoed it or requested that Congress clarify it. Almost immediately (in the governmental speed of doing things) by 1795 the term was removed from the language as almost the only change and Washington again signed that into law as it remained for a long, long time and he could also have vetoed the 1795 Act were it deficient in his view. If you’re attempting to convince us that Washington presiding over the Constitutional Convention and then later signing both the 1790 and then the 1795 Acts into law knew not what they said or meant, I think you’re full of beans, my man. Congress NEVER had the legal ability to define the terms used the Constitution - and still doesn’t - but it is very clear in various high court rulings (including those of SCOTUS) that (which guy was it, now, that said something to the effect of ...) “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;...”?? Oh yeah, I think it was that guy they named the honorary head of the Tournament of Roses Parade after ... the Grand Marshall or his relative John - and IIRC it was in -- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803). That also was shortly after the Constitution was drafted.
ReplyDeleteSomeone else said:
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. -- South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905). “ And this BTW was in a case with SCOTUS having original jurisdiction.
And along those lines, we have this”
“The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. -- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeletePart 2 follows ...
Keep in mind that President Washington signed the 1790 act into law and, should have he felt it not definitive enough, could have vetoed it or requested that Congress clarify it. Almost immediately (in the governmental speed of doing things) by 1795 the term was removed from the language as almost the only change and Washington again signed that into law as it remained for a long, long time and he could also have vetoed the 1795 Act were it deficient in his view. If you’re attempting to convince us that Washington presiding over the Constitutional Convention and then later signing both the 1790 and then the 1795 Acts into law knew not what they said or meant, I think you’re full of beans, my man. Congress NEVER had the legal ability to define the terms used the Constitution - and still doesn’t - but it is very clear in various high court rulings (including those of SCOTUS) that (which guy was it, now, that said something to the effect of ...) “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;...”?? Oh yeah, I think it was that guy they named the honorary head of the Tournament of Roses Parade after ... the Grand Marshall or his relative John - and IIRC it was in -- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803). That also was shortly after the Constitution was drafted.
Someone else said:
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. -- South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905). “ And this BTW was in a case with SCOTUS having original jurisdiction.
Part 3 yet to come ...
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeleteThis is Part 3 ...
And along those lines, we have this”
“The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. -- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.
As for the founders reliance on Vattel, there are plenty of bits about that in the Puzo1 site, too, but in the meantime your pretense that there is “no definition” (and never mind the gobbledegook about “no legally acknowledged definition”, you need to think a bit more on your point since it has clearly been refuted above and we also have (in addition to other things): this little tidbit:
“The necessities which gave birth to the constitution, the controversies which precede its formation and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purposes of tracing to its source, any particular provision of the constitution, in order thereby, to be enabled to correctly interpret its meaning.” -- Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558.
Part 4 follows ...
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeleteThis is Part 3 ...
And along those lines, we have this”
“The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. -- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.
As for the founders reliance on Vattel, there are plenty of bits about that in the Puzo1 site, too, but in the meantime your pretense that there is “no definition” (and never mind the gobbledegook about “no legally acknowledged definition”, you need to think a bit more on your point since it has clearly been refuted above and we also have (in addition to other things): this little tidbit:
“The necessities which gave birth to the constitution, the controversies which precede its formation and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purposes of tracing to its source, any particular provision of the constitution, in order thereby, to be enabled to correctly interpret its meaning.” -- Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558.
Part 4 follows ...
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeletePart 4 of 4 parts ...
As should be obvious to most people not locked into a hard-headed viewpoint, there was ample public debate and explanation at Founding Time such as the Federalist Papers and if you wish to presume the “nbC” term was not understood at the time and remained a mystery for these 230-plus years, I think a LOT of folks would disagree - as do I. So you may not understand what I’m saying, but certainly I understand the “points” you try to proffer. They are primarily the same efforts to misinform and evade the real issue of eligibility as offered by the typical Flying Monkey which is in no way a “political question” nor can you ever definitively show that it is. The Constitution was written first before the laws that you try to pretend cover and should precede the meaning in the Constitution and as you should be able to determine from the citations I’ve given, such is not the case ... you merely have the cart before the horse with the horse pointed in the wrong direction toward the cart - or as the King’s English might phrase it, you have it bassackwards and you completely miss the meaning of my comment about the tree falling in the forest..
You also seem to believe that SCOTUS is somehow unable to take up the eligibility matter for some reason but that assuredly is not so. That body has far more flexibility in what it does (despite being terribly hidebound and constitutionally constipated) than you seem to believe. For example it could assume the case of Terry Lakin were it presented to them properly - perhaps under SCOTUS Rule 20 whether as original or appellate jurisdiction perhaps using some form of “show cause” action in a properly dressed-up latin phrase for the Harvard legalistas. So far they have not chosen to do so but that does not mean they won’t. It would certainly be a case where the body submitting had “standing” and would clearly NOT be a “political question”.
You are also incorrect that the SCOTUS has “rebuffed” every eligibility case ... totally untrue; they have rebuffed none but have merely declined to hear any on merit. There’s a huge distinction - one that means the action submitted for resolution is NOT YET RESOLVED but is a controversy still. You seem to not realize (or perhaps you do) that such a comment as your “rebuffed” claim above is one one of the tried and true shibboleths of the Flying Monkeys also as are the trite observations of various of the judiciary attempting to duck out from under a hearing on merit along with the same judicial fiction you cite here.
(End of the 4-part post)
United Natural Born Citizens:\
ReplyDeletePart 4 follows ...
As should be obvious to most people not locked into a hard-headed viewpoint, there was ample public debate and explanation at Founding Time such as the Federalist Papers and if you wish to presume the “nbC” term was not understood at the time and remained a mystery for these 230-plus years, I think a LOT of folks would disagree - as do I. So you may not understand what I’m saying, but certainly I understand the “points” you try to proffer. They are primarily the same efforts to misinform and evade the real issue of eligibility as offered by the typical Flying Monkey which is in no way a “political question” nor can you ever definitively show that it is. The Constitution was written first before the laws that you try to pretend cover and should precede the meaning in the Constitution and as you should be able to determine from the citations I’ve given, such is not the case ... you merely have the cart before the horse with the horse pointed in the wrong direction toward the cart - or as the King’s English might phrase it, you have it bassackwards and you completely miss the meaning of my comment about the tree falling in the forest..
You also seem to believe that SCOTUS is somehow unable to take up the eligibility matter for some reason but that assuredly is not so. That body has far more flexibility in what it does (despite being terribly hidebound and constitutionally constipated) than you seem to believe. For example it could assume the case of Terry Lakin were it presented to them properly - perhaps under SCOTUS Rule 20 whether as original or appellate jurisdiction perhaps using some form of “show cause” action in a properly dressed-up latin phrase for the Harvard legalistas. So far they have not chosen to do so but that does not mean they won’t. It would certainly be a case where the body submitting had “standing” and would clearly NOT be a “political question”.
Part 5 follows ...
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeletePart 5 follows ...
You are also incorrect that the SCOTUS has “rebuffed” every eligibility case ... totally untrue; they have rebuffed none but have merely declined to hear any on merit. There’s a huge distinction - one that means the action submitted for resolution is NOT YET RESOLVED but is a controversy still. You seem to not realize (or perhaps you do) that such a comment as your “rebuffed” claim above is one one of the tried and true shibboleths of the Flying Monkeys also as are the trite observations of various of the judiciary attempting to duck out from under a hearing on merit along with the same judicial fiction you cite here.
End of Part 5 - possibly more later.
All:
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for jamming up the text when having to break it into Blogger-sized bits.
Shouldn't be necessary in this day and age. Hopefully most of the important points come through.
JS....
ReplyDeleteYou are STILL missing the point....
in the CONTEXT of your statement that SCOTUS can not change 'IT' is only correct because there is NO LEGALLY ACKNOWLEDGED DEFINITION OF WHAT AND WHO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
So, of course they can not CHANGE IT, it has not EVER been 'LEGALLY' defined UNDER THE RULE OF LAW 'since' the adoption of the Constitution, but has, as observed from the various orbita dica and interpretations of applications, has been asserted to be of differing definitions over time.
You imply that the SCOTUS does not have the mandate to interpret the Constitution and so I must request you look at the Case of Marbury v Madison and reassess you understanding of that position.
As for Amending 'IT', that is NOT possible without agreeing 1st upon the 'LEGAL Constitutional definition' because you can not 'RE-DEFINE' that which is NOT defined with the Amendment Process without 1st arriving at a 'DECLARATORY STATEMENT / JUDGMENT as to what the 'original definition' IS.
Look up the definition of a 'conundrum' and then go over the points with the understanding that arriving at a 'legal definition' of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen is indeed a conundrum UNDER THE RULE OF LAW when there is an attached 'transient Political aspect' that becomes a bar to the Courts in taking up jurisdiction due to the Separation of Powers doctrine.
Read Mr. Ouzo's Kirchner Petition for Writ again. The argument attempting to overcome that 'bar' was absolutely brilliant and I am sure there were minds that WERE persuaded if the subject was of anything other than UNSEATING a SITTING POTUS.
But look at it from the SCOTUS perspective.
If they were to 'define' NBC from within a 'Political question case of eligibility' then it would be perceived as a POLITICAL DECISION rather than a Judicial decision.
That is why the 'eligibility question' has consistently been sent back with the recommendation of seeking a POLITICAL REMEDY at the Ballot Box.
Please ask Mr Abuzz or CMDR Kirchner to correct any errors in my analysis or simply follow the Elisha maxim and 'don't doubt me'.
JayJay ...
ReplyDeleteAll of your points on the history of the understanding of what the definition of natural born Citizen is correct as far as it goes....and where it does not go is to where a person can find the 'legal' definition under the Rule of Law, lacking a Declaratory Statement and / or Judgment from any legally constituted authority, or, in Al Gore's words, a 'controlling legal authority'.
Until it is 'acknowledged' under the color of authority all of yours, mine and everyone Else's assertions of what it is or is not is nothing more than howling at the moon.
I apologize for not being able to make it any plainer or in a LUCID form that any and all could ACKNOWLEDGE as FACT.
But when you can show and tell me where to go to be 'legally acknowledged' as a natural born Citizen I'll shut up and say thank you.
In the alternative I will continue to try and find the LUCID words that makes the legal conundrum understandable in hopes that a more LUCID mind than mine might find means to coax a Declaratory Judgment from the Court.
United Natural Born Citizens said.....
ReplyDelete"In the alternative I will continue to try and find the LUCID words that makes the legal conundrum understandable in hopes that a more LUCID mind than mine might find means to coax a Declaratory Judgment from the Court."
Obama has made a 'declaratory judgement' of his own on his nomination in Arizona as witnessed by a Notary Public.
Would this be a way to force the issue?
i.e. if that document has been accepted by anyone in any official capacity, then would it be sufficient to bring that to the courts?
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeleteMr, Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner will chime in if they feel so inclined but there's probably no burning reason to do so as it was amply and clearly stated by both that the meaning of the "nbC" phrase was not further delineated in the Constitution because it was clearly understood - and understood as the Vattel definition.
That also was the thrust of the clips I gave you from various legal sources and case cites. As for SCOTUS changing the definition that is not at all required since the only job SCOTUS has in an instance like this is to divine what the Founders intended the term of art TO mean and as a corollary whether Obama meets that definition by whatever evidence is made available. In the various documents and legal essays by both Apuzzo and Kerchner, that meaning is clearly set out.
Whether you are Al-Gore-like searching for a will-o-the-wisp that does not exist or is meaningless anyway (since the meaning was understood by those who drafted the Constitution and the many sayings I gave you show that - G. Washington, etc.) the CLA you seek is right under your nose and printed in the Constitution - THAT document IS the CLA and the SCOTUS has the purview to divine its meaning as with other Constitutional issues.
Certainly the drafters of the document - which included Washington who signed not one but two citizenship bills - knew full well what the term meant else they would not have presented an ambiguous instrument for adoption as the prime law of our land. Also the many, many debates and arguments relating to the Constitution at the time certainly indicate the general acceptance of the term in the context of the times.
There will be no law passed that alters the Constitution unless we the people force it to be done, but the "mbC" clause is not a part that cries out for being altered - and SCOTUS indeed has the jurisdiction to state what it meant (and means); clarifing the meaning at the founding time is not the same as defining it as the term was intentionally and especially placed into the document with a specific intended meaning. Interpreting the meaning and altering the clause are two quite different things you see and I ave not said that SCOTUS does not interpret the meaning but that they may not alter the clause; e.g change it to "citizen" instead of "nbC" nor has the eligibility issue been "consistently sent back" by the courts but rather they have never heard the case on merit.
United Natural Born Citizens:
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, the poster “js” had the correct take on the matter. It is you who misunderstand what he and others are laboring to tell you.
Mr, Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner will chime in if they feel so inclined but there's probably no burning reason to do so as it was amply and clearly stated by both that the meaning of the "nbC" phrase, a term of art, was not further delineated in the Constitution because it was clearly understood - and understood as the Vattel definition.
That also was the thrust of the clips I gave you from various legal sources and case cites. As for SCOTUS changing the definition that is not at all required since the only job SCOTUS has in an instance like this is to divine what the Founders intended the term of art TO mean and as a corollary whether Obama meets that definition by whatever evidence is made available. In the various documents and legal essays by both Apuzzo and Kerchner, that meaning is clearly set out.
Whether you are Al-Gore-like searching for a will-o-the-wisp that does not exist or is meaningless anyway (since the meaning was understood by those who drafted the Constitution and the many sayings I gave you show that - G. Washington, etc.) the CLA you seek is right under your nose and printed in the Constitution - THAT document IS the CLA and the SCOTUS has the purview to divine its meaning as with other Constitutional issues.
Certainly the drafters of the document - which included Washington who signed not one but two citizenship bills - knew full well what the term meant else he and others would not have presented an ambiguous instrument for adoption as the prime law of our land. Also the many, many debates and arguments relating to the Constitution at the time certainly indicate the general acceptance of the term in the context of the times.
There will be no law passed that alters the Constitution unless we the people force it to be done, but the "nbC" clause is not a part that cries out for being altered - and SCOTUS indeed completely has the jurisdiction to state what it meant (and means); clarifing the meaning at the founding time is not the same as defining it as the term was intentionally and especially placed into the document with a specific intended meaning.
Well, I do not UNDERSTAND why we're talking past each other unless we have different meanings for the words we are using......or reading different cases on the subject.........here is Puzo1's take in the Kerchner Petition to SCOTUS....
ReplyDelete"[5. The nation needs a definition of “natural born Citizen” for future presidential and vice presidential elections
What is the correct meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause is also critically important to future presidential and vice presidential elections. Over the years there has been much debate about the meaning of the clause but no definite resolution yet by the Supreme Court.
..... this issue can easily repeat in future elections. Now is the opportune time for the Supreme Court to give the nation that much-needed definition of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.
29
c. The political parties and the popular vote cannot define a “natural born Citizen”
The constitutional issue also cannot be decided by the political parties and a voting majority. Our nation is ultimately guided by the Constitution and the rule of law, not by majority rule. Allowing the political parties and the voting majorities to decide constitutional issues would be tantamount to amending the Constitution without going through the amendment process prescribed by Article V of the Constitution and abandoning the basic principles of republican government.
d. Only the judiciary can define
a “natural born Citizen”
…Only the judiciary can resolve this constitutional crisis. ..[snip]…
Only the Supreme Court can therefore decide the issue of standing, define a “natural born Citizen,” and determine whether the current sitting putative President is legitimate.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress
Are you saying that Puzo1 and I are both wrong...?
United Natural Born Citizens,
ReplyDeleteI of II
This comment is not intended to be exhaustive but is only a quick summary.
The United States is a constitutional republic, guided by a written Constitution and the rule of law.
The Constitution creates three branches of government, the legislative, executive, and judicial. It also spells out what the powers and obligations of these branches are.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides the eligibility standard for President, one of which is that in the post-grandfather period he or she be a “natural born Citizen.”
This clause is a word of art which means it has a special meaning within the legal community existing at the time it was included in the Constitution.
The text of the Constitution itself, like it normally does not do for the many word and phrases contained within it, does not define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Nor is the definition of the clause found in the 14th Amendment or any other part of the Constitution. That does not mean that we should not make our best effort to use whatever text exists to find the proper meaning.
In analyzing that text, we are to give to the words used a meaning that was commonly, ordinarily, and popularly understood at the time of their drafting.
It can be argued that the text of the clause “natural born Citizen” is clear enough and needs no further interpretation outside the Constitution. It is a state of being that exists in nature which means born in the country to citizen parents. On the other hand, one can also argue that more is needed than just relying on such a rule of nature. In other words, the argument is that we need more evidence as to what the clause means.
So once we have exhausted analyzing the text, it is only normal that we can look for its meaning outside the Constitution.
These outside sources are the structure of the Constitution, the debates both on the adoption and state ratification of the Constitution, the purpose of the “natural born Citizen” clause, the historical context (e.g. revolution) in which the clause was written, the writers by whom the Founders and Framers were influence in their intellectual pursuits (e.g. Cicero, Pufendorf, Vattel, etc.) the law that the Founders and Framers would have looked to when writing the clause (e.g. the English common law or natural law and the law of nations), court precedent (e.g. Rutgers v. Waddington (1784), The Venus (1814), Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Slaughter-House Cases (1872), Minor v. Happersett (1875), Ex parte Reynolds (1879), Elk v. Wilkins (1884), U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898),
Perkins v. Elg (1939), and more current case law), historical writings on the issue (e.g. The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and David Ramsay’s dissertation on citizenship of 1789), debates in Congress (e.g. the Ramsay-Smith debate of 1789), Congressional activity on citizenship and naturalization (e.g. the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 and those that followed), articles written by commentators on the issue, and more.
There are also special rules of construction that are used when interpreting the Constitution. For example, words used by the Framers are not to be considered as mere surplusage or redundant (remember Chief Justice John Marshall). In other words, each word written in the Constitution must be given a meaning.
Continue . . .
II of II
ReplyDeleteAnother question that must be addressed is what approach one will take in determining what the Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause. Will one interpret it from an “originalist” standpoint (guided by the original meaning of the text as per Justice Scalia) or will one look to the Constitution as a “living” document (evolving meaning over time).
Defining what a “natural born Citizen” is not a political question, but rather a legal one, for there exists a predetermined standard as to its meaning.
Determining whether someone is eligible for political office is not a political question, but rather a legal one. Article II provides citizenship, age, and residency as objective factors to be applied to the matter. This is not to mean that a case which one brings on the question of eligibility is not decided on political grounds rather than legal grounds.
It is the duty of the judicial branch of government to resolve legal questions that are properly brought to it by a litigant that satisfies the procedural and substantive requirements of a cause of action, all as established by due process and the rule of law. See Cohens v. Virginia 19 U.S. 264 (1821).
The courts are not supposed to give advisory opinions. In other words, you just cannot ask a court to give you its opinion of what the "natural born Citizen" clause means.
The courts need a real live case or controversy between parties in order to have subject matter jurisdiction over a legal question. We know that this is called standing.
Courts can decide to decline to rule on a matter before it also for other justiciability reasons such as political question, to name just one.
The courts themselves decide whether such a live case or controversy exists and the matter is justiciable and therefore whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a question presented to it. The problem here is that a court can be influenced by outside pressures such as politics when deciding this question.
If you want the court to resolve what a “natural born Citizen” is, you must satisfy these basic principles.
Neither Congress nor the Executive have the power to resolve a dispute concerning what the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is.
Voting at the polls is not the proper way to resolve a constitutional question existing in a constitutional republic.
If the courts are not willing for one reason or another to resolve your constitutional citizenship question, then your only other alternative is the political process which involves having the People define the clause directly in the Constitution. This would require a constitutional amendment.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
1-5-11
s;
ReplyDelete“[T]his is not to mean that a case which one brings on the question of eligibility is not decided on political grounds rather than legal grounds…”
My point is that the Court WILL NOT decide it at all because of the ‘context’ that the question is presented under because, lacking a ‘legal’ bases, i.e., definition, for determining ‘eligibility’, if they were to ‘declare’ a definition from within a ‘political question’ case it would be perceived as a ‘POLITICAL decision’.
Puzo1 says;
“[I]t is the duty of the judicial branch of government to resolve legal questions that are properly brought to it by a litigant that satisfies the procedural and substantive requirements of a cause of action, all as established by due process and the rule of law. See Cohens v. Virginia 19 U.S. 264 (1821). ..”
This has proved to be a conundrum in its-self, in that there is NO ‘legal’ definition which means there is no ‘legal basis’ upon which to bring a case, other than the Constitution its-self, which does not, in words, say what a natural born Citizen is or should be.
The approach I have taken was to force a Guv’mnt Agency to deny acknowledging my assertion of being a NBC and then to pursue the Administrative Appeals process until all efforts of obtaining the remedy has been ‘exhausted’. What has happened is the Administrative Appeals Office has refused to make a determination and the current filing was an attempt to force them complete the Administrative Appeal so that it will be apparent that all Administrative measures have been ‘exhausted’ which gives access to the USCA.
I’m worried now that my ‘pre-emptive’ move in the USDC may have complicated things.
We’ll see.
Another alternative is simply for a state to enact a law definining and/or clarifying eligibility for placement of a POTUS candidate on the ballot -- in accordance with the US Constitution.
ReplyDeleteLet the feds then sue the state.
That's certainly a case or controversy.
(Of course, if any ONE state would do that, Obama would drop out of the '12 race instantly.)
Moreover, I think the new GOP House of Representatives CAN take up the issue under new Speaker Boehner, saying the Old Congress was misled by Pelosi's Certification of Eligibility for Obama.
P.s. to Puzo1;
ReplyDeleteYou wrote;
"[t]hen your only other alternative is the political process which involves having the People define the clause directly in the Constitution. This would require a constitutional amendment..."
But then I find that proposition untenable in that it requires the 'presumption' that the 'original definition, meaning and intent' is other than what would be in the Amendment without ever arriving at a 'Declaratory Statement / Judgment of what the 'Original' is or is not, therefore, Constitutional challenges would continue to be supportable by any who found cause to object to the language of the Amendment.
BREAKING NEWS, IN RED, ON DRUDGE:
ReplyDeleteProtester shouts ‘What about Obama?’ as congressman reads section of Constitution on presidential eligibility…developing…
Ted said...
ReplyDelete"Moreover, I think the new GOP House of Representatives CAN take up the issue under new Speaker Boehner, saying the Old Congress was misled by Pelosi's Certification of Eligibility for Obama."
in a more perfect world than ours...it would probably happen...but...in our real world where politicians remain above the law...a back door deal would probably be made that you and i would never hear about...
I think it likely that a suit directly going after the birth issue is pretty much dead in the water. Congress and the Supreme Court are more interested in protecting the system than the law.
ReplyDeleteI reviewed all of the executive orders that have been issued but can't find any where there might be obvious harm. Is there any action that Obama has taken since he was sworn into office which caused specific harm? Is so, litigating that harm would bypass the standing issue and open the door for a suit against Obama for NBC status and ineligibility.
If there has been no harm, then could a class action suit be brought to obviate the standing issue? Would 20 million participants be sufficient to get over the standing issue hump?
These are great arguments regarding the nuance of the law and all the mitigating issues, but they are mostly academic at this point, unless Taitz's case suddenly grows legs and runs. It is obvious that Congress and the Supreme Court are only interested in protecting the institution, not the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteInstead,going after Obama for a specific harm he has caused would bypass the standing issue by a plaintiff. I reviewed all the executive orders, but couldn't find any that caused specific harm. Specific legislation that Obama signed was approved by Congress so dilutes the impact and requires a significant number of plaintiffs to get over the standing issue.
If there are no specific harms caused by the executive orders, unless you want to represent some politically incorrect Iranians or Sudanese, could a class action lawsuit be initiated with 20 million signatures sufficiently to overcome the standing issue? This suit doesn't have to go all the way, just allow discovery.
These are great arguments regarding the nuance of the law and all the mitigating issues, but they are mostly academic at this point, unless Taitz's case suddenly grows legs and runs. It is obvious that Congress and the Supreme Court are only interested in protecting the institution, not the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteInstead,going after Obama for a specific harm he has caused would bypass the standing issue by a plaintiff. I reviewed all the executive orders, but couldn't find any that caused specific harm. Specific legislation that Obama signed was approved by Congress so dilutes the impact and requires a significant number of plaintiffs to get over the standing issue.
If there are no specific harms caused by the executive orders, unless you want to represent some politically incorrect Iranians or Sudanese, could a class action lawsuit be initiated with 20 million signatures sufficiently to overcome the standing issue? This suit doesn't have to go all the way, just allow discovery.
Another sell out. Speaker of the House John Boehner was quoted as saying:
ReplyDelete"The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That's good enough for me."
Wow, he would have made a great Founding Father:
Speaker John Boehner - We declare our independence!
King of England - You cannot do that because I say so.
Speaker John Boehner - Okay, never mind.
Maybe John Boehner isn't getting enough sleep at night and it is affecting his judgment. I hear that it is difficult to sleep without a backbone.
Mario & Charles.
ReplyDeletePlease go here and read.
There may be a possibility that an action launched in Hawaii would achieve discovery.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-report-on-obamas-democratic-party.html
In regards to the Natural Born Citizen Clause, those who are well familiarized with Chapter 6 of Locke's second Treatise on Government, labeled "Paternal Power", at once know what a Natural Born Citizen is...the natural product of his Citizen Father who rears the child up in his own Citizenship. It is not from the mother, but from the father...or as Locke puts it, "of Paternal Power."
ReplyDeletehttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=222&chapter=16297&layout=html&Itemid=27
Notice he did NOT say parental, but paternal. He did not say maternal, but paternal.
§. 52. "...in a discourse of this nature...which seems so to place the power of parents over their children wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it....
§. 53.
...absolute dominion, and regal authority, when under the title of paternal power it seemed appropriated to the father...contend so much for the absolute power and authority of the fatherhood, as they call it....
§. 59.
...all the laws a man is under...what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it..., at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him
till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government. ...
There are numerous other points Locke makes on the same lines.
Simply put:
A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is then defined for us as being that of a Son of his Citizen Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that same Government on the soil of his native birth as that of his father's, until he effectually takes his place as an extension of his father as a citizen in the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the citizenship of the nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off.
Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature AND the positive laws of an established government. In fact, there is a break in that "citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that we cannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the later United States Constitution.
smrstrauss is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteTories/Loyalists, specifically those who served with the British Army were barred from naturalization.
Therefore, under the 1795 Uniform Naturalization Act, et seq, his children born in the United States to a U.S. wife would not be citizens at birth, nor eligible to naturalize until they turned twenty-one.
Read the naturalization acts carefully. There is no exception for native-born children of aliens being citizens at birth. They only became citizens upon naturalization of the parent/father.
The courts undermined legislated act by introducing one small aspect of English law and calling it a principle and precedent to follow, which was a violation of jurisprudence and the constitution.
We are now suffering the consequences of liberal judicial activism, or calling it what it was, stupidity and lack of due diligence.
paralegalnm,
ReplyDeleteNote that our First Congress(whose members contained 20 persons who had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 17 signers of the Constitution, eight of whom were members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the "natural born Citizen" clause) and Third Congress (
which included Oliver Ellsworth (April 29, 1745 – November 26, 1807) an American lawyer and politician, a revolutionary against British rule, a drafter of the United States Constitution, an the third Chief Justice of the United States; Roger Sherman (April 19, 1721 – July 23, 1793) was an early American lawyer and politician. He served as the first mayor of New Haven, Connecticut, and served on the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence, and was also a representative and senator in the new republic. He was the only person to sign all four great state papers of the U.S.: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution; Rufus King (March 24, 1755 – April 29, 1827) was an American lawyer, politician, and diplomat. He was a delegate for Massachusetts to the Continental Congress. He also attended the Constitutional Convention and was one of the signers of the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787; and other Founders and Framers)(see Wikipedia), with the signature of President George Washington on both acts, in the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, respectively, did not distinguish whether the child born to an alien was born in or out of the United States. In either case, the child was not a citizen and had to naturalize, either derivatively from the naturalizing parent if done before the child reached the age of majority or on his or her own if done thereafter.
Yet Justice Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) made the statement that the United States following the revolution and the adoption of the Constitution and down to 1898 adopted and used the English common law as the basis for the rules of decision for defining our national citizenship.
Would anyone care to offer an explanation as to why Justice Gray would make such a statement?
Can anyone find any legal or historical support for what Justice Gray said?
Mario said:
ReplyDelete"Would anyone care to offer an explanation as to why Justice Gray would make such a statement?
Can anyone find any legal or historical support for what Justice Gray said?"
Gray was owing to Chester Arthur, the first of the usurpers, so Gray had an agenda.
Wasn't Gray referring to the individual states, and not the United States as a single entity?
The term or usage of 'natural' in both English Common Law & in US Constitution was with reference to the condition of the father of the 'natural born' off-spring.
ReplyDelete'nature' was not to do with the soil.
puzo1 asked;
ReplyDelete"[C]an anyone find any legal or historical support for what Justice Gray said?..."
I have looked and tried to find upon what basis Judge Gray or the various other Judges made such 'dictum' in regards to 'citizenship' cases before them.
I the various State Constitutions the 'adoption' of the English Common Law 'structure' was said to be continued 'EXCEPT' when any such 'statute' therein would be repugnant to the various Constitutions.
In order for the Federal Courts to accept the 'English Common 'statutory' Law' it would have been necessary for it to have been noted in the Constitution or within the Congressional Acts establishing the Courts.
After the adoption of the Constitution the States, at various times, dropped the language acknowledging the use of 'English Common Law', being satisfied the the 'construction of the Legislated laws being applied to the Rules, Regulations and Procedures 'adopted by the Courts were sufficient to be considered 'American Common Law'.
Being unable to find the 'original case briefs' of the various 'citizenship cases' we are left with the 'summary recitations' found in the SCOTUS Opinions which shed very little light on the question of why they often cited 'English Common Law' on the subject of 'citizenship' when it is wholly obvious from the State Constitutions and the 1st & subsequent Naturalization Acts the 'English Common Laws' on Citizenship was considered 'repugnant' to the Republican form of Guv'mnt.
Had it been otherwise there is a fair chance that Sanford v Scott would have been decided differently and perhaps staving off the Civil War to a more agreeable Political solution.
But it must also be noted that in every instance the question concerned 'citizenship' only and that NEVER has the question asked that would require a definition of natural born Citizen, that is, within a case that has been heard on the merits in whole.
"MichaelN said...
ReplyDeleteThe term or usage of 'natural' in both English Common Law & in US Constitution was with reference to the condition of the father of the 'natural born' off-spring."
..Excellent point ...reminded me of previous reserch in the USCodes....
"TITLE 38 > PART II > CHAPTER 18 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 1831
Prev | Next § 1831. Definitions
How Current is This? In this chapter:
(1) The term “child” means the following:
(A) For purposes of subchapters I and II of this chapter, an individual, regardless of age or marital status, who—
(i) is the natural child of a Vietnam veteran; and
(ii) was conceived after the date on which that veteran first entered the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era.
(B) For purposes of subchapter III of this chapter, an individual, regardless of age or marital status, who—
(i) is the natural child of a veteran of covered service in Korea (as determined for purposes of section 1821 of this title); and
(ii) was conceived after the date on which that veteran first entered service described in subsection (c) of that section. "
More examples of the Congress recognizing 'natural parents' for the purposes of granting and or denying benifits ... see Title 42 at Social Security and Veterans Benifits....
MichaelN,
ReplyDeleteVattel at Sec. 212 of The Law of Nations said that natural-born citizens are "born in the country" to citizen parents.
In Sec. 215, on being born out of the country, he said that place of birth alone does not change the citizenship of a child, for that child follows the condition of the father (meaning father and mother). But then he also said with such a child who may be born out of the country, a nation may pass its own laws which would control the status that person would have and that those laws need to be followed.
Amending the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 changed "natural born citizen" to "citizen of the United States" for those who were born out of the U.S. to citizen parents. By doing this, early Congress signaled that a child born abroad to citizen parents would not be declared a "natural born Citizen." Rather, he or she would be declared a "citizen of the United States." This is important since so many founders and framers were in these Congresses, given that Article II said that after the Constitution's adoption, only a "natural born Citizen" could be President, and given that Congress only has the constitutional power to naturalize persons who, with the exception noted above, it has called since 1790 “citizens of the United States.”
How do you explain all this?
Part 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteMario, I have just posted this on Fogbow (Politijab) forum.
Maybe this will stimulate some reasoning.
Lord Coke (in Calvin's case) said .........
"There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.43 The second is called ligeantia acquisita,44 not by nature but by acquisition or denization, being called a denizen, or rather donaizon, because he is subditus datus.45 The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other. The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the Torn or Leet"
As you can see there are two types of allegiances that produce the born subjects, although the born subjects are both apparently called 'natural born subject'.
One ( the 'high allegiance') type of allegiance that produces the born subject is "ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita, and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia"
The other is "ligeantia localis wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance"
'alta ligeantia' = 'subject born' - 'by nature and birthright'
i.e. because of the condition of the father, who is already a subject (apparently a local born subject as opposed to an alien born)
'ligeantia localis' = 'a subject made by gift' - by nature and GIFT.
i.e. gifted because they are born in a lesser allegiance to an alien born who is NOT already a local born subject)
Part 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteLord Coke (Calvin's case)
"localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta.53
53. ][Ed.: local allegiance is something mean and small, and extremely uncertain.]
ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a
[42. ][Ed.: natural, absolute, pure and unlimited allegiance.]
[42a. ][Ed.: high allegiance.]
The framers in their learned wisdom and with their profound knowledge of English Common Law & Vattel, were extremely cautious to reserve the eligibility for office of POTUS for those who had no risk of influence from any foreign source.
The framers notion of a 'natural born Citizen' was 'alta ligeantia' = 'subject born' - 'by nature and birthright'
The local allegiance of an alien visitor was, according to Lord Coke "localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta. 53
53. ][Ed.: local allegiance is something mean and small, and extremely uncertain.]"
It is obvious to anyone with a normal sense of reason, that 'extremely uncertain' was not on the agenda to the framers.
To the English - by 'nature' is due by the parent father's allegiance.
To the English - by 'birthright' is due by being born in the land of the subjevt father and eligible to inheritance. (i.e.'high allegiance')
Lord Coke.
"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"
and
"natural ligeance is not circumscribed within any place."
In England, 'natural allegiance' on the part of an alien visitor was due to the person and position of the sovereign, not the land, or the law of the land.
Unlike the English, in USA, an alien visitor being 'subject to the jurisdiction' does not make one a US citizen by the Law of Nature, (the alien to USA must apply for citizenship and be gifted), furthermore the alien born visitor in USA has no 'natural allegiance' due to either the US 'sovereign' (i.e. in this case, US sovereign Citizens) or the land, but in England one had to be a 'subject' to the sovereign to produce a 'natural born subject', and the English, (unlike USA), deemed alien born visitors as 'subjects' by the Law of Nature.
In England, only a sovereign can produce sovereigns, by birth descent - nature and birthright.
In USA, only sovereign Citizens can produce sovereign Citizens, by birth descent - nature and birthright.
Mario.
ReplyDeletePlease read this,
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm
particularly, from here on...
"In this letter, dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote:"
read on.
Puzo1 asked;
ReplyDelete'How do you explain all this?"...
Re: The 1790 naturalization Act that provided for the children born abroad of Us Citizen parents.
After reading Joseph Story's Commentaries and divining from the language the GREAT respect for the many Patriots who sacrificed and risked their all in the great endeavor, including traveling abroad to secure loans by which to fund the War and agreements of non-intervention when aid was not offered as well as the purchase of needed goods and contracts for continued trade of exports and too, members of the Military apart for various duties, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that it was in honor of those who were so tasked that they would not be 'penalized' for their sacrifice.
That 1795 brought new fears of foreign intrigue and hostile intends from many quarters and caused the provision to be 'repealed' and restoring the condition to its most conservative construction is also understandable.
What is NOT clear is why the Congress did not find it appropriate to DECLARE the definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen and then to establish an 'Embassy Doctrine' whereby any US Citizen parents who were in a position of service and under the protection of the US while abroad could follow certain procedures including returning the child to the US in a certain period of time could be agreeably accepted 'as if' a natural born Citizen for Constitutional purposes.
In other words, only speculation and opinion can provide suggested answers to the question, lacking any documented debates, records or letters of discussion.
Were these 'scrubbed' or simply non-existent...?
MichaelN,
ReplyDeleteJohn Yinger states:
"In this letter, dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote:
‘Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (emphasis in the original).(5)’
The meaning of this letter is not entirely clear. In today's usage, the word ‘administration’ might be thought to limit the focus of the first part of the letter to the executive branch. According to one historian, however, this part was primarily directed at members of the legislative branch.(6) Moreover, the second part of the letter, where the expression ‘natural born’ appears, also may not have been directed at the President; at that point Jay had no way of knowing that the Convention would ultimately make the President the commander-in-chief. Nevertheless, this letter is the only document connected to the Constitutional Convention that explicitly argues for a ‘natural born’ citizen in a high executive position.
According to one scholar, Charles Gordon, ‘Possibly this letter was motivated by distrust of Baron von Stuben, who had served valiantly in the Revolutionary forces, but whose subsequent loyalty was suspected by Jay. Another theory is that the Jay letter, and the resulting constitutional provision, responded to rumors that the convention was concocting a monarchy to be ruled by a foreign monarch.’(7) However, Gordon does not give much weight to Jay's letter, and he concludes that ‘no explanation of the origin or purpose of the presidential qualification clause appears anywhere in the recorded deliberation of the Convention.’"(8)
The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a "Natural Born Citizen" and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees? by John Yinger(1) Revised Version, April 6, 2000 http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm
My response:
If Jay wanted a "strong check" from foreign influence for members of Congress, you can imagine what he wanted for the Commander in Chief of the Military.
Also, that Jay might not have known that the President was going to be given military powers is a non-issue. The point is that he wanted only a "natural-born citizen" to be given the command of the nation's military power. That the President was also given that military power does not in the least change the meaning of the "natural born Citizen" clause, for that person still ended up with the command of that military power.
We also have to consider that the "natural born Citizen" clause was adopted soon after the Jay letter was written.
The speculation as to whether the "natural born Citizen" clause meant to preclude any one particular person also does not add much to the debate. Obama’s supporters like to argue this point. Regardless of the intended target of the clause, the clause still stands as written. "For example, I might write a speed-limit law saying no one is to travel on Smith Street over 25 m.p.h. because I know my nasty neighbor travels on the road at 35 m.p.h. Even though in my mind I targeted my neighbor, everyone using that road still has to travel no more than 25 m.p.h.
Finally, as far as what was or what was not discussed in the Constitutional debates, we also have to remember that the proceedings were done in secret. Someone can correct me on this if they have any different information.
United Natural Born Citizens: Are you concerned, with all the apparent subversiveness, as well as Kagan and Sotomayor, that the definition(s) you are seeking will only benefit Obama. I fear that it would be defined in a way that would make him legitimate.
ReplyDeletemcamelyne: Regarding specific harm, I would think that sending troops to fight in Afghanistan, and any casualties thereof, can be deemed as harmful.
Amos asked;
ReplyDelete...United Natural Born Citizens: Are you concerned,...
Well, yes and no.......If the SCOTUS adheres to the law and looks narrowly at the laws, conditions and traditions as they existed when the idiom was inserted into the Constitution into the Executive qualification Clause and thereby attaching both Political and National Security aspects to its usage I am confident that there is only ONE definition that could be Declared by the SCOTUS, that being a definition consistent with Vattel, born in the country of Citizen parents. (Men being the only Statutory Citizens with women and children tacitly acknowledged as such by their relation to the man)
Should they look to the works on citizenship from the UN, then yes, I am very concerned.
At least we'll know where we stand.
But stand by, when I get to the point of Petitioning the SCOTUS this time I will have a number of 'novel' factors to discuss.
Please let me know if I've answered you specific thoughts or if I missed something.
Well, the problem is NOT in not KNOWING what an NBC is, it is in getting a 'controlling legal authority' to acknowledge it.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance the ONLY controlling legal authority that CAN 'Declare' what the definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen IS, is the SCOTUS.
They know it, Congress knows it, most politicians know it but right now anyone can say it is whatever they want and not be wrong until SCOTUS speaks to the question.
But I would love to hear from Puzo1 regarding 'omissions' as it would relate to Constitutional 'imperatives', De Facto Officer Doctrine and 'nullification' as it might relate to de facto officers.
In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.
ReplyDeleteIntent = protect the office of POTUS from ANY foreign influence and claim
Absurdity = the kid of any alien, born in USA, is eligible to be POTUS
.
At Fogbow (Politijab)
ReplyDeletegentrfam wrote:Michael agrees that the founders were very familiar with Calvin's Case.
MichaelN wrote:
Indeed, so familiar with Calvin's case that they new the difference between the differing circumstances that produced what were called 'natural born subjects' - which in England was not an eligibility criteria for highest office of a republic.
i.e. one circumstance, per high allegiance, natural, absolute, pure and unlimited allegiance, by nature & birthright &
the other circumstance, per local allegiance, something mean and small, and extremely uncertain.
They were also so familiar with Calvin's case to know that an alien visiting the dominion in amity was FIRST considered a 'subject' (noun) to be able to produce a 'natural born subject'.
They were also so familiar with Calvin's case to know that it was not the soil or the climate that made a 'subject born' i.e. NOT only jus soli.
They were also so familiar with Calvin's case to know that NOT all who were born in the dominion were 'natural born subjects'
They were also so familiar with Calvin's case to know that 'natural born subject' was not a criteria for eligibility for highest office.
They were also so familiar with Calvin's case and extremely educated to know that an English 'subject' (noun) was one who was a subject of the sovereign and not necessarily subject to (adj) jurisdiction (law).
They also chose to make the citizens as sovereigns of the new found constitutional republic, and not subjects of ANY sovereign.
They also were so familiar with Calvin's case and extremely educated to know that ONLY a sovereign can beget a sovereign.
They also chose to protect the office of POTUS of the republic from ANY foreign influence or claim, to the extent that "something mean and small, and extremely uncertain" would NOT meet that protective measure.
They were also so familiar with Calvin's case to make the choice & wisely choose high allegiance, natural, absolute, pure and unlimited allegiance, by nature & birthright as the preferred criteria for eligibility for POTUS.