Monday, November 29, 2010

A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

For Immediate Release - 29 November 2010 2:30 p.m. EST

A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

The "Roberts Court" of the U.S. Supreme Court in my opinion will be known in history as the "Neville Chamberlain Supreme Court", the great Obama appeaser court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

Appeasement due to fear that some immediate small amount of veiled and threatened violence from the far left socialists and Saul Alinsky goons, tyrants and bullies, and thus not doing the right thing early on to support the rule of law and the Constitution, ultimately leads to much bigger problems later. History has shown us that over and over. The Obama eligibility matter should have been fully and thoroughly addressed and openly investigated by the investigative reporters in the major media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries to get all of Obama's documents released to the public as part of the vetting process. It wasn't done. Congress should have addressed this when asked by 100s of thousands of constituent letters and petitions sent to them and when constitutionally it was required to so under the 20th Amendment. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose ignoring the problem and appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else. Now it is far worse. The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken top to bottom and bottom to top. And it will only get worse as our legal system and constitutional republic further deteriorates and the rule of law gives way more and more to appeasement of bullies and tyrants in waiting such as Obama and his far left Marxist cronies and puppet masters. Appeasement of the constitutional usurpers will not make it go away. It will only delay the inevitable and fester and grow and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reveals himself in a much bolder way and attempts to take away all our protections to our unalienable rights and liberty. Neville Chamberlain tactics never work with bullies, alinskyites, tyrants, and national socialists.

The U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. See below. Certiorari for our case was denied. The two justices appointed by Obama who in my opinion had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have! Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with the relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. There were recusals declared by these two Obama appointees in many other petitions including the one immediately before our petition in the orders list and the one immediately after. Imo, apparently the court needed all nine justices in the room to kill the petition. With the full court of 9 justices it's the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it's then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 ... financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO.
10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44359775/U-S-Supreme-Court-Order-List-562-U-S-dated-2010-11-29-Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Decison-on-Pg-15

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Obama Ineligible! Obama: I Tried and Lied but It Won't Go Away! Washington Times National Weekly - 29 Nov 2010 Issue - Pg 5

Obama Ineligible! Obama: I Tried and Lied but It Won't Go Away! Washington Times National Weekly - 29 Nov 2010 Issue - Pg 5
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44262283/Obama-Ineligible-I-tried-and-lied-but-it-won-t-go-away-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-2010-11-29-pg-5

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html


U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. See below. Certiorari for our case was denied. The two justices appointed by Obama who had in my opinion a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have! Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36 with relevant U.S. Code cited. The two justices and the court ignored that. There were recusals declared by these two Obama appointees in many other petitions including the one immediately before our petition in the orders list and the one immediately after. Imo, apparently the court needed all nine justices in the room to kill the petition. With the full court of 9 justices it's the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it's then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward. I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS was that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 ... financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO.
10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx


CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Washington Times - Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari at U.S. Supreme Court Conference on Tuesday 23 Nov 2010

Washington Times - Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari at U.S. Supreme Court Conference on Tuesday 23 Nov 2010

Update: No Decision Released Until Monday 29 Nov 2010
per SCOTUSblog

Supreme Court Orders Will be Posted Here at 10 a.m.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx

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

We are living through history in the making. Please read or re-read this historic Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asking them to support and defend the Constitution ... in particular Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the presidential constitutional eligibility clause. Read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. Then meditate on the words in both and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. See the ad linked to below and via the image at the left for an overview of the Petition and the issues.

Washington Times -- Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 22 Nov 2010 issue, page 5: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43541103/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-on-Tues-Nov-23-2010-WTNW-pg-5


QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446
1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.
2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.
3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”
4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Further comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.

Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin

James Shields [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Again, please take the time to read or re-read the Petition then read this ad. The questions and the main brief are only 36 succinctly written and easy to read pages. Then meditate on the words therein and then pray that the Justices do the right thing on Tuesday and support and defend our Constitution and Republic and grant Certiorari and take up our case and seek the truth about Mr. Obama the usurper, impostor, and fraud now occupying the Oval Office. Mr. Obama and his puppet masters and his enablers in political power and in the main stream media have perpetrated and allowed to continue the greatest fraud on this nation in the history of our Republic and he needs to be exposed and removed. May God help us save our liberty and republic and protect us in the days ahead.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Friday, November 19, 2010

Unconstitutionally Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution

Ineligible and Unconstitutionally Elected & Seated State & Federal Officials Can and Have Been Removed. A Popular Election Does Not Trump or Amend the Constitution

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

Obama is NOT Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President
and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards.
Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.
Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
James Shields [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump, amend, or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. We are a nation of laws, not men. We are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy where the current political whims of the the political majority can over rule the U.S. Constitution by a simple popular vote. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Command in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship
and Sole Allegiance At Birth


by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Written: April 23, 2009
Reposted: November 18, 2010


Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.

Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel's, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.

Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate's character and qualifications to be President.

Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers' meaning of what a "natural born Citizen" is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.

The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the "natural born Citizen" clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner will be on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate - Wed, 17 Nov 2010, 9:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) will be guests on the Revolution Radio Show hosted by Dr. Kate on Wednesday, 17 Nov 2010, at 9:00 p.m. EST. The subject will be the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court including review of the four questions presented in the Petition. Two Justices, Sotomayer and Kagan, have been requested in the Petition to recuse themselves from this case in that they have a direct financial conflict of interest in the outcome of this case, i.e., their very appointments to the court were made by Obama. We have also asked the Justices in our Petition to take judicial notice of the Lt Col Lakin court martial in process and the Affidavit filed in that military trial by Lt Gen McInerney as to the impact that the uncertainty of the constitutional eligibility of Obama is having on our military whose members have all sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Recent activity in the case includes an Amicus Curiae Brief which was filed by the Western Center of Journalism in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. The uncovering and initial release to the public by this blog on 5 Nov 2010 of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) internal memorandum to members of Congress will also be discussed.

Listen to podcast replay at this link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2010/11/18/revolution-radio-kerchner-obama-the-constitution

Also stop by and read Dr. Kate's post-show blog on the show and the comments at:
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/kerchner-and-apuzzo-interview-on-revolution-radio/

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on 30 Sep 2010 and is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on Tuesday, 23 Nov 2010. To read the Petition see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.


--------------

P.S. A special request from CDR Kerchner:

Also, please cast your votes to Help the Cause to get the word out:

1st: Vote for the show topic for the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show to be a discussion of the legal term of art, "natural born Citizenship". Please add your vote (in addition to making a comment if desired) for this new TV Show topic suggested by JTX at the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show suggestion forum. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for the show topic to be "natural born Citizenship". Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/969299-natural-born-citizen-meaning-in-natural-law-s?ref=title

2nd: Vote for Mario to be a guest on Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch TV show: Please add your vote here (in addition to making a comment if desired) to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue. Go to this link and click on the VOTE button and cast 3 of your 10 votes for Mario Apuzzo. Don't just make a comment only. That does not count as a vote. Be sure to VOTE too: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, see the protectourliberty.org site and help the cause with a donation:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Monday, November 15, 2010

Atty Mario Apuzzo & Mr Don Nelsen were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 16 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST

Atty Mario Apuzzo & Mr Donald Nelsen, one of the four plaintiffs in the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit, were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 16 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST. The subject was the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court and the latest activity in that case including an Amicus Curiae Brief filed by the Western Center of Journalism in support of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

For more about the Jim 'Howie' Mandel Radio Show see: http://www.howieunveilsgodsshield.com/

You can listen to a podcast of this show at:
16 Nov 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-111610.mp3
Podcasts of prior Jim Howie Mandel shows covering the Kerchner et al v Obama et al case:
09 Nov 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-110910.mp3
05 Oct 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-100510.mp3
For podcasts of all Jim Howie Mandel shows see the lower half of this page:
http://www.latalkradio.com/Mandel.php

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on 30 Sep 2010 and is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on 23 Nov 2010. To read the Petition see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Please make a donation to help the cause if you can at:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

Ad: Kerchner v Obama Petition is Scheduled for Conference in U.S. Supreme Court on Nov 23rd - Wash Times National Weekly ed - 15 Nov 2010 - pg 5

Ad: Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Scheduled for Conference on 23 Nov 2010 with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 15 Nov 2010 issue, page 5:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42559111/Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-Scheduled-for-Conference-at-Supreme-Court-15Nov2010-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly



QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:
PETITION 10-446

1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.

2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.

3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):

Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.
http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.
Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin
James Shields [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shields

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Les Naiman Show, WGTK 970, Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, Sunday 14 Nov 2010 6 PM EST

Les Naiman Show
Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner were featured guests on the Les Naiman radio show, WGTK 970 in Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, on Sunday, 14 November 2010, 6 PM EST. The subject will be the status of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit which is currently on Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court, docket number 10-446.


QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT - PETITION 10-446
1. Whether petitioners sufficiently articulated a case or controversy against respondents which gives them Article III standing to make their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection claims against them.
2. Whether putative President Obama can be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and a non-United States citizen British father and under the British Nationality Act 1948 he was born a British citizen.
3. Whether putative President Obama and Congress violated petitioners’ Fifth Amendment due process rights to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property and Ninth Amendment rights by Congress failing to assure them pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment that Obama qualified as an Article II “natural born Citizen” before confirming his electoral votes and by Obama refusing to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”
4. Whether Congress violated petitioners’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to equal protection of their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property by investigating and confirming the “natural born Citizen” status of presidential candidate, John McCain, but not that of presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
Link to WGTK 970 in Louisville KY: http://www.970wgtk.com/

You can listen to the show on podcast at this link. Note: we are introduced at about 8 1/2 minutes into the show after his initial monologue on some current events in the news: http://lesnaimanshow.podbean.com/2010/11/14/the-les-naiman-show-111410/

For more details on the latest activity of the Kerchner v Obama petition at the U.S. Supreme Court see this link: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/kerchner-et-al-v-obama-et-al-petition.html

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Please if you can, visit this site and donate to help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org

####

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Daniel Webster Reveals that the Kerchner Petitioners Have Standing to Demand that Obama Show He Is A “Natural Born Citizen”

Daniel Webster Reveals that the Kerchner Petitioners Have Standing to Demand that Obama Show He Is A “Natural Born Citizen”

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Daniel Webster, known as the "Defender of the Constitution," was a famous orator and statesman. He argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, served as a U.S. Congressman, a U.S. Senator, and U.S. Secretary of State. In 1820, what later became known as the State of Maine separated from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This development caused the Commonwealth to seek to amend its constitution of 1780. The Commonwealth chose delegates to meet in convention for the purpose of amending its constitution. The town of Boston chose Mr. Webster as one of its delegates.

Mr. Webster served as chairman of the committee which was responsible for determining qualifications for those persons wanting to occupy public office. This committee recommended that “a simple oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth, together with the oath of office, should be taken by all persons chosen or appointed to office. . . . and that a profession of belief in the Christian religion no longer be required as a qualification for office.”

While his position related to retaining a profession of the belief in the Christian religion as a qualification for public office in Massachusetts, Mr. Webster’s statements go beyond just religion and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for they also apply to any qualification that the People may demand that a person meet in order to be eligible for any public office. Here are Mr. Webster’s words in convention as he comments on the committee’s report:

***

"Two questions naturally present themselves. In the first place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security of their government and its due administration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the people had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of the people. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure; and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what conditions they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than the notion that any man has a right to an office. This must depend on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opinions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for office. No man can be said to have a right to that which others may withhold from him at pleasure.

There are certain rights, no doubt, which the whole people, or the government as representing the whole people, owe to each individual in return for that obedience and personal service, and those proportionate contributions to the public burdens which each individual owes to the government. These rights are stated with sufficient accuracy, in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, in this constitution. " Each individual in society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to the standing laws." Here is no right of office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for office respecting age, property, residence, and taxation. But if office, merely as such, were a right which each individual under the social compact was entitled to claim, all these qualifications would be excluded. Acknowledged rights are not subject, and ought not to be subject to any such limitation. The right of being protected in life, liberty, and estate is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any, whatever be their age, property, or residence in the State.

These qualifications, then, can only be made requisite as conditions for office on the ground that office is not what any man can demand as matter of right but rests in the confidence and good-will of those who are to bestow it. In short, it seems to me too plain to be questioned that the right of office is a matter of discretion and option, and can never be claimed by any man on the ground of obligation. It would seem to follow, then, that those who confer office may annex any such conditions to it as they think proper. If they prefer one man to another, they may act on that preference. If they regard certain personal qualifications, they may act accordingly, and ground of complaint is given to nobody. . . .

Now, if the people may, without injustice, act upon this preference, and from a sole regard to this qualification, and refuse in any instance to depart from it, they have an equally clear right to prescribe this qualification beforehand as a rule for their future government. If they may do it, they may agree to do it. If they deem it necessary, they may so say beforehand. If the public will may require this qualification at every election as it occurs, the public will may declare itself beforehand and make such qualification a standing requisite. That cannot be an unjust rule, the compliance with which, in every case, would be right. This qualification has nothing to do with any man's conscience. If he dislike the condition, he may decline the office in like manner as if he dislike the salary, the rank, or any thing else which the law attaches to it. "

***

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. III, pp. 3-7.), accessed at http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=68

Indeed, Webster expresses an opinion that, under a government characterized by popular and elective office, the People have a right to establish qualifications for their elected officials before they may occupy any such office, for such office is “the free gift of the people.” He explains that no man has a right to an office, for the office is granted at the pleasure of the People to those in whom they feel “confidence” and with whom they share a feeling of “good-will” because they believe that person to be both fit and qualified for that office. He adds that the same People can decide at their “discretion and option” to change those qualifications as they deem necessary for their own safety and security.

Mr. Webster then explains how each individual has a personal right to receive protection from his or her government. Mr. Webster explains that each individual in society has in accordance with a legal process a personal right to be protected by the whole People represented by his or her government in his or her life, liberty, and property in exchange for which the individual grants to the whole People and its representative government his or her obedience and personal service. He states that this right to protection “is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any” whatever their condition. He also explains that qualifications for office are for the safety and security of the individual and the nation as a whole. He believes that such qualifications should be retained in the constitution agreed upon by the People so as to provide to them the maximum protection.

This is the same argument that I have made before the U.S. Supreme Court to show that the Kerchner petitioners have standing to pursue their constitutional claims against Obama, Congress, Pelosi, and Cheney, claims in which they demand that Obama conclusively show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Petitioners have a right to demand that only a person who is a “natural born Citizen” occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. As Mr. Webster explains, it is the Kerchner petitioners personal right to demand it, for the Constitution has decreed it for the benefit of protecting the life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property of every individual making up the People. Indeed, Obama has no right to the Office of President and Commander in Chief. He can only occupy that office at the pleasure, discretion, and option of the People which includes the Kerchner petitioners. And the Kerchner petitioners, showing that both Congress and the Executive have failed to protect them and their individual rights guaranteed to them under the U.S. Constitution and in their effort to therefore protect themselves, have every right to take their claims to a court of law for the purpose of enforcing their personal and individual right to that protection.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 10, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 09 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 09 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST. The subject was the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.howieunveilsgodsshield.com/

Listen to this show via podcast at this link:
09 Nov 2010: http://www.latalkradio.com/images/Mandel-110910.mp3

Listen to the show at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=howiekwix#g/u

The Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 which is now scheduled on the Supreme Court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on 23 Nov 2010 see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

Read about this recently (5 Nov 2010) leaked to our lawsuit research team of the Congressional memorandum as to the talking point that Congress was prompted to tell concerned citizens when they wrote to Congress with questions about Obama's eligibility. It is clear now that Congress circled their wagons to defend their indefensible position in that they vetted McCain's exact citizenship status in the primary of the 2008 presidential election but did not vet Obama's, when questions were being asked in public about the citizenship status of both. That is unequal protection under the constitution and our laws and a violation of our civil rights. See this announcement for more details: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/members-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Please make a donation to help the cause if you can at:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
####

Monday, November 8, 2010

Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices for Conference Scheduled for 23 Nov 2010

Kerchner et al v Obama et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices for Conference Scheduled for 23 Nov 2010

See the new activity on the U.S. Supreme Court Docket at this link:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm

To read the Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 see this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

For More Information contact:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq., Jamesburg, New Jersey
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Tel: 732-521-1900, Fax: 732-521-3906
Email: apuzzo@erols.com

More information will be posted as we receive it.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Respondents Waive the Right to Respond to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Lawsuit

Respondents (Obama & the other Defendants) Waive the Right to Respond to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Lawsuit

There is new activity on the U.S. Supreme Court Docket today with an effective date on the docket of 3 Nov 2010.

1. The Respondents named in our Petition have waived their right to respond.

2. The Western Center for Journalism has filed a motion for leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in support of our petition.

To read the Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 see this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

For More Information contact:
Mario Apuzzo, Esq., Jamesburg, New Jersey
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Tel: 732-521-1900, Fax: 732-521-3906
Email: apuzzo@erols.com

More information will be posted as we receive it.

Update 1 - 06 Nov 2010:
Copy of Waiver by the Government received in the mail has now been scanned in and uploaded to SCRIBD.com. You can view it at this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41336760/Waiver-by-Respondents-in-Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-to-U-S-Supreme-Court

Update 2 - 06 Nov 2010:
To read the Amicus Curiae Brief filed for the Western Center for Journalism in support of our Petition for Writ of Certiorari see this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41345999/Amicus-Curiae-Brief-to-Support-Kerchner-v-Obama-Petition-by-the-Western-Center-for-Journalism-Filed-by-Atty-Kreep

Update 3 - 06 Nov 2010:
Here are the applicable U.S. Supreme Court rules and regs regarding Amicus Curiae Brief filings in support or in opposition to Petitions for Writ of Certiorari:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41348870/Amicus-Curiae-Briefs-Supporting-or-Opposing-Petitions-for-Certiorari-Supreme-Court-Practice-9th-Edition

Update 4 - 08 Nov 2010: Petition distributed to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices for the conference scheduled for 23 Nov 2010.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Friday, November 5, 2010

Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. "natural born Citizens (NBC)" are "Citizens at birth (CAB)" but not all "CAB" are "NBC"!

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic: Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Likewise, "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens at Birth" but not all "Citizens at Birth" are "natural born Citizens"!
Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT identically equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC) at Birth.
Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.
by: Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
While a natural born Citizen is obviously a Citizen at birth, not all Citizens at birth are natural born Citizens at birth. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal. All "natural born Citizens" are Citizens at birth but not all Citizens at Birth are "natural born Citizens" at birth. If you cannot grasp that logic concept then try this analogy, "all trees are plants but not all plants are trees".
There are five types of Citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. All Citizens have equal rights as a member of the society but not all Citizens have the privilege and legal eligibility requirements to be the President and Commander in Chief of the Military under Article II of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.
There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401 that addresses "natural born Citizenship". The law addresses basic "Citizenship at Birth", i.e., who is a "Citizen by Birth", (which is needed under various situations and conditions of a child's birth spelled out in Section 1401) which requires such a man-made act of law to grant the Citizenship by an act of Congress, i.e., naturalized at birth by act of Congress. USC 1401 does not grant “natural born Citizenship" to anyone. Natural born Citizens do not need man-made laws to grant them Citizenship. The facts of nature of their birth do that. The legal term of art “natural born Citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Title 8 Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “Citizen” or a “National” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., a basic "Citizen at birth", i.e., a person entitled to the rights and privileges of membership in the society of our nation under our Constitution, the supreme and fundamental law of our nation. The Section 1401 law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law, not by nature. The legal term of art “Citizen at birth” is not the same legally as the legal term of art “natural born Citizen”. Simply note that in one case we are talking about who is at least an ordinary, basic “Citizen” at birth with no adjectives in front of the word Citizen, and in the other case we have two very important adjectives placed in front of the word Citizen by the framers of the Constitution, i.e., “natural born” Citizen. Since that term was used in the Constitution only once in Article II for singular most powerful office in our new federal government, the framers intended that it have special meaning. And the source of that meaning is written down and well known by legal scholars. That specific type of citizenship and "legal term of art" natural born Citizen was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise "The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law", published in 1758, in which he said that ... a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country. And this group or class of citizens are the most populous group of any nation. They do not need statutory law to be considered Citizens of the nation. Nature and the facts of their birth in the country to two Citizen parents granted that to them, not Congress.
Most citizens of the USA are natural born citizens. Natural born Citizens of the USA are the three leaf clovers of the types of Citizens, not four leaf clovers. By the vast majority, most citizens of the USA were born in the USA to two parents who were citizens of the USA. And that is the pool of citizens that must be chosen from for the singular most powerful office in our nation, the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. Simple citizenship at birth by being born in the USA without regard to the citizenship status of both your parents ... or by naturalization and swearing an oath to this country and renouncing all allegiances foreign kings, princes, and potentates later as an adult, is adequate for the offices of Senator, Representative, or a Governor of a state. But it is not sufficient to be the President under Article II, to Constitutional standards. Article II requires that the person to be eligible to be President must be a "natural born Citizen". And that means that person must be born in the USA ... AND ... both his parents must be citizens of the USA.
Natural born citizenship status in a nation is granted by the facts of nature of your birth. No law or statute is necessary to grant it. The nations can make any law they wish to make a person a citizen at birth or later. But natural born citizenship can only be conveyed by nature by the facts at birth of the child. If you are born in the country of two citizen parents you are "naturally" ... a "natural born Citizen" … a citizen too … but a specific kind of citizen who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military since the child when born has sole allegiance to this country and there is no claim on him/her by a foreign country or power as to their citizenship at birth by that country too. Natural born Citizens have unity of citizenship at birth. A natural born Citizen is NOT a dual citizen at birth. A natural born Citizen has no divided loyalty issues by his birth since the child was born in the country to two citizens of the country.
See this chart showing the five types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S Constitution:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/
And "natural born Citizens" are not rare in the USA. The "natural born Citizens" are by far the most populous group in the nation. And it from this group, under Article II of our Constitution, we are to choose our President and Commander-in-Chief, the group with sole allegiance at birth to the USA and only the USA, not someone who has foreign and/or dual citizenship and divided loyalties at and by birth. And the reason for this is as important today as it was when the founders and framers added those additional words to the eligibility clause in Article II. And given the vast power of the military today, having a President and Commander in Chief of the military with sole allegiance at birth to only the USA is even more so.

Obama's father was not a citizen of the USA, nor was he an immigrant to the USA, nor was he even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject via his British Subject father, per the British Nationality Act of 1948 which governed the status of children born to British Subjects. Obama thus was born with dual citizenship and dual allegiances and a foreign claim on his allegiance. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA and he is not eligible to be the President under Article II of our U.S. Constitution. He is a Usurper.

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic: Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Likewise, "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens at Birth" but not all "Citizens at Birth" are "natural born Citizens"! Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" of the United States!

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired),
Lead Plaintiff Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al
Help the Cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/
####

Members of Congress Internal Memo--What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions - Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed

Click to Learn What Congress is Hiding
and the Truth About Natural Born Citizenship
Members of Congress Internal Memorandum -- What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions - Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed. This was the spin that the Members of Congress were given to keep the American electorate at bay and confused in the debate about Obama's eligibility issues all the while the Congress did nothing to investigate the matter in a congressional hearing like they did for similar concerns about John McCain.

We have obtained a copy of the talking points memorandum put out by a lawyer for the Congressional Research Service to the Members of Congress back in April 2009 as to what to tell their constituents when they write to the Members of Congress and ask questions about Obama's eligibility. Now we know why all the answers coming back to constituents sounded like they were written by the same person and were full of the same obfuscations, omitted facts from history, and half truths & non-truths.

This internal memorandum to Members of Congress is the smoking gun that absolutely proves that every Member of Congress knew that Obama was never vetted by anyone or any institution as to his constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the military ... and yet Congress did NOTHING about it. This lack of vetting by anyone was detailed starting on page 19 of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Complaint filed in Jan 2009.

This copy was obtained via the diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of "Tom Deacon" who obtained it from a Senator's office. Now we know the talking points the DC insiders and politicians have been groomed with to feed to their constituents who have been asking questions about the eligibility issues. Thank you Tom. Here is the link to the internal memorandum:

Link to read or get your copy of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) internal Congressional Memorandum about the Obama eligibility questions issue:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/Members-of-Congress-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-in-Answer-to-Obama-Eligibility-Questions

The Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt Obama was Born in Hawaii:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html

Obama May be a "Citizen of the United States" but He is NOT a "natural born Citizen of the United States":
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

To read the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 which is now scheduled on the court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on 23 Nov 2010 see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

Update: YouTube video about this CRS memo find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIHhhgulww&feature=player_embedded

Mario Apuzzo
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. The Congressional Research Service is part of the Library of Congress. It theoretically works for the Congressional Committees which means IT WORKS FOR THE PARTY THAT CONTROLS CONGRESS (in this case the Progressive controlled Democratic Party). Every report they issue (on the request of COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN who want them), is slanted to the ideology of the committee in charge because lawyers are partisan. 90% of them on this project are liberal. They are the same lawyers the White House used to research their legal position in the fight to kill the Citizens United lawsuit when they fought McCain Feingold ...
L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney; Erika K. Lunder, Legislative Attorney;
Kate M. Manuel, Legislative Attorney; Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney; Michael V. Seitzinger, Legislative Attorney
####

We need your help to fight this battle to get the truth out. If you can help the cause of truth and our battle to protect our liberty, please visit this link and make a donation. Thank you.
http://www.protectourliberty.org
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
####

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

The Framers Used Emer de Vattel, Not William Blackstone to Define a “Natural Born Citizen”

The Framers Used Emer de Vattel, Not William
Blackstone to Define a “Natural Born Citizen”

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

The question which has gripped our nation is whether Barack Obama is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The proper question under this clause is not whether Obama is a “Citizen of the United States.” Rather, the correct question is whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” thereunder.

"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it….” Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803). In other words, the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II must be given independent effect from the “citizen of the United States” clause of Article II itself and of the Fourteenth Amendment. All Presidents must qualify as Article II “natural born Citizens,” not as Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States.” The two clauses have different and distinct meanings or they would not have their own independent life in the Constitution. Article II says “natural born Citizen” and the Fourteenth Amendment says “citizen of the United States.” If being a “citizen of the United States” had the same exact effect as being a “natural born citizen,” then the “natural born Citizen” clause would have no effect. Such a construction is not admissible. If we were not to give special meaning to the words “natural born” and conclude that “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” mean the same thing, the words “natural born” in the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II would be superfluous. Our Supreme Court has consistently expressed "a deep reluctance to interpret a statutory provision so as to render superfluous other provisions in the same enactment." Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 110 S.Ct. 2126, 2133, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990); International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw v. Johnson Controls, Inc, 499 U.S. 187, 111 S.Ct. 1196, 1204, 113 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991) . Hence, we have to give special meaning to the words “natural born.”

As so many scholars and commentators have asked, what does “natural born Citizen” mean? Why did the Framers distinguish in Article II between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen?” The Founders trusted the occupancy of the Office of President to those born on or inhabiting the soil of or to those who naturalized in the Colonies or new States, all of whom belonged to the original citizen class because, even though they were born subject to a foreign power, they had evidenced their loyalty and attachment to the United States by fighting for the American cause in the Revolution. Also, for those born “natural born subjects” of the British Crown, through the Treaty of Peace of 1783, England absolved its subjects of the natural allegiance that they owed to it. But the Founders knew that there would be other foreigners coming to live in America in the future. The allegiance and loyalty of these future foreigners would not have been tested or even absolved in some manner as had occurred under the Treaty of Peace of 1783. The Founders feared foreign influence infecting the administration of the government. It was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to General George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen” (underlying in the original). Note that Jay wanted a “strong” check that would prevent a foreigner from becoming the Commander in Chief. Hence, any definition of “natural born Citizen” must provide our nation with the strongest check possible on foreign influence invading the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Framers found the definition of “natural born Citizen” that would suit their purpose of protecting the future of and preserving the new nation not in the English common law and William Blackstone but in natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel, in his treatise, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759). This law became American common law. See my article entitled, 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is, found at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html.

As James Brown Scott has correctly stated: "It is therefore to be expected that, when terms of municipal law are found in the Constitution, they are to be understood in the sense in which they were used in Blackstone's Commentaries; and when the law of nations is referred to, that its principles are to be understood in the sense in which Vattel defined them." James Brown Scott, The United States of America: A Study in International Organizations 439 (1920). There is little doubt that citizenship properly falls under the law of nations which became U.S. national law and not under the rules of municipal law. Citizenship has always been recognized as a topic that affects United States relations with other nations. On the question of national citizenship, Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 244 (1844), http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=%22Natural+born+citizen%22#v=onepage&q=%22Natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false (whose finding that Julia Lynch, born in New York to “alien parents, during their temporary sojourn” there, was a citizen of the United States, was in effect overruled by a 1860 New York state statute which provided at Sec. 5 that “[t]he citizens of the state are: 1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls”), stated that how we define citizenship "has an essential bearing in our intercourse with other nations and the privileges conceded by them to our citizens; is therefore, not a matter of mere state concern. It is necessarily a national right and character. It appertains to us, not in respect to the State of New York, but in respect of the United States. . . ." Given that citizenship affects "the behavior of nation states with each other," Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Founders would have looked to the law of nations to define it for the needs of the new nation. Clearly, citizenship is both a national and international matter which affects the relations among nations. The Founders and Framers would have looked to the law of nations to define citizenship in the new nation and not the English common law.

The Founders and Framers relied upon Cicero, Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke, and Emer de Vattel (to name a few) in identifying and describing natural law and the law of nations. But they mostly looked to Emer de Vattel and his treatise, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759, and other subsequent French and English editions for not only authority on the meaning of natural law and the law of nations but also in constituting the new Constitutional Republic and in writing the new Constitution. The 1759 (aka 1760) edition was published in London in English. An explanation of the various editions is provided by Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 (A. Matthews ed. 1920). http://books.google.com/books?id=svE7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA5&dq=benjamin+franklin+vattel&ei=W-yPStrRNaf4ygS12bC3Bw#v=onepage&q=benjamin%20franklin%20vattel&f=false

Vattel clearly distinguished between “citizens” (“citoyens” in French) and “naturals” (“naturels” in French). His title for Section 212 is “Des citoyens et naturels” (“Of citizens and naturals” which the English translators called "Of the citizens and natives"). He referred to the “citoyens” who were translated to “citizens” and “naturels” who were later translated to “natural-born citizens.” The “naturels” were the children of the “citoyens.” He therefore saw that there is a difference between the two types of citizens. He explained that difference thus: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”. Id. bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212. In the 1797 English edition, the translator replaced the word “indigenes” with “natural-born citizens.” Hence, it read: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Hence, while the definition of a “natural born citizen” never changed in Vattel’s texts, the term to express it was changed from “indigenes” to “natural-born citizens.” That the French word "naturels" was understood by the founders and framers to mean "natural born" prior to the writing of the Constitution and prior to the second English translation of Vattel's Law of Nations in 1797 is confirmed by the record of the Journal of the Continental Congress is 1781. Thus in 1787 John Jay clearly knew what the term "natural born Citizen" meant when he wrote his letter to George Washington suggesting it be added to the eligibility clause as to who can be President and Commander of our military since John Jay was an ardent supporter of Vattel's concepts and natural law and was an advocate for the Law of Nations as the new common law of the new U.S. federal government. John Jay became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

There exists evidence contemporaneous to the Founding that the Founders relied upon concepts of natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel to define national citizenship in the new republic and not English common law and Blackstone. Founder and highly respected historian, David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen, defined the original citizens and while not using the term nevertheless provided a Founding period contemporaneous definition of a “natural born Citizen,” as well and in so doing relied upon a definition of an original “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” as given by Vattel and not upon one provided by the English common law or Blackstone (both of which defined a “natural born subject” and not a “natural born Citizen” and did not distinguish between a “subject” and a “natural born subject”). Additionally, Rep. William Smith during the 1789 Congressional hearings on whether he was a “citizen of the United States” of seven years (not to be confused with an Article II “natural born Citizen”) which status he needed under Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 to be eligible to sit as a member of the House of Representatives, cited Vattel and espoused and relied upon his definition of a “citizen” and not upon that provided by the English common law or Blackstone to define citizenship in the United States and as authority to prove that he was a “citizen of the United States” of seven years.

During the Founding, the English common law was selectively adopted only by the states and applied there to resolve local issues such as arising in contracts, inheritance, property, torts, matrimony, criminal procedure, etc. But that common law was not adopted on the national level. National law only included the "Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties..." Article III, Section 2, Clause 1. We know from Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 that the Framers included "the Law of Nations" as part of "the Laws of the United States." While the Founders and Framers relied heavily upon Emer de Vattel for justification for the revolution and in writing the Constitution, this reference is to the body of law then called the law of nations, not Vattel's treatise called, The Law of Nations," which explains how the law of nations is based on natural law and presented what that law was. The law of nations which was relevant on relations among nations specifically addressed what a "citizen" and "natural born citizen" was. The English common law did selectively make its way into the Constitution by way of the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) which was ratified on December 15, 1791. But the Bill of Rights did not address citizenship or nationality as did the law of nations.

The following United States Supreme Court cases and cases from other courts have confirmed that national citizenship has been defined under American common law which has had its genesis in natural law and the law of nations as explicated by Vattel and not under the English common law or Blackstone: (1) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cited Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); (2) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (provided the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel); (3) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring, cited Vattel and The Law of Nations and provided his definition of natural born citizens and took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); (4) Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36(1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”); (5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (provided the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel); (6) Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (provided the same Vattelian definition and cites Vattel); (7) Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); (8) United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (provided the same Vattelian definition and cited Vattel); (9) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” and cited Vattel and quoted his definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); (10) and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (other than Minor v. Happersett, the only U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared someone a “natural born Citizen.” The person was born in the United States to a citizen father and citizen mother through derivative citizenship).

Further evidence that the English common law and Blackstone did not prevail in the United States to define national citizenship is the cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), holding that blacks whether slaves or free did not acquire United States citizenship at birth even though they were born in the United States and Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 102 (1884), holding that American Indians did not acquire United States citizenship at birth even though they were born in the United States. English common law, with the exception for children of diplomats and invading armies, only required birth within the dominion without any reference to the citizenship status of the parents to grant “natural born subject” status. Yet, under these early decisions of our Supreme Court both Indians and blacks even if born in the United States were denied initial membership in the United States.

There does not exist one U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined national citizenship under English common law as commented upon by Blackstone, except for U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898). This decision defined a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” (not to be conflated with an Article II “natural born Citizen”) under colonial English common law rather than under natural law, the law of nations, and American common law which up to that time the Supreme Court had always relied upon to define national citizenship in the United States. There was no need for Wong Kim Ark to resort to the English common law, for Vattel tells us in Section 215 that if the father [meaning parents because of unity of husband and wife] has [have] “entirely quitted his [their] country in order to settle elsewhere,” i.e., has [have] become a “perpetual inhabitant” of that other country, and has [have] a child in that other country, the father [those parents] will become a member [members] of that other society and his [their] child born in that country will follow his [their] condition and also become a member of that same society. Vattel considered these children to be only “members” of that country which under Section 212 translates to “citizens” and not “natural-born citizens.” He did not say that they become “natural born citizens” of that country. Vattel clearly distinguished between the two, with initial “members” of a society being just “citizens,” not “natural-born citizens.” This dichotomy of citizenship is consistent with the views of Samuel von Pufendorf who divided born citizens into two categories, the original citizens and their descendents. Note that he called the children of the original citizens “Indigenes, or Natives.” He stated: “Citizens are either Originally so; that is, such as are born in the Place, and upon that Account claim their Privileges; Or else, Adscititious; that is, such as come from Foreign Parts. Of the first Sort, are either those who at first were present and concerned in the forming of the said Society, or their Descendants, who we call Indigenes, or Natives. Of the other Sort are those who come from Foreign Parts in order to settle themselves there. As for those who come thither only to make a short Stay, although they are for that Time subject to the Laws of the Place; nevertheless, they are not looked upon as Citizens, but are called Strangers or Sojourners.” The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature (William Tooke trans., Ian Hunter & David Saunders, eds., Liberty Fund 2003, Book II, Chapter 6, xiii, 1691).

Given that Wong Kim Ark found that Wong was born in the United States to alien parents who were domiciled in the United States, the Court could have also found that Wong’s parents were “perpetual inhabitants” of the United States and that Wong was born a member of American society (born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) and thus a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment by using Vattel and the law of nations. Under such a scenario, Wong would be treated the same as an original citizen. We can only speculate why Justice Gray did not use natural law, the law of nations, and American common law (meaning Vattel’s rules on citizenship) to declare Wong a “citizen of the United States” like Chief Justice Waite did in Minor to show that Happersett was a “natural-born citizen.” One thing that comes to mind, however, is that if Justice Gray would have relied upon Vattel and American common law rather than English common law to declare Wong a “citizen of the United States,” if the public knew of Arthur's alien birth circumstances, and if someone would have raised the issue, he would have had to acknowledge that President Chester Arthur, the President who appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1881, was not eligible to be Vice-President or President because he was born in the United States to an alien father and mother (his U.S. born mother also became an alien through then merger of citizenship into the alien father) and at most he would have been a born “citizen of the United States” but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Apart from the fact that the American electorate and public was not aware back then that Arthur was born to a non-citizen father, application of the English common law further obscured Arthur's ineligibility.  In this connection, we should also consider Senate Resolution 511, passed by the Senate on April 30, 2008, to declare Senator John McCain a “natural born Citizen” and the legal analysis of Theodore Olson (former Solicitor General) and Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law School Professor) on which the U.S. Senate relied to come to its conclusion regarding McCain status and which Senator Leahy requested be printed in the Record. Olson and Tribe did not use Vattel’s Section 217’s born abroad to citizen parents while serving “in the armies of the state” as a ground to declare Senator John McCain a “natural born Citizen.” Their using Vattel would have exposed Putative President Obama’s ineligibility to be President the same as Justice Gray using Vattel would have shown President Arthur’s ineligibility for that same office. 

It is critical to understand that Wong Kim Ark did not define a “natural born Citizen,” for the Court recognized that Minor v. Happersett had already done that in 1875 and did not object to that definition. Rather, the Court defined a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment which only defines initial membership in American society and did not amend Article II, Section 1, Clause 5’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” which is that status reserved to those children born in the United States to a citizen father and citizen mother which makes them second generation United States citizens who are born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States and who are therefore eligible to be President. Hence, Wong Kim Ark did not change the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

In addition to these Supreme Court cases, there exists other cases and historical evidence which show that the Founders and Framers rejected the English common law and Blackstone as a basis for rules of decision for the new federal government and nation. For sake of brevity, that evidence will not be discussed here. The Founders and Framers would not have rejected the English common law and Blackstone at the federal level and then at the same time relied upon those sources to define generally who the people of the new nation were going to be and specifically who among those people could hold the highest offices in government including the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Minor told us that “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor, 169 U.S. at 679-80. So we can see that the legal and political battles over citizenship have not been over the meaning of a “natural born Citizen. Rather, they have been over who can be a “citizen of the United States” or in other words, who can be accepted as an initial member of the political society known as the United States. The battle over who can be an initial member of American society has existed in our history because the United States is the product of conquest (of the American Indians), revolution ( against Great Britain), and immigration (involving not only “white” Europeans but also Asians and others who fell outside that description). This battle has also raged because the institution of slavery involving blacks brought to the colonies from Africa existed at the time of the Founding and up to 1865 when the Civil War ended. Hence, because of this historical development, the United States has found itself populated with people of different races, colors, national origins, religions, and ethnicities. In the early years of the English colonies, even religion was a factor that could prevent one from becoming a citizen. James Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1879 (1978). The problem for defining an Article II “natural born Citizen” is that we have lost sight of the fact that historically our courts and political institutions have struggled to define a “citizen of the United States” or who can be a member of the political society called the United States and not a “natural born Citizen.” It is this struggle that produced the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment, and other special Congressional acts and treaties allowing American Indians to become citizens at birth.

The Constitution should be honored and enforced in the way that it was written and originally intended by the Framers rather than in a way that pleases political parties or some political majority. Needed changes to it brought about by social evolution should not be made for political expediency by political parties or voting majorities without going through the formal amendment process prescribed by the Constitution itself in Article V. It has always been Emer de Vattel that provided our nation with the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen’ and not William Blackstone. It is this definition that the Founders and Framers used to define the clause and it is this definition which should be enforced for the national security reasons of it being there if we are to be true to the Constitution and the rule of law.

Obama fails to meet this definition because if he was born in Hawaii, he was born to a British father and a U.S. citizen mother and he himself was born a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948, causing him to be born with allegiance to Great Britain and to the United States. The U.S. State Department has confirmed that Obama was born with dual allegiances. Leventhal cites FactCheck.org to state, "Obama was originally both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies from 1961 to 1963 given that his father was from Kenya, which gained its independence from the British Empire in 1963. Upon independence, Obama became both a U.S. and Kenyan citizen from 1963 to 1982 [should be 1984], and solely a U.S. citizen after that." The entry "The Obama Birth Controversy" was written by Todd Leventhal, the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State.

While today our law does not provide for merger of the wife’s citizenship into that of the husband, Obama was still born to an alien father and as a British citizen himself, thereby causing him to lack unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth, necessary conditions to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It should be noted that Obama's father was in the United States on a temporary student visa and he returned to Kenya after his studies were complete. Hence, he never had an intention to become domiciled in the United States. On the other hand, Obama's mother was not only a U.S. citizen but also domiciled in the United States. Assuming that Obama’s parents were domiciled in the United States and that he was born in the United States (a fact which he has yet to conclusively prove), which would arguably all make him “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” he was at most born a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of Great Britain under the British Nationality Act of 1948. While such dual citizenship creates dual allegiances, under current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, such dual allegiances would not prevent him from being a born “citizen of the United States.” But they would prevent him from being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which constitutional status does not produce dual allegiances at birth. Obama is therefore not eligible to be President.

Finally, if Obama was not born in the United States, he would not even be a “citizen of the United States” under the version of Section 301(g) of the Immigration Nationality Act that was in effect in 1961 because his 18-year-old U.S. citizen mother was too young when he was born to pass her U.S. citizenship to him under that law as it existed then.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
November 1, 2010
####