Thursday, June 23, 2011

Snopes.com Provides Misleading and Incomplete Information About Obama’s Social Security Number and Incorrect Information About Whether He Is a “Natural Born Citizen”

Snopes.com Provides Misleading and Incomplete Information About Obama’s Social Security Number and Incorrect Information About Whether He Is a “Natural Born Citizen”


                                                           By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                  June 22, 2011





Alexander McLeod (1773-1833)

                                                                  Alexander McLeod (1774-1833)

Snopes.com has recently published an article in which it says it has debunked the claim that putative President Barack Obama Social Security number of 042 xx-xxxx is false. The article also proclaims that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” The article may be read at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp. There are various problems with Snopes’ analysis of the claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number and with its conclusion that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen:”

I. Snopes only addresses the on-line created story of French immigrant, Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890 and died in Honolulu in 1981. Snopes tells us that Mr. Ludwig's number was 045-26-8722 which is different from Obama's 042-xx-xxxx. How nice for someone to feed false stories into the "news" and then have Snopes debunk them.

II. Snopes does not address the question of whose Social Security number is Obama using. That he is using someone else's Social Security number has been well analyzed by private investigators Neil Sanky and Susan Daniels. For a thorough explanation on Obama using a false Connecticut Social Security number, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZlaIS5o9Vs in which Ms. Daniels explains that the Connecticut SS number belonged to a person born in 1890 whom she has not yet been able to identify. She also debunks the Jean Paul Ludwig theory. Ms. Daniels explains that the first three digits of the number were based on the location from where someone applied for the Social Security number. She clearly explains that it has nothing to do with one’s place of birth. She also explains that there is no evidence that Obama ever lived in Connecticut and that there is no other explanation that she has found showing why or how a 15-year-old Obama living in Hawaii would have applied for the Social Security number while using a Connecticut address on the application for that number. See also Ms. Daniels and Mr. Sanky’s response to this Snopes article at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/06/private-investigators-respond-to-snopes.html.

In her video presentation and response, Ms. Daniels explains that based on the record, Obama would have had to obtained that false number in March or April 1977, when he was 15 years old. She arrives at that conclusion because the Social Security number that precedes his by one number was issued on March 21, 1977. She states: “Obama allegedly got his CT number of 042-68-4425 in March ’77, which can be proven since the person before him -4424 and after him -4429 both got theirs then.” But we should ask ourselves, what is a 15-year-old teenager going to high school in Hawaii in the Spring of 1977 doing obtaining a false Social Security number? Something just does not make sense.

Ms. Daniels explains how she found Obama’s Selective Service registration record which also contains the same Connecticut Social Security number. She believes that the Selective Service registration was fraudulently done in 2008. She explains how someone floated in the public domain a letter allegedly from the Selective Service office in which it acknowledges Obama’s having applied and obtained the registration number in 1980. The problem that she identifies is that the government form which is the acknowledgement itself shows in small print at the bottom that it was not printed until 2007. Hence, the Selective Service letter, along with the Social Security number and Selective Service registration, is fraudulent also.

What is also telling is that Ms. Daniels was not able to find any indication that Obama used his Connecticut Social Security number prior to the appearance of the number on his September 4, 1980 Selective Service registration. Other than this Selective Service registration, the first time Daniels could find Obama using the Connecticut “042″ number was in 1986 in Chicago. This is very odd given that Obama has stated that he did have employment when he was young. It is reported by PolitiFact.com that Obama’s first job was at a Baskin Robbins in Honolulu and it also provides a complete list of all of Obama’s employments. Here is the entry: “1975 or 1976 — ice cream scooper, Baskin-Robbins — Honolulu — Obama claims to have lost his taste for ice cream during this, his first job, the duration of which is not publicly known.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/15/joe-scarborough/heres-scoop-obama-has-worked-ice-cream-business-am/ ; http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2007/01/16/ten-things-you-didnt-know-about-barack-obama (this January 16, 2007 article reports: “He [Obama] says he hasn't liked ice cream since working at Baskin-Robbins as a teenager”); http://letustalk.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/obama-summer-jobs-used-to-work-at-baskin-robbins/ (this July 20, 2008 article states that Obama was in high school when he had his Baskin Robbins job). “The workers and manager at the ice cream shop confirmed that Mr. Obama worked there. Unfortunately, no one remembers him because back then they weren't there.” http://www.bluemaumau.org/6621/presidentelect_barack_obamas_first_job (this December 31, 2008 article implies that Obama first worked there in 1979). What is odd is that while there might be a record of him working there, no actual person has stepped forward to say that he or she actually remembers Obama working there.

On another note, since the Baskin and Robbins workers and managers were able to confirm that Obama worked there, the records that they looked at should also reveal what Social Security number Obama used back then. Snopes should investigate that matter and report back to all of us.

While Snopes is in the investigative mood, it should also find Obama’s first passport and tell us the date of issue and what Social Security number he used on his passport application. Snopes should also find some of Obama’s early school records and tell us which records first show a Social Security number for Obama and what that number is. If Snopes really wants to debunk the claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number, one would think that it, with its vast debunking resources, would take these steps and report back to all of us with its findings.

Ms. Daniels also tells us that Weather Underground member, Bill Ayers, in one of his books brags about how he could easily obtain false Social Security numbers. Jack Cashill writes in World Net Daily: “Bill Ayers, terrorist and Obama close friend, of his years in the Weather Underground writes: ‘We invented all kinds of ways to obtain false identity papers, and got busy building multiple sets of ID for each of us and for every contingency. . . . We soon figured out that the deepest and most foolproof ID had a government-issued Social Security card at its heart.’” http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=275861.

We know of the relationship between Ayers and Obama. According to Jack Cashill, there is a strong probability that Ayers even wrote Dreams from My Father. http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/did_bill_ayers_write_1.htm; http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Decons. Ms. Daniels believes that we can probably look to Ayers as the person who helped Obama get his false Social Security number.

III. Snopes’ explanation (relying on Wikipedia) regarding the use of 042 and the claim that the number is "reserved for Connecticut residents" which Obama never was, also does not solve anything. Snopes concedes that before 1973 the first three numbers given to a Social Security number designated the location of the Social Security Office which issued the original Social Security card. It also explains that since 1973 (when all cards began to be issued from one central location in Baltimore), that number "'has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card'" (quoting Wikipedia). It explains that a mailing address does not equate to someone's place of birth or even place of residence. But Snopes provides no explanation how Obama ended up with the Connecticut 042 number, regardless of whether he obtained his number either before or after 1973. Why does Snopes not produce evidence that Obama's original application shows that he provided a mailing address with a zip code that would generate the 042 assignment?

I do not see what the big mystery is. But then with Obama it is par for the course. Orly Taitz has asked the Social Security Administration through the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of Obama's Social Security application documents. The documents, assuming they are real, can easily debunk any claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number. But, Obama, in his Obamaesque style, has not voluntarily provided a copy of those documents. I submit to Snopes that it would better spend its time investigating that and pressing Obama for a copy of those documents so that it can really debunk the claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number.

IV. Finally, we come to Snopes' most incorrect statement. It says that since Obama is a "natural born Citizen," his grandmother would have no reason to appropriate someone else's Social Security number.

First, the veracity of the claim that Obama is using a fake Social Security number does not depend on proving that his grandmother appropriated it.

Second, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, provides: “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.” Under this eligibility clause, I have argued since December 2008 that one must show that he or she is not only a “citizen” of the United States to be eligible to be President, but also a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html. I also made this argument in the case of Kerchner v. Obama/Congress. The case was first hear in the New Jersey Federal District Court and reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F.Supp.2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009). Never reaching the merits of the questions of whether Obama conclusively proved that he was born in Hawaii or that he meets the constitutional definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen, the District Court dismissed the case because of standing and political question. I appealed the case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decision is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010). The Third Circuit, also not reaching the merits of the case, affirmed the lower court, saying the plaintiffs did not have Article III standing. Probably the most important statement that any court made in all the Obama cases is that made by the Circuit Court in footnote 4 of its decision where it stated: “We need not discuss Appellants’ contention that “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ . . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father’ . . . . That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office, which we cannot address unless Appellants first establish Article III standing.” I then filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari which the Court, again not reaching the merits, denied. The U.S. Supreme Court denial of the petition is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010). In short, no court ever decided the merits of the Kerchner case in which I argued that Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii and that even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" because when he was born he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father, hence not meeting the original common law definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father. In my briefs to the courts, I cited all the pertinent U.S. Supreme Court case law, Emer de Vattel, and many other historical sources which you will also find discussed by me in my many essays on "natural born Citizen" on this blog. No court has yet reached the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Obama must therefore make that showing and Congress and each individual State should compel him to do so.

The text of the Constitution, common law history, legislative history, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent show that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to citizen parents. Let us analyze how I come to this conclusion.

Let us start with the text of the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution called all those who made up the citizenry of the new nation “citizens of the United States.” We know this from reading these Articles. Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that, in addition to being at least 25 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 years. Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 provides that, in addition to being at least 30 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 years. The Framers provided in Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 the eligibility requirements for then and future Representatives and Senators, respectively, which were, among other things, that each had to be at least a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. We also know from Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 that a “Citizen of the United States” is a naturalized citizen, for those sections speak of the person being eligible for the offices of Representative and Senator if he or she is a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. Clearly, such requirements do not mandate U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth.

Regarding Presidential eligibility, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “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.”

So, these clauses together show that the Framers during the period that the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was in effect, allowed naturalized citizens to be eligible to be President. After the grandfather clause expired, it was no longer sufficient to be simply a “citizen of the United States” to be eligible to be President, for such citizens also include naturalized citizens. Rather, one had to now show that one was a “natural born Citizen” which was not a naturalized citizen.

Our early Presidents¬, being born British "natural born subjects," were all naturalize¬d by the Declaratio¬n of Independen¬ce and by adhering to the Revolution¬. The first President to be a “natural born Citizen” was Martin Van Buren. The early Presidents were allowed to be President because of the grandfathe¬r clause g of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which says that a person who was a "citizen of the United States" at the time of the adoption of the Constituti¬on was eligible to be President. But the article also says that for those born after the adoption of the Constituti¬on, they have to be "natural born Citizens."

So these clauses also tell us that the members of the United States are called “Citizens of the United States.” With the capitalization of “C” in citizen not having any importance, we can simply call them “citizens of the United States.” The Framers of course knew that there would be more “citizens of the United States” made in the future by nature or by law. Those made by nature would be “natural born” while those made by law would not be. Those made by nature would continue to be “natural born Citizens” and those made by law would be naturalized. Of course they did not have to provide for those citizens who would be made by nature but they did have to provide for those who would be made by law.

The Framers gave Congress the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Under its naturalization powers, Congress was given the power to make someone a naturalized “citizen of the United States,” “at birth” or after birth. The Framers knew that Congress would use its naturalization power to naturalize persons to be “citizens of the United States” not only after birth but also “at birth” and thus make them “born” citizens. Hence, if the Framers meant to give Congress the power to make “natural born Citizens,” given that Congress could make someone a “born” citizen through its naturalization powers, they would have written in Article II “born” citizen rather than “natural born” citizen. Rather, the Framers did not give Congress the power to make a naturalized born “citizen of the United States” a “natural born Citizen,” for they required that such citizen be “natural born” which based on natural law only nature and no law could make. This means that for “natural born Citizens,” the Framers did not permit that a law could create such a status, but did require that the status be acquired naturally without the aid of any law. All this tells us that a “natural born Citizen” is a “citizen of the United States” that becomes so by nature and not by any law.

Now let us turn to understanding the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause. Why did the Founders and Framers include the “natural born Citizen” clause as part of the Presidential eligibility requirements? It is evident why the Founders and Framers chose it as the standard for any would-be President to meet. The historical record informs us what the Framers’ intention was in adopting the clause. The clause was added to the Constitution shortly after John Jay sent a letter dated July 25, 1787, to George Washington expressing concern about ‘‘Foreigners’’ attaining the position of Commander in Chief. 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (1911). So, when John Jay wrote to Washington, he was concerned with anyone with foreign influence becoming Commander in Chief of the Military. Hence, he meant to tell him that no foreigner or naturalized person be allowed to become Commander in Chief.

Jefferson also expressed his concern with foreign influence making its way into the government. The citizenship law that he wrote in 1783 gives us insight into why he wrote his citizenship law the way he did. In Chap. XVI of his 1783 law, he started:

“I. WHEREAS it is the policy of all infant states to encourage population, among other means, by an easy mode for the admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship; yet wisdom and safety suggest the propriety of guarding against the introduction of secret enemies, and of keeping the offices of government in the hands of citizens intimately acquainted with the spirit of the constitution and the genius of the people, as well as permanently attached to the common interest….”

CHAP. XVI. An act for the admission of emigrants and declaring their right to citizenship.

The Founders and Framers also wanted to make sure that no hereditary monarch could ever gain control of the new constitutional republic and to keep their influence out of the all-powerful and singular office of the Chief Executive and Commander of the military. Their use of the “natural born Citizen” clause and the birth circumstances that it requires assured them that the President and Commander of our military could not be of royal parents (a U.S. citizen must renounce all titles of nobility) and had sole and undivided natural allegiance to the U.S. from the moment of birth by the child not inheriting any other foreign allegiance by jus soli (citizenship by right of the soil) or jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from one’s parents). It is reasonable to conclude that the Founders and Framers therefore meant to exclude from the Office of President and Commander in Chief to the greatest degree possible anyone born with foreign influence. The historical record shows that they would have sought to exclude from being eligible to be President anyone with foreign influence inherited at birth not only from one’s place of birth but also from one’s parents.

The Founders and Framers sought to keep out foreign influence and monarchial government from the Office of President and Commander in Chief by requiring that anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution had to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible for those offices. Through that definition, they sought to prevent any foreign or monarchial influence from attaching to the child when born by requiring that he or she be born in the country to citizen parents. The following sources show that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents:

(1) Samuel von Pufendorf, in his 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 (1691), stated: “Moreover, 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 the said Society, or their Descendants, whom we call Indigenae, or Natives.”). Here we see that Pufendorf explained that after the original citizens are born in a land in which they form a new society, only children of citizens are entitled to birthright citizenship.

The Founders and Framers studied Pufendorf. For example, Jefferson was particularly influenced by Pufendorf’s Of the Law of Nature and Nations which he cited in his 1770 argument to the Virginia court in Howell v. Netherland, 1 Va. (Jeff) 90, 90 (Va. Gen. Ct. 1770). In 1770, Jefferson represented Samuel Howell who sought freedom from his status as an indentured servant slave. Citing Pufendorf, b. 6. c. 3.s. 4. 9, he argued: “Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” Argument in the case, Howell v. Netherland, 1 Va. (Jeff) 90, 90 (Va. Gen. Ct. 1770), reprinted in 1 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 373, 376 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., G.P. Putnam’s Sons 1892-1899. The Road to Monticello, at 84. He argued that the law of nature prevented the alienation of slavery continuously from one generation to another. See Aaron Schwabach, Jefferson and Slavery, 19 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 63, 65 (1997); Aaron Schwabach, Thomas Jefferson as an Unsuccessful Advocate for Freedom in Howell v. Netherland, 20 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 129 (1998). Jefferson relied upon the law of nature to define a person’s rights and liberty. The Virginia Supreme Court did not liberate the servant notwithstanding Jefferson’s natural law argument. But what this shows is that Jefferson looked to natural law to define a person’s status and not the English common law. As Hayes explains, “[i]ntensifying his study of natural law from the mid-1700s, Jefferson discovered how to solve the unjust laws the English imposed upon the American colonies. When something as venerable as the English rule of law could be undermined by capricious laws that abused its subjects, a more just and permanent system of laws remained, natural law, which transcended any laws a political state could devise. . . . The Road to Monticello, at 85.

(2) Emer de Vattel, in his The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), explained:

“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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

As we can see, Vattel in his title of Section 212 distinguished between “Citizens” and “natives,” just as the Founders and Framers did in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, using the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural born Citizen.” Vattel also defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents. The Founders and Framers studied and were greatly influenced by Vattel. J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, Am. J. Int’l L., Vol. 3 (1909) 547 et seq. (Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often pointed out that his theories served as the backbone for American independence). The Founders and Framers believed that the first duty of any nation and its people is the duty of self preservation. They specifically sought the preservation of republican government. Apart from their reliance on the spiritual, they looked to law to accomplish that end. The historical record is replete with information showing that the Founders, Framers, and early political leaders looked to natural law and the law of nations for help in preserving the new nation and solving the many national problems with which they were faced during the early years of the republic. Indeed, while the States continued to apply the English common law to solve their local legal problems, the national political leaders did not look to the English common law for needed solutions on the national level. Rather, they looked to the law of nations which they also considered to be common law that was part of the supreme law of the land and therefore binding on the nation. And Vattel was their favorite when it came to looking to the most respected authority on the law of nations. R.G. Natelson, The Original Constitution 49 and 69 (2010) (“Vattel was probably the Founders’ favorite authority on international law . . . .” and his, treatise, The Law of Nations, was their favorite).

(3) Founder historian, David Ramsay, “was a doctor from South Carolina who wrote one of the earliest and best known nationalist histories of the American Revolution.” He was one of the writers of pamphlets on the Constitution between 1787 and 1788. The Online Library of Liberty. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=3847&Itemid=28. In his A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), explained that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizens, making no mention of place of birth. In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. As we can see, Ramsay put forth a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that only depended upon the child being born to U.S. citizen parents with no mention of place of birth. Ramsay would have been in a position to know how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” For more information on Ramsay and the importance of his contribution to understanding what a “natural born Citizen” is, see my essay entitled, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789, available at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html.

(4) The First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103). This Act provided as follows:

"United States Congress, 'An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization' (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States."

The membership of the First Congress contained 20 persons who had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 17 signers of the Constitution, eight of whom were members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the "natural born Citizen" clause.

As we can see, a child born anywhere in the world to U.S. citizen parents was “considered as a natural born Citizen.” This was typical naturalization language in the 18th century. Timothy Cunningham, A New and Complete Law-Dictionary, or, General Abridgment of the Law (1783) (defined “naturalization”). Also, a child born anywhere, which necessarily included the U.S., to alien parents was an alien and became a “citizen” derivatively when his or her parents naturalized if done before reaching the age of majority or upon naturalization in his or her own right if done thereafter.

(5) The Third Congress then passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 (Act of January 29, 1795, c. 20, 1 Stat. 414). The 1795 Act repealed the 1790 Act. This Act repeated the same language as the 1790 Act concerning children born to alien parents. The big change that it made was that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Hence, we can see that in the 1795 Act, Congress did not declare these children to be considered as “natural born Citizen” as it did in the 1790 Act, but rather left if up to those having interest to show that the child was born a “natural born Citizen.” With respect to children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, this act removed their status as “natural born citizens” and replaced it with “citizens of the United States.” This shows how important it was to our early Congresses to distinguish between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.”

The membership of the Third Congress included Oliver Ellsworth (April 29, 1745 – November 26, 1807) an American lawyer and politician, a revolutionary against British rule, a drafter of the United States Constitution, an the third Chief Justice of the United States; Roger Sherman (April 19, 1721 – July 23, 1793) was an early American lawyer and politician. He served as the first mayor of New Haven, Connecticut, and served on the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence, and was also a representative and senator in the new republic. He was the only person to sign all four great state papers of the U.S.: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution; Rufus King (March 24, 1755 – April 29, 1827) was an American lawyer, politician, and diplomat. He was a delegate for Massachusetts to the Continental Congress. He also attended the Constitutional Convention and was one of the signers of the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787; and other Founders and Framers.

President George Washington signed both of these Acts. As we can see from the text of the early Naturalization Acts, our early Congresses did not distinguish whether the child born to an alien was born in or out of the United States. In either case, the child was not a citizen and had to naturalize, either derivatively from the naturalizing parent if done before the child reached the age of majority or on his or her own if done thereafter. Since wives followed the national character of their husbands, this law meant that the father of the child would have to naturalize which would cause both his children and his wife to then become “citizens of the United States.” These Acts show that during the Founding, a child born in the U.S. to aliens was considered a “foreigner” who needed to naturalize either derivatively through his or her parents before becoming of majority age or on his or her own thereafter. After all, under the law of nations, the U.S. expected foreign nations to honor its proclaiming that those born abroad to U.S. citizen parents were U.S. citizens. So the U.S. would have done the same for these nations for the children born in the U.S. to their citizens. And let us remember that Jay recommended to Washington that a “foreigner” not be allowed to be Commander in Chief but rather only a “natural born citizen.”

The language of the 1790 and 1795 Acts was also followed by subsequent naturalization acts that preceded U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The same requirement of having to be born to citizen parents was followed in the Act of April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153, and Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 and in the acts of . Additionally, by an Act of March 26, 1804, the widow and children of an alien who had declared his intention to become naturalized, became citizens upon their taking the prescribed oaths provided by law. Again, Congress did not specify whether the child had to be born in or out of the United States for the law to apply. Hence, the law also applied to any child born in the U.S. to alien parents.

As we can see from a reading of the text of these early naturalization acts, they did not provide that any person by mere birth in the United States was a “citizen of the United States.” With respect to children born in the U.S., it was the citizenship of a child’s parents which determined whether the child was a citizen or not. Even if the child was born in the United States, if his or her parents were not U.S. citizens, the child was nevertheless not recognized to be born a citizen and had to naturalize derivatively or on his or her own. Under these acts, only if a child was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents was he or she not required to naturalize under these acts. As to children born abroad, if they were born to U.S. citizen parents, they were naturalized at birth and needed no further naturalization. These Congressional Acts abrogated any English common law rule that may have prevailed in the colonies before the revolution and the Constitution was adopted. Courts such as the one that decided Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandford Ch. 583 (N.Y. 1844), therefore, had no reason to apply and were in error to apply the English common law to define national citizenship in the United States. It was not until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment that our nation got laws --as interpreted by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which in lieu of requiring U.S. citizen parents and relying upon English common law engaged in an expansive reading of the Civil Rights Act’s “not subject to a foreign power” clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause--that together granted the status of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” to children born in the U.S. to one or two domiciled alien parents. This new status granted by Wong Kim Ark is not to be confounded with an Article II “natural born Citizen” status which is part of our common law and incorporated into the supreme law of the land and which always required and still requires two U.S. citizen parents.

Early judicial support for this reading of our early naturalization laws may be found in the following case law from our U.S. Supreme Court.

(6) In The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814), a prize case, Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, joined by Justice Livingston, cited Vattel and provided his definition of natural born citizens. The first thing he had to do which was standard in a prize case was to determine the citizenship status of the parties. He said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘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. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’” So when quoting Vattel, Chief Justice Marshall referred to the original citizens of a society as “citizens.” When referring to their children, he called them the “natives or indigenes.” Of importance is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in subsequent decisions translated the word “indigenes” to “natural born citizens.”

Our United States Supreme Court decided The Venus in 1814, at the beginning of the republic. The Justices sitting on the Court were men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they would have gained first hand knowledge of what the Framers of the Constitution intended when they drafted the Constitution. All but one justice involved in The Venus decision knew the Framers and had direct access to them. One justice was a clerk at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Why is The Venus case important to understanding what the Founders and Framers meant when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause? The insight that members of a Court have at a given time in history is important in our jurisprudence. As the Court stated in United State v. Morrison in reference to interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, “[t]he force of the doctrine of “stare decisis” behind these decisions stems not only from the length of time they have been on the books, but also from the insight attributable to the Members of the Court at that time. Every Member had been appointed by President Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, or Arthur–and each of their judicial appointees obviously had intimate knowledge and familiarity with the events surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 622 (2000). One of the members of the court was Chief Justice John Marshall. Justice Marshall, as the other justices, would have been in a position to know how the Founders and Framers defined the first citizens and their descendents.

Obama’s defenders contend that The Venus is about domicile during war and not citizenship. On the contrary, such statements are nothing more that an attempt to mislead people that The Venus case had nothing to do with citizenship and only dealt with the issue of domicile in the context of a war. This is the same approach that Obama’s defender have taken when discussing the Inglis case (discussed below). The truth of the mater is that given the nature of a prize case, the first thing the court has to determine is the allegiance and citizenship of the parties and whether the parties ever acquired any rights allowing the person to act as though adopting a different allegiance and citizenship. Domicile is important in this analysis. But domicile comes into play in analyzing whether the person has acquired special commercial privileges which arises from being domiciled in a foreign country. Clearly, the analysis must first start with citizenship before we may consider whether the person ever acquired these special commercial privileges as a result of changing his or her domicile. Authorities have recognized how central to a prize case both allegiance and citizenship are and that any proper resolution of such a case must start there. “Under such a usage, in the numerous cases of prize and capture with which, up to the close of the last war, the Federal Courts were crowded, the rights of parties in suit, under the law of nations, depended on their citizenship, and that on their allegiance.” 3 The New Englander, Massachusetts and South Carolina 414 (1845). http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel++"natural+born+citizen"&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false (emphasis in the original). So we can see that citizenship and allegiance have long been recognized as being central to a prize case. Despite this clear evidence, Obama’s defenders refuse to admit that The Venus, a case in which the Court had to first reach the question of what the citizenship status of the parties was and then decide whether those parties had done acts such as change their domicile which then would have given them commercial rights to act on behalf of another nation, is important as relating to defining a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” as conceived by the Founders and Framers for the new constitutional republic.

What Obama’s defenders also fail to recognize is that we are looking for historical references to help us find the meaning of "natural born Citizen." Clearly, Justice Marshall, who was an influential Founder, quoting from Vattel when the Chief Justice defined "the natives or indigenes" which is the exact language used by Samuel von Pufendorf in his, The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature. Chief Justice Marshall was also quoting from Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Sections 211-212 (1758 French edition, 1759 first English translation). Both of these natural law writers defined who the original citizens and their descendents were. Justice Marshall would have been in a position to know how the Founders and Framers defined the first citizens and their descendents and the fact that he relied on natural law and the law of nations as presented by Pufendorf and Vattel is critically important to the question of how the Framers defined a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” in the new nation.

The fact that Chief Justice Marshall relied on natural law and the law of nations as presented by Pufendorf and Vattel is critically important to the question of how the Framers defined a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” It is also critically important to see that in defining who was a national citizen of the United States, a controlling issue in a prize case, he did not refer in any way to the English common law or to any type of formulation of that law as explicated by Blackstone. If the new nation was still using the English common law to define our national character, Chief Justice Marshall would have used that law when analyzing the citizenship status of the parties rather than natural law and the law of nation. We can see from his decision that he did not but rather used natural law and the law of nations as the basis for defining the new national citizenship in the United States.

(7) Alexander McLeod (1774-1833), who was born in Scotland in 1774 and came to America in 1792, in A Scriptural View of the Character, Causes, and Ends of the Present War (2nd ed. 1815), a sermon he gave to the Christian community, http://books.google.com/books?id=kLUTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA170&dq=%22doctrine+of+allegiance+%22+inauthor:McLeod&hl=en&ei=IXH_TcfHH4rk0QHpt5zKAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22doctrine%20of%20allegiance%20%22%20inauthor%3AMcLeod&f=false, denounced the English monarchy as cruel, unjust, and ungodly. Writing concerning the War of 1812, he explained that the United States had every right to go to war with Britain because of its violation of Americans' right to life, liberty, and property. Among other things, he denounced England’s attachment to perpetual allegiance and how England used the concept to enslave American citizens to whom it laid claim and its own subjects. He argued that a person, being born equal and free, has a natural right to expatriation from his or her native country. He explained that allegiance and protection are the essence of any society. He said that members of society give their allegiance to a society in return for that society’s protection. He explained that being born on a piece of land does not create allegiance to a society. He said that it is being born to parents who are members of that society that creates the true bond that morally connect the child to that society and best provides for the preservation of that society. McLeod stated:

“3. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal; and 'protection is the foundation upon which the claim of allegiance rests. When the foundation is removed, the edifice falls of course.

I readily admit, that there is something in the idea of native country, which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance. It is not, however the spot of earth, upon which the child is born, that connects him with the national society; but the relation of the child's parents to that society.

In the ordinary concerns of life there is no need of such minute distinctions; and there is too little discrimination, exercised by the greater part of men, to be able to understand it. Even statesmen art not always wise; and designing men find it their interest to keep up a confusion of ideas upon important subjects. In the present discussion, nevertheless, it is necessary, that I distinctly state the true bond, which connects the child with the body politic. It is not the inanimate matter of a piece land, but the moral relations of his parentage. Let a child be born within the walls of a church, that does not make him a church member; but if the parent or parents be in connexion with the church, so is the offspring. Visible society, as it is provided for in the constitution of human nature, naturally seeks to perpetuate its own existence, by conferring upon children the membership of their parent. Each citizen too is supposed to reserve for his off spring the benefits of society. The Governor of the universe approves of this provision. Thus it is, that the country of the father is that of the child, and not because he happened to be born in its territory. Residence produces an attachment. Education cherishes affection for the scenes of early life; but only moral relations lay the foundation for moral obligation. It is the enjoyment of the privileges of society, that lays the foundation for obedience to its authority. It follows from this, that protection being the end of civil government, the sovereign has no other claim upon the allegiance of the subject, than what arises from the protection which he affords. As is the protection which I ask and receive, so is the fealty which I owe. If I ask none, I am under no allegiance: If I receive none, I have nothing to return. It is the very essence of despotism to claim authority over me without an equivalent.* . . . .

* " By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular—for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction. Children born at sea—out of the country—in the armies of the state-in the house of its ministers at a foreign court, are reputed native citizens. Every man, born free, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he finds that it will be of no advantage to him to remain in it, he is at liberty to leave it."

Vattel, Sec. 216—220.” Id. at 170-71.

Here we see how McLeod relied upon natural law and the law of nations to describe who Vattel called a “natural born Citizen.” What is telling is that he cited and quoted Vattel. We also witness McCleod arguing as Vattel did in The Law of Nations that society has a duty to preserve itself and that it does so “by conferring upon children the membership of their parent.” Hence, McLeod like Vattel said that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born to citizen parents. McLeod also cited and quoted from Vattel and holy scripture to support his argument that man has a natural right to expatriate. Id. at 171-80. McLeod, being a Presbyterian pastor, was a man of religion. http://www.covenanter.org/McLeod/alexandermcleod.htm. He also said that God provided the definition that he gave of such a citizen. This statement is important given that the Founders and Framers had very strong religious convictions. In fact, the Founders and Framers saw natural law and the law of nations as having a divine source. It cannot be doubted that someone like McCleod gives us true insight into how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.”

(8) Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) (the majority, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, cited Vattel on the right of election to change one’s allegiance and thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after revolution. The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father. On the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same time period a citizen of the State of New York or American citizen, respectively, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. Id. 136 and 164. This case shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of merger of the wife’s citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born);

(9) In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), Justice Daniels, 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, and stated: “‘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. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .’” While the Fourteenth Amendment overruled this case’s ruling that blacks were not “citizens of the United States,” Justice Daniels’ definition of a “natural born Citizen” was never changed but rather confirmed by subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases.

(10) Slaughter-House Cases (1872) (the Fourteenth Amendment’s “‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”);

(11) In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167-68 (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court provided Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” without citing him by name. The Court did not refer to the English common law when defining that clause but rather to Vattel’s law of nations definition. The Court stated: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain 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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80).

The Minor Court had to first determine whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen in order to decide whether she had any constitutional right to vote. The Court concluded that she was a “natural born Citizen” under the natural law, law of nations/common law definition that it gave of that term. Hence, the Court’s resolving the issue of whether she was a citizen and that she was a “natural born Citizen” was central to the Court’s overall decision. As I have stated on this blog in previous articles and comments, the Court’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” is therefore binding precedent.

Why did the Court have to first decide whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen? Mrs. Minor argued that since she was a citizen of the United States, she enjoyed the privileges and immunities of a citizen under Article IV, Section 2. She added that the right of suffrage was a privilege that belonged to the citizens. Finally, she argued that under the Fourteenth Amendment, the State of Missouri was precluded from abridging her right to vote.  Hence, the Court was required to determine if Mrs. Minor was a citizen in order to address her argument that the Missouri statute and constitution that denied her the right to vote were unconstitutional. Because the Court had to decide the question of Mrs. Minor's citizenship, its ruling as to what a "natural born Citizen" is and that she was a "natural born Citizen" is not dicta but rather precedential. The Court disagreed with Mrs. Minor and ruled that voting was not a privilege or immunity granted to citizens.  It said that being a citizen did not guarantee one the right to vote.  Hence, it ruled that the Missouri laws which denied her the right to vote were constitutional. 

Minor left open the question of whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen”, let alone a “natural born Citizen.” As we have seen above, under the then-prevailing Congressional naturalization acts, a child born anywhere, which necessarily included the U.S., to alien parents was an alien and became a “citizen” derivatively when his or her parents naturalized if done before reaching the age of majority or upon naturalization in his or her own right if done thereafter.

Minor did not cite Vattel but as can be seen the Court’s definition of a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen” are taken directly out of Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Section 212. Hence, when Minor said “common law,” it was not referring to the English common law but rather to American common law which in national citizenship matters had its basis in natural law and the law of nations. Minor also distinguished between “natural-born citizens” and “citizens.” When Minor spoke of the common law, it referred to the “citizens” and the “natives or natural-born citizens,” explaining that there never has been any doubts that the children born in the country to “citizens” were the “natives or natural-born citizens.” Since Minor was being asked to apply the 14th Amendment, it then applied the common law rule to the 14th Amendment which only speaks of “citizens” and not “natives or natural-born citizens.” It then concluded that any person who is a “natural-born citizen” is necessarily also a “citizen.” The Court, was not, however, willing to go as far as to say that a child born in the country to parents who were not U.S. citizens was even a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, let alone a “natural-born citizen.” The Court added that “there have been doubts” as to whether that child is even a “citizen.” Having decided that such a child is not a “natural-born citizen,” it left the question of whether such a child is a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment to another day.

It is important to understand that if the English common law prevailed in the United States to define national citizenship, the Court would not have stated that “there have been doubts” whether children born in the country to alien parents were “citizens.” Under English common law, there was no doubt that such children would have been “natural born subjects,” for under that law the citizenship of the parents was not a factor in determining subjectship when the child was born in the dominion of the King.

So Minor told us that a child born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizen parents is not a “natural-born citizen” and that it was not necessary for it to decide whether that child was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment because the plaintiff was born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, making her an Article II “natural-born citizen.” What is important about Minor is that the U.S. Supreme Court told us that the definition of a "natural born Citizen" is not contained in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, or in any Act of Congress. Rather, Minor defined a "natural born Citizen" under American common law which as we can see was based on natural law and the law of nations as presented by Vattel in Sections 212-217 of The Law of Nations and not under the English common law. It also told us by implication that a child born in the country to parents who are not U.S. citizens is not a “natural-born citizen” and expressly told us that “there have been doubts” as to whether such a child is even a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment. If “there have been doubts” as to whether such a child was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, then given that pursuant to the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 the standard to be a “natural born citizen” was higher than that to be just a “citizen,” there is no way that such a child could be a “natural-born citizen.” After all, if one cannot satisfy the requirements to be a “citizen,” one surely cannot satisfy the requirements to be a “natural-born citizen.” For a further discussion on Minor v. Happersett, see my January 2, 2009 essay entitled, OBAMA CANNOT BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” UNDER MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) found at http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html.

(12) Writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), Justice Gray explained that a born citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment owes "no allegiance to any alien power" at the time of birth on U.S. soil and that a born citizen must be born within the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States. In Elk, Justice Gray ruled that a native Indian, even though born on the territory of the United States but on an Indian reservation, was not a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, even if he later severed his ties with his tribe and “fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Id. 99.

Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Gray stated:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306."

"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than 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." Id. at 101-02.

Justice Gray in his decision stated that (1) the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or (2) the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” were not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. We can see that the exception is not only for children of ambassadors but also for children of aliens. Hence, Justice Gray was not relying on the English common law rule which did not contain the exception to “natural born subject” status for children born to aliens.

In interpreting the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” Justice Gray also looked to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which declared citizens of the United States “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. Sec. 1992.

Justice Gray then explained that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent. He said that it is the requirement that a nation consent to have someone be its citizen which prevents creating dual allegiance and citizenship. Id. at 103. He added that a nation’s consent to a person being its citizen relates to granting that person citizenship from birth or citizenship by naturalization. Id. at 104-09. If a person was not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, he or she could not be a born citizen and would have to naturalize if he or she wanted to be such a citizen.

Justice Gray stated: “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Hence, “subject to the jurisdiction” meant that the new born owed absolute allegiance only to the United States and to no other nation and that the United States had full and complete power over the child at the time of birth. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. Elk was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States.

Hence, as we can see, some temporary or local allegiance of the alien mother or father would cause the child not to acquire complete and absolute allegiance to the United States at birth. Since Elk was born subject to a foreign power at the time of his birth and thereby could not be declared a citizen by birth, he had to naturalize in order to become a citizen. This ruling was rendered moot when native Americans were granted citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. By logic and policy, there is no sound basis why the Elk holding did not equally apply to disqualify a child from being granted birthright citizenship if born in the United States of one or both alien parents given that that parent’s foreign country’s potential claim to citizenship and allegiance over the child would render that child born subject to a foreign power. But as we shall see, Justice Gray changed his definition of what being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant when he wrote the Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898). Justice Harlan dissenting, with Justice Woods joining, would have found Elk to be a “citizen,” because he was “born in our territory, owing no allegiance to any foreign power, and subject, as residents of the States, to all the burdens of government.” Id. 122-23. It was that Elk did not owe any allegiance to any foreign power which qualified him to be a “citizen.”

(13) In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court per Justice Gray explained that a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is a child born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” but an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, citing and quoting Minor v. Happersett for that definition. Wong Kim Ark modified Elk v. Wilkins by showing that there is a distinction between a born “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born Citizen” of the United States under Article II and said: “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’” which means that a child born in the U.S. to domiciled alien parents is as much a “citizen” as the “natural born” child born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents but the former is a “citizen” of the United States while the latter is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

The question that Minor did not answer was answered by Wong Kim Ark, wherein the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument was totally consistent with the then-existing Congressional naturalization acts. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to domiciled alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents, in no way disturbed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born Citizen,” for it was asked to decide only if Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also allowed Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” because it found that his parents, while not U.S. citizens, were, among other things, domiciliaries, residents of the United States, and not working in some foreign diplomatic capacity and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So Wong decided only the “citizen” part of Wong’s status. It never decided whether he also had the “natural born” part. The Court cautioned in its opinion in the beginning and at its end that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and also informed us under what limited conditions, born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not employed in some foreign diplomatic capacity, it ruled that he was so.

So Wong cited and quoted Minor and its definition that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Wong then decided that a child born in the country to alien parents who were domiciled in the U.S. was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment. It is critical that the Court did not say that Wong was completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but only that he was subject to that jurisdiction. Note the Court did not rule that he was an Article II "natural born Citizen" which the Court told us was defined by Minor. Rather, the Court told us that he was a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment.

(14) Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (confirmed that a child born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father and naturalized citizen mother, the mother being derivatively naturalized by marrying a U.S. citizen, was a “natural born Citizen.”

So, while a “citizen of the United States” is any citizen so made by positive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty, a "natural born Citizen" is by nature a child born in the country to citizen parents. Vattel, Sections 212-217. Such a citizen, being fully and completely in the allegiance of the United States and fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction thereof, does not need any positive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment, statute, or treaty to remove any natural foreign alienage to make him or her a U.S. citizen.

Assuming that he was born in Hawaii and also assuming that his parents are who he says they are, Obama does not meet the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen." At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. According to Obama and his recently released alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth, along with the immigration file of Barack Hussein Obama (“Obama Sr.”), Obama Sr. is Obama’s natural father. Obama has conceded and Obama Sr.’s immigration file confirms that Obama Sr. was a British national. But under the British Nationality Act of 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which under that same law and by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he become even a legal resident or immigrant 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 [sic 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.

Obama may be a born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States from birth, a trait that the Founders and Framers decided was constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.

Consequently, Obama is not a "natural born Citizen," of the United States given that, being born to a father who was a British citizen and not a U.S. citizen, he was not born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he would be a born “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, but he is not able to show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

Third, even if Obama is a "natural born Citizen," having that status does not prove that he is not using a false Social Security number. Snopes should look into how many "natural born Citizens" use false Social Security numbers every day for one reason or another.

We have seen how Snopes has got it wrong with Obama's Social Security number.  But Snopes' gravest error is in declaring Obama to be a "natural born Citizen."  We have seen that at best, he could be a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States."  But he is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen." 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 22, 2011
Updated June 26, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

97 comments:

thalightguy said...

Mario,

Very well said, Thank You.

Not to change the subject but I do have a legal question.

Is it unconstitutional for a State to have a satute requiring Presedential Electors to vote for the candidated that the people of that State voted for under penalty of a misdemeanor? and if so who if any other than the Elector would have Standing to bring suit?

Kanbun said...

Mario,

Another excellent writing and so thorough as to the NBC issue - how can this issue be spun by the OBOTS? On the issue of Minor, precedent and standing - given the binding nature of the Minor decision, what prevents lawsuits against the DNC and/or state boards of election to prevent placing Barry's name on a ballot for president, either in a primary or in the general election?

Seems to (the layman) me that voters and certainly candidates have the right to expect the law to be followed. Is this also a standing issue?

Thanks for more great information.

Andy said...

I did see a good rationalization about how Obama, living in Hawaii could have gotten a Connecticut SSN. I'll pass it along, because it's plausible. The zip code in Honolulu based on the address in the birth announcement is 96821. The zip code 06821 is a CT zip. There are more examples where changing 9 to 0 moves you from Hawaii to CT. I read this on a site that actually had the zip of where Obama lived as a teenager and if you change the 9 to a 0, then you live in CT. This presumably could have been a typo on the application, or even at the SSN office.

Anyway, from the number (I looked up numbers before and after on Ancestry.com SS death index) you can tell it WAS issued in 1976/77 time frame. If indeed, he had acquired an OLD SSN from a dead man, wouldn't there be lots of death records surrounding that number? There aren't. All I could find were two or three in 100 or more tries - it's been awhile since I did it so I don't remember the exact count. But if the number was issued a long time ago to someone who died at an advanced age, then the numbers surrounding that number would all likely be dead as well.

Snopes, however, is famous for knocking down straw men. Fact check as well. Since it is in court, and the judge has allowed the case to move forward, it seems that Snopes is also guilty of circumventing the legal system. If a judge thinks the case has enough merit to move forward, how can snopes "pronounce" that the case is without merit?

Puzo1 said...

Texoma said...

"Donofrio believes that McCain is not eligible and Mario believes that he is eligible. I take a middle position on this: McCain is not a natural born citizen, but that he meets the intent of the Founding Fathers which was to have Presidents with no foreign and competing allegiances.

McCain was not born on US sovereign territory. Per the 1903 treaty, Panama, not the US, was the sovereign of the Panama Canal Zone. The US administered the Canal Zone as if we were sovereign. We also paid rent to Panama, which we would not do if we were sovereign.

However, since Panama did not grant citizenship to Panama-born children of non-citizens, McCain was not born with a foreign allegiance. And that option from Panama law about opting for Panamanian citizenship at age 21 does not constitute an allegiance.

McCain was born free of a foreign allegiance, just like a natural born citizen.

Vattel's chapter on the armies of state makes McCain a citizen at birth but not a natural born citizen. Vattel says these children are "reputed" to be born in the country, but reputed by whom? Reputed by man, not by the laws of nature. By Vattel's definition of natural born citizen, McCain is not one, and this explains why Vattel does not state that the children born in the armies of state are natives or natural born citizens.

June 23, 2011 8:39 AM

Puzo1 said...

Texoma,

I do not agree with your analysis. You are willing to make McCain a "natural born Citizen" because Panama law allowed for it at the time of his birth by providing only for jus sanguinis citizenship. We cannot allow another nation to dictate whether a person is a "natural born Citizen" under U.S. law. To do so would be to compromise our sovereignty to decide such important matters, so important that it would determine who is eligible to be President.

Vattel's focus in Section 212-217 of The Law of Nations is on the citizenship of the parents. It is that citizenship which is passed on to the child at the time of birth and which as the child matures best assures the preservation of the nation. The child, upon reaching the age of majority, is then free to choose another allegiance and citizenship.

Vattel argues in Section 215 that the place of birth alone produces no change to the rule under natural law. He gives no controlling effect to the place of birth, unless the nation passes a positive law regulating the matter.

Under Vattel's explanation, the place of birth only affects jurisdiction. Hence, under U.S. law, we can surely recognize a nation's right to decide the national character of a person born within its jurisdiction. This means that a nation whose jurisdiction covers that territory or physical space (land, water, air) where the birth occurs, will have power to decide the national character of a person which brings with it rights for and obligations to be performed by the person affected and protection for that person from the nation that is exerting that jurisdiction.

Vattel tells us in Section 217 that if someone is born to parents serving the armies of their nation or to parents acting in a diplomatic capacity for their nation, that person is not born subject to the jurisdiction of the nation on whose territory the birth occurs. Rather, by the law of nature and the law of nations, that person is "reputed" born in the nation of the parents. Hence, there is no occasion for that nation where the birth occurs to exert any jurisdiction over that child. Please note that this is the same rule followed by the old English common law. If all nations followed this rule, none of these children would be citizens of the nation in whose such births occurs.

Under Vattel, the child follows the national condition of the parents. With a birth in the armies situation, that national condition is not broken because no foreign nation has any jurisdiction over the child. According to Vattel, this rule exists under natural law and not under any positive law.

Vattel does caution that a nation can pass positive laws (“civil or political laws”) which “for particular reasons” regulate a foreign birth to citizen parents and that those positive laws must be followed. Hence, he says that these positive laws trump or abrogate natural law and the law of nations. Note that our nation did just that in 1790, 1795, and thereafter. Also note that no Congressional Act provides that McCain is not a “natural born Citizen.”

Natural law and the law of nations provide that McCain is a "natural born Citizen." There is no positive law existing in our nation which provides that McCain is not a "natural born Citizen." The positive laws of foreign nations do not trump U.S. laws. Hence, McCain is a "natural born Citizen" under natural law and the law of nations and under our own positive laws.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 23, 2011

jayjay said...

Andy:

Interesting idea about the tupo of the first SSN digit. Wonder if anyone has any actual proof of that>

Mario:

Splendid dissertation re nbC; just splendid. I think I'll have to ask the SCOTUS to reinstate Kerchner et al v. Obama et al (after recusing the two Obama appointees for their obvious bias of course). I'll be sure to let you know when they agree :-)

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

Please provide whatever evidence you have about your theory.

I have sent your comment to Susan Daniels and others and asked that they look into the matter. I hope to have a response soon and will report it on this blog.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

Here is one response that I got from Linda Bentley:

"I've seen this argument before and it's bogus.

Obama's Zip Code 1980, when he supposedly registered for the Selective Service, was 96826, for which the supposed corresponding CT Zip Code would be 06826.
The only problem with that argument is, to this day, 06826 has not been issued, as per USPS:

Find a list of cities that are in a ZIP Code. http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_3_results.jsp

The ZIP Code you entered could not be found in our database.
Please confirm the ZIP Code and try again.

If you are certain the ZIP Code entered is valid, please send an email including your address to incsc@email.usps.gov.
* Required Fields

All field labels with a * are required
* ZIP Code
ZIP Code

Linda Bentley
Reporter
Sonoran News
6812 E Cave Creek Rd
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
480-488-2021 ext. 26
Linda@SonoranNews.com

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

Here is the response that I got from Susan Daniels:

"Mario,

This is just another red herring. The obvious answer is that if this really was Obama's number and Orly Taitz and I spread it across the country and around the internet, we both would have had men in black suits at our door. The reason that they aren't is because they would then have to explain when they dragged us into court how he got that number. There would have to be a matching SS-5 on file at the SSA. And there won't be.

Additionally, the number never shows up for him prior to 1986 (except for the phony Selective Service card). It should have shown up for him in CA and NY when he "was" at Columbia.

Susan Daniels

cfkerchner said...

Re. The Obots absurd claim that a simple typo caused Obama to get a Connecticut SSN.

Hi all,

As I read the Social Security Administration's (SSA) official response and position, they state that the 042-68-4425 SSN that Obama has been using since 1986 (upon his arrival in Chicago IL) was never issued. So if the SSA says the number is invalid and never existed how could the Obots zip code typo error explain that. Let's see what the Obot answer is to that anomaly. The Obots keep reaching for the moon to explain away all the flaws in Obama's life narrative. But put all those flaws in a pile and the evidence is overwhelming that Obama is a total fraud. There is certainly enough evidence to warrant a congressional investigation being called for by Speaker John Boehner in the house of reps. But he is a coward and won't do it because he knows the answer. Boehner would rather see the constitution and our rule of law get totally flushed down the toilet forever rather than face up to some short term pain that the country might have to deal with in investigating and removing Obama from his usurpation of office. We can survive threats of violence and even violence that might occur if Obama is investigated. We cannot survive as a nation if we lose our Constitution and the rule of law.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

bdwilcox said...

Mario, ferocious retort to the dopes at Snopes. They won't be able to sit down for a month after this one...

bdwilcox said...

Leo Donofrio's reply to you in his article on Minor:

ed. [text struck out] I direct you to Mario Apuzzo’s comments about my latest blog [/text struck out]…Mario has done wonderful research and has written very important pieces on this issue. And Mario recognizes that what is new in my post is the incredible realization that the SCOTUS directly construed Article 2 Section 1 in Minor and the Court specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment… therefore we have a standing precedent as to the SCOTUS defining the class of natural born citizens, not dicta. It’s precedent and it was not superseded by Wong Kim Ark because that case only construed the 14th Amendment, not A2S1. For such a long time, it appeared that Wong and Minor both construed the 14th Amendment, but that turns out to not be the case… not on the citizenship aspect of Minor. It had not been discussed previously that Minor specifically AVOIDED construing the 14th Amendment as to Mrs. Minor’s citizenship, and they instead relied upon their construction of Article 2 Section 1.

[text struck out] Here is what Mario wrote yesterday after reading my article: [/text struck out]

That was not actually Mario Apuzzo, the NJ attorney. The above remains true, if Mario or any other attorney made the arguments I have made about Minor having directly construed A2 S1 while simultaneously avoiding construction of the 14th Amendment… I will be happy to comment. But I am not aware of any previous commentary on this specific revelation. I’m sure if such comments exist, somebody will forward a a quote. As far as I am aware the real Mario Apuzzo hasn’t taken issue with my latest blog, but if he does, I’ll be happy to publish his reply in comments here. – Leo

Puzo1 said...

bdwilcox,

Here is a quote from me that I found at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/states-have-constitutional-power-to.html

So Minor told us that a child born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizen parents is not a “natural-born citizen” and that it was not necessary for it to decide whether that child was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment because the plaintiff was born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, making her an Article II “natural-born citizen.” What is important about Minor is that the U.S. Supreme Court told us that the definition of a "natural born Citizen" is not contained in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, nor in any Act of Congress. Rather, Minor defined a "natural born Citizen" under American common law which as we can see was based on natural law and the law of nations as presented by Vattel in Sections 212-217 of The Law of Nations and not under the English common law. It also told us by implication that a child born in the country to parents who are not U.S. citizens is not a “natural-born citizen” and expressly told us that “there have been doubts” as to whether such a child is even a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment. If “there have been doubts” as to whether such a child was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, then given that pursuant to the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 the standard to be a “natural born citizen” was higher than that to be just a “citizen,” there is no way that such a child could be a “natural-born citizen.” After all, if one cannot satisfy the requirements to be a “citizen,” one surely cannot satisfy the requirements to be a “natural-born citizen.”

Here we see that I said that Minor did not look to the 14th Amendment for a definition of a "natural born Citizen," but rather to American common law which was based on natural law and the law of nations.

It is also not correct when Leo says that the Court construed Article II but did not construe the 14th Amendment. What is important is not what the Court construed, but rather what law the Court applied to the question under examination. As I said, the Court did not look to the 14th Amendment for a definition of a natural born Citizen but rather to American common law. That is what is important to understand. Talking about what provision the Court construed without pointing out what law the Court applied is worthless.

I'll be back with more on this.

bdwilcox said...

Quote from CDR Kerchner: "The Obots keep reaching for the moon to explain away all the flaws in Obama's life narrative."

- Too true. Instead of Occam's Razor, they employ Occam's Electric Shaver.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

bdwilcox,

Leo Donofrio said in his comment: “if Mario or any other attorney made the arguments I have made about Minor having directly construed A2 S1 while simultaneously avoiding construction of the 14th Amendment… I will be happy to comment.”

In discussing Minor, I do not agree with Leo on what he places importance upon. At first, he said that his discovery was that Minor was a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. As I explained in my first comments, there never was any issue with me whether Minor was a precedent for the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” I always said that it was. Now Leo says that his discovery is that the Court construed Article II, Section 1 rather than the Fourteenth Amendment. The Obots call that moving the goal posts. As I also explained in my previous comment, what is important in the context of the Minor case and the issue with which the Court was faced is what law the Court applied to the question of what is a “natural born Citizen,” not whether it construed Article II or the Fourteenth Amendment.

I have already given you one of my quotes in my previous comment which shows that I have always argued that Minor did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment to define a “natural born Citizen,” but rather to American common law which had its basis in natural law and the law of nations. Here is another of my pieces of writing:

*********************************************************************************************

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, stated: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain 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 v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Additionally, it is important to note that, even though the Fourteenth Amendment was already in place, Justice Waite stated that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the United States to foreign parents is a citizen (Id. at 167-68) and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of men or women. Id. at 170. It is also critical to note that Justice Waite did not refer to the English common law when defining a "natural born citizen," for we shall see that the English common law did not consider the citizenship of the child's parents when declaring that child a "natural born subject." Rather, Justice Waite referred to the "common law" that as we shall see below has its origins in the law of nations and natural law and which became U.S. common law.

Justice Grey, 23 years later in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) repeated what Justice Waite said in Minor about the need to resort to common law when defining “natural born Citizen:” "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision." U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

Continued . . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

In both of these cases, the Supreme Court did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment to define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, both courts said that the meaning of that term must be found by resort to the "common law." What do both of these Supreme Court decisions tell us? First, they show that there is a difference between a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” If the two terms were the same, the Supreme Court in both of these cases would not have said that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution, for the Fourteenth Amendment was already part of the Constitution and the Court could have easily said that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is contained right in the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, the Supreme Court in both of these cases also said that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution but rather in the "common law." Here we have clear evidence that the United States Supreme Court itself has recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is and has stated that its definition may be found only in the "common law." Hence, we can see that simply being declared a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Congressional Acts has changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” for these sources address only the question of what is a “citizen” and do not touch upon what is a “natural born Citizen.” “The Fourteenth Amendment and the domestic citizenship statutes necessarily mean that Congress left determination of what categories of citizenship are “natural born” to other law. . . .” Gabriel J. Chin, Why Senator McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-14 (2008). Also, for one to be declared an Article II “natural born Citizen,” one must satisfy the "common law" definition for that term. The question then becomes to what "common law" are we to look for the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen?”
*******************************************************

Read my full August 20, 2009 essay, 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 , at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

So I explained that Minor and Wong Kim Ark both show that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not found in the Fourteenth Amendment or in any other part of the Constitution, but rather in American common law. The Supreme Court decided these cases after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. In Minor, the Court decided whether the person was a "natural-born citizen" and in Wong Kim Ark the Court decided whether the person was a "citizen of the United States." Again, you can see how I explained that Minor did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment to define an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather to natural law and the law of nations which became American common law.

Puzo1 said...

I just received this email message from a concerned citizen"

*******************************

Ladies & Servants,

Judge Lamberth has not stopped the [Orly Taitz Social Security] Case yet. Monday is the day of the Subpoena for Sherle Fuddy, Director Hawaii Health Department, 10 am Hawaii time is 4 pm DC Time, to appear for Deposition with [Obama's]Original Type Written Birth Certificate. Hawaii Attorney General sent letter to Orly cc to Judge Lamberth that Hawaii would not respond to the Subpoena.

I don't know, but guessing that Judge Lamberth will wait until 4 pm to declare that the Subpoena was violated and hold a Hearing, Hold Fuddy and State of Hawaii in Contempt and/or send the Federal Marshals to arrest Fuddy.

Pray for Judge Lamberth. Surely, Judge Lamberth knows that at least 10 experienced in the fields of printing, scanning and photocopy have declared the Birth Certificate presented by [Obama]in a Forgery. [Obama] has used many SS#'s and is using a stolen SS#; . . . . [Obama's]father was a Foreign national, therefore [Obama] is not a "Natural Born" citizen, probably not even a citizen; and is a Felon for stealing SS#'s and presenting a Forged BC as an Original Birth Certificate.

Call and write Congressman Johnson, Chairman of House Sub-Committee on Social Security. E-mail Lindsay.Ray@mail.house.gov, Ray Lindsay is Rep Johnson's scheduling assistant. Also, call Congressman Johnson's office and express your disgust and dismay that the Social Security Commissioner has refused to produce Hussein's SS# records and Congress refuses to investigate. Call House switchboard (202-224-3121) and ask for Congressman Johnson's office and Sub-Committee on Social Security.

[name withheld by me]

Update

Posted on | June 23, 2011 | 15 Comments

I finally got a response from Congressman Johnson, chairman of house subcommittee on Social Security. I talked to his assistant Jet Thompson and was directed to e-mail the scheduling assistant Lindsay Ray at Lindsay.Ray@mail.house.gov, which I did.

As I am extremely busy, I am asking my supporters to follow up with her and schedule an appointment asap. After we schedule an appointment with Congressman Johnson, we need to schedule appointments with other key Congressmen, who chair key committees and we need to schedule those around the same time.

Big Boo and Boo said...

To a laymen, two lawyers talking crosswise to each other (you and Leo) can be maddening!!!! I hope you understand and thus the need for my inquiry and simpler understanding.

As I undersand Leo's analysis, SCOTUS has defined nbc and established precedent. It has defined it in its finding in Minor.
Do you agree with that? I believe you do but want to make sure.

Where you differ is that Leo doesn't believe you need to go any further. Thus in the terms and exact language of the case, McCain is not eligible.

As a point of law, this is good as it shuts up the Obots who say SCOTUS has never ruled definetely on nbc and does away with the Fourteenth Amendment nonsense.

You say SCOTUS was looking to Vattel or was informed by American common law influenced by Vattel and thus McCain is eligible. Leo's position is that Vattel isn't law and doesn't have any force. The law is simply what the finding in Minor says.

If this is true only another ruling by SCOTUS would make McCain eligble.

It seems it is a stronger position to say the court has spoken without need to go outside its findings.

Admitedly not good for McCain but he ain't our problem right now.

Please let me know what I am missing.

On another matter, Obots now claim that Leo is citing only dicta. Leo refutes. Do you agree with his refutation?

You and Leo are the best we (i.e. America) has on this subject. Whowever wrote under your name at political forum actually did a good job and whatever the intention, moved Leo to pay a fine complement to you.

How I wish a solid conservative legal foundation (I believe you know who) could get you two in the same room for an afternoon on Capital Hill...just to shoot the "bull" if you know what I mean....

Wishing you the best...

The Big Boo

atticus finch said...

Nowhere in the Constitution is the term "natural born citizen" defined.

The drafters of the Constitution wrote the Constitution in the language of English common law. "The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888).

Moreover, "The framers of the Constitution were familiar with common-law concepts and the words and phrases employed by common-law lawyers." In re Gannon, 27 F. 2d 362 , 363 (ED PA 1928)

Additionally, "The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917) (Pitney, J. dissenting)

Since the Constitution was written in the English common law language, any term in the Constitution that was not defined
it is presumed that the common law meaning of the term would governed. [G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary. Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911)

Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. "The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). Thus, it is proper to consider that Congress acts with knowledge of existing law, and that "absent a clear manifestation of contrary intent, a newly-enacted or revised statute is presumed to be harmonious with existing law and its judicial construction." Johnson v. First Nat'l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 277 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984). Estate of Wood v. CIR, 909 F. 2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)

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

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

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

atticus finch said...

Prior to the enactment of the Naturalization Act of 1790 the common law rule governing children born of aliens was adopted from the English common law as enunciated by Chief Justice Coke in his opinion in the Calvin's Case in 1608 and was later affirmed by Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) in which he wrote:

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. (Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765)

Blackstone further noted the difference between Civil Law and Common Law regarding children born of aliens in England:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien. Id.

The drafters of the Naturalization Act of 1790 and its progeny were familiar with Blackstone and common law terms.
"That Blackstone's Commentaries were accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England at the time of the Constitution and the framers were undoubtedly familiar with it." Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 69 (1904)







The Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent nationality laws did not abrogate the common law principle of Jus Soli that a child born in the United States to alien parents was a citizen of the United States.

The drafters of the Naturalization Act were familiar with common law principles. "The framers of the Constitution were familiar with common-law concepts and the words and phrases employed by common-law lawyers." In re Gannon, 27 F. 2d 362 , 363 (ED PA 1928)

Moreover, they were also familiar with Blackstone and his writings of English common law. "Colonial lawyers, including the Framers, widely relied on treatises by Sir Edward Coke and Sir William Blackstone for their understanding of English Common law." U.S. v. Reyes, 87 F. 3rd 676, 681 (5th Cir. 1996)

When they wrote the Naturalization Act of 1790, the drafters understood that the Act must be read in light of the existing common law principle of Jus Soli. "When Congress legislates against a backdrop of common law, without any indication of intention to depart from or change common law rules, the statutory terms must be read as embodying their common law meaning. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Management, 425 F. 3d 735, 763 (10th Cir. 2005)

And since the Jus Soli doctrine was a judicially created concept then if the drafters wanted to abrogate or change this doctrine then they must make that intent specific.
"The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494,501 (1986).

As such, courts have interpreted that the Naturalization Acts only applied to foreign born children of alien parents. Chief Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927) observed:

The majority in that case [Wong Kim Ark], as already said, held that the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to nationality was birth within the allegiance of the Government and that one born in the United States, although of a race and of a parentage denied naturalization under the law, was nevertheless under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the Amendment. Id at 670

atticus finch said...

David Ramsey ? Wasn't he the one who came in a THIRD PLACE in the first federal congressional election after the ratification of the Constitution? Wasn't he the one who wrote a 8 page pamphlet explaining why the winner of the election results was ineligible based on citizenship? Wasn't he the one who petition the Congress to nullify the results of the election and didn't his petition fail by a vote of 36-1?

By the way during the hearing in Congress regarding Ramsay's petition, James Madison made the following statement: "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

atticus finch said...

The language that you cited in Venus 12 U.S. 253 (1814) was not part of majority opinion by Justice Washington but rather it was the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Marshall in which Justice Livingston concurred. As such, the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall regarding Vattel was NOT THE OPINION OF THE COURT but rather his own opinion. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, an opinion by the majority is considered mandatory authority that is binding on lower courts; however, opinions expressed as concurring opinions are not mandatory but may be considered persuasive authority but they are by no means binding on lower courts.

In this case, Chief Marshall's concurring opinion is not mandatory authority since it was not the majority opinion but at best it was persuasive authority.

One of the best indicators that a concurring opinion was considered persuasive authority by later courts would be for these later courts to cite Chief Justice's concurring opinion. However, a search failed to show that any subsequent federal cases citing Chief Justice's concurring opinion.

As such, Chief Justice's concurring opinion has never been cited by later court cases and the only conclusion to be drawn is that Chief Justice's reliance on Vattel's definition of natives who are born in the country requiring two parents who are citizens has never been used as persuasive authority by later cases.

As a side note, Justice Story concurred with the majority but failed to concur with Justice Marshall

If Vattel were the source of our citizenship laws as you indicated then why didn't the drafters who according to you who were cognizant of the Vattel's "Law of Nations" just draft the following language of a person's eligibility to be president:

“No Person except a NATIVE born citizen,.....”

Why would the drafters insert natural born citizen instead of NATIVE born citizen since according to Vattel, NATIVE are those born in the country whose parents were citizens?

Unless, the drafters used the language borrowed from Blackstone concept of natural born subject by simply substituting the word citizen for subject.

atticus finch said...

Courts do not recognized "natural law". They only recognized positive enactments and common law principles.

Let's see what proponents of natural law believe:


Race Relations:
"By carrying out the normal order of creation—that is, embody in the civil laws of society the natural laws and ordinances of the Creator. But it may be asked, How are these to be discovered ? We answer : As man has acquired all his knowledge by reason and experience. That which is found beneficial to society—to all classes—which improves and elevates, and adds to the sum of human happiness, must, in the nature of things, be right. The rule is one of universal application, and admits of no exception. What, then, is that normal order of creation ? Why, briefly, it is to embody the natural law in the civil law —to make those who are superior by creation superior in society, and those who are inferior by creation inferior in society. The negro, as his history has abundantly demonstrated, is incapable, by himself, of civilization. In his native Africa he is a savage and a barbarian, and as useless as the horse or the ox before man caught them and domesticated them, and made them serviceable to his purposes. John H. Van Evrie, " Subgenation: The Theory of Normal Relations of Races" 1864 page 29

Women Suffrage:

It would be no more deplorable to see an angel harnessed to a machine than to see a woman voting politically, giving up her divine intuition for a vulgar material compromise. It is not fair to let women make laws they cannot enforce. They could set the world by the ears, and leave the men to fight it out.
Political excitements will injure their health, and interfere with their family duties. Natural law makes them weaker than men: they ought not to assume an equal strength, for the outcome of failure is inevitable.
Woman suffrage would be the constitutional degradation of women; it would be an appeal to the coarser strength of men; and I profoundly believe that it would result in social disorder and disrespect of law." Rev. O.B. Frothingam, et. al. "Women Suffrage unnatural and inexpedient" 1886 page 12

Women in the Legal profession:

It certainly cannot be affirmed, as an historical fact, that this has ever been established as one of the fundamental privileges and immunities of the sex. On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The Constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood
Bradwell v. State 83 U.S. 130, 141
(Bradley, J., concurring)

Slavery:

One mode of giving this opportunity of obedience to natural law, may be deprivation of civil rights, or slavery. Hence civil slavery may be the means of enjoying natural liberty. This truth is universally recognized by the common saying that certain nations are not fit for freedom. They are not fit for freedom when civil subjection is necessary to confer on them the enjoyment of natural rights. Natural liberty, or in other words, the capacity to obey the laws of God may flourish under civil despotism and be utterly extinct under free government. Professor Bledsoe, "Liberty and Slavery" , Southern Literary Messenger, 1856 Vol 22 page 386

Don't you just love natural law and its applications

atticus finch said...

The case you cited Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) had nothing to do with the term "Natural Born Citizen" in the Constitution. In fact, the issue in the case was whether a woman who was a citizen of the United States had a right to vote under the privilege clause of the 14th Amendment.

Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the court, held that the "Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, (Id. at 178)" unless specifically mentioned in the 15th Amendment where it provides: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

In his opinion, Chief Justice Waite mentioned in passing the following language that was not germane to the case by noting:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain 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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id 167-168

The above language is a typical example what is refer to as Obiter Dictum or in other words “words of an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case.” Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 967 (Fifth Ed. 1979). When there is Obiter Dictum language in an opinion that part of the opinion that contained Obiter Dictum language has no precedent value since it was unnecessary in the court’s decision.

In the Minor case, nowhere in the opinion was the status of Virginia Minor citizenship discussed. Moreover, there was no discussion as to the citizenship status of Minor’s PARENTS. In fact, the court noted “She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” Id. at 170.

Therefore, Chief Justice Waite’s gratuitous comment about “natural born citizenship” had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the court. In fact,
he himself remarked “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [citizens children born without reference to citizenship of their parents].” Id at 168.

As such, the holding in the Minor case was that citizenship does not itself confer the right to vote under the Privilege Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Puzo1 said...

Big Boo Boo,

You said: "As I undersand Leo's analysis, SCOTUS has defined nbc and established precedent. It has defined it in its finding in Minor. Do you agree with that? I believe you do but want to make sure."

Response: I do not understand why it should not be clear that I believe Minor is a key U.S. Supreme Court precedential case on the question of what is a "natural born Citizen." I along with many other concerned Americans too numerous to name have been arguing that for years and now this question comes up. I do not understand the point of your question or Leo's article.

You said: "Where you differ is that Leo doesn't believe you need to go any further."

Response: I do not understand your point. We do not need to go any further to accomplish what?

You said: "Thus in the terms and exact language of the case, McCain is not eligible."

Response: I do not agree. Vattel provides an expansive definition for "born in the country," to be applied for children born abroad in the armies of the state or to our diplomats. I do not understand why you are willing to accept Vattel's general definition of what a "natural born Citizen" is but not his explanation of what "born in the country" means? If you are going to be in this battle to arrive at the truth of the true meaning of a "natural born Citizen" and if you truly support the Constitution, then your position should be consistent.

You said: "As a point of law, this is good as it shuts up the Obots who say SCOTUS has never ruled definetely on nbc and does away with the Fourteenth Amendment nonsense."

Response: I have always argued that the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." I have written tons on this.

You said: "You say SCOTUS was looking to Vattel or was informed by American common law influenced by Vattel and thus McCain is eligible. Leo's position is that Vattel isn't law and doesn't have any force. The law is simply what the finding in Minor says."

Response: I find this to be a fantastic statement which makes little sense. In searching for the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” we are looking for the intent of the Framers when they wrote that clause. They were influenced my natural law and the law of nations and Vattel was their favorite on the law of nations. The Founders and Framers considered the law of nations as part of our common law, part of the supreme law of the land and binding. The historical record shows that they would have applied the law of nations to define the term and not the English common law. Hence, we have to look to the law of nations as a guide in determining what the Framers intended “natural born Citizen” to mean. We do not only look to U.S. Supreme Court cases which were decided almost 100 years later. U.S. Supreme Court cases only help us as a link to the past and to confirm what the Framers intended.

You said: “If this is true only another ruling by SCOTUS would make McCain eligble. It seems it is a stronger position to say the court has spoken without need to go outside its findings.”

Response: We do not need any rulings making McCain eligible. He already is.

You said: “On another matter, Obots now claim that Leo is citing only dicta. Leo refutes. Do you agree with his refutation?"

Response: Please provide me with the links of where the discussion is occurring and I will be able to review the matter and report to you.

Puzo1 said...

atticus finch,

You are doing nothing but cutting and pasting already tired arguments advocating that the Founders and Framers would have relied upon English common law to define a "natural born Citizen."

The cases that Wong Kim Ark and you cite where the Court refers to the English common law had nothing to do with defining citizenship in the United States. On the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court cases which have address the meaning of a "natural law Citizen" have used the "common law" as an aid in doing to.

But the error that you and your supporters make is that you assume that there is only one "common law," i.e., English common law. You fail to understand that there is also American common law which has its first basis in natural law and the law of nations. Hence, when Minor refers to the "common law," it is referring to American common law which emanated from natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law.

So, the English common law did not inform the Founders and Framers when they wrote the "natural born Citizen" clause. Rather, what guided them was natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel.

paraleaglenm said...

To simplify, please consider this as the most distinguishing cite one can glean from Ark:

"The power, granted to Congress by the Constitution, "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization" was long ago adjudged by this court to be vested exclusively in Congress. Chirac v. Chirac (1817), 2 Wheat. 259." 158 U.S. 548.

The distinctions Horace Gray attempts to make between 14th Amend and Legislated act citizenship are too fine a point. As an analogy, he is re-arranging the fibers of hemp instead of addressing the entire rope of the Gordian Knot.

It is enough to conclude that there is a lack of uniformity between Horace Gray's legal determinations in Elk (1884) and Ark (1898) to dismiss his holdings entirely as untrustworthy and void.

Congress passed 8 U.S.C. 1401 to conform naturalization law to the 14th Amendment; Gray's holding interferes with that lawmaking.

In my opinion, Congress has the power to write a subsection to 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) defining 'under the jurisdiction thereof,' citing both the legislative history from the 1866 Act, and perhaps even Elk vs. Wilkins.

Which do we follow? Elk, or Ark?

Conflicts of Law will require the recognition of jus soli in Ark to be dismissed as invalid, because having both jus solis and jus sanguinis create dual nationality, requiring more law and two decades of a dual national's life to sort it out with even more statutory 'fixes.'

England did have both jus sanguinis and jus soli in its Nationality Law. However, its 1772 Act allowed an alien residing within British dominions to petition the King to exempt his children from mandatory allegiance.

In addition, a reading of the first case laws of the original 13 states shows that English common law was useful in pari material, but statutes and case law from England did not supresede or have precedent over U.S. case law, or legislated act, e.g., the 1790 Act et seq.

The precedent of Minor is diluted by many subsequent court holdings to the contrary, raising up jus soli as the principle of citizenship. If jus solis is more than merely 'traditionary,' i.e., law, then thoses cases should have made inclusory the whole of the 1772 British Nationality Act.

For an excellent brief related to Ark, I recommend reading http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA

Horace Gray arrogated the constitution, as well as his own precedent, in cobbling together Wong Kim Ark's right to native citizenship.

The correct legal analysis was to void as unconstitutional the congressional act and treaty barring Ark, a free man, from applying for U.S. citizenship as an adult person.

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:
"But the error that you and your supporters make is that you assume that there is only one "common law," i.e., English common law. You fail to understand that there is also American common law which has its first basis in natural law and the law of nations. Hence, when Minor refers to the "common law," it is referring to American common law which emanated from natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law.

Of course the founding fathers were familiar with Vattel who was a scholar on INTERNATIONAL LAW; however as to MUNICIPAL LAW or DOMESTIC LAW he was not the source of our statutes regarding citizenship which is in the providence of a nation's municipal law. “Citizenship depends, however, entirely on municipal law and is not regulated by international law. “ Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166, 169 (DC 1951).

Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that our citizenship laws were inherited from English common law. "Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964).

“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)

Nowhere in over 200 years of court opinions have had any court suggested that our citizenship law was based on Vattel's concept of citizenship. In fact, there are many court cases that held that children born in the United States to parents other than citizen parents are natural born citizens. "Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States. Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F. 3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999). "Abdel-Karim A. El-Nobani is a legal resident of the United States, is married to a natural born United States citizen, and is the father of two natural born United States citizens, ages two and eight, respectively. He was born in Jordan and moved to the United States in 1988. El-Nobani became a permanent resident of the United States in 1993." US v. El-Nobani, 145 F. Supp. 2d 906, 909 (ND OH 2001)

As for Vattel's contribution to the Constitution, there has not been one decision in which a court has cited Vattel's influence on drafting of the CONSTITUTION. This is not to say that courts have not cited Vattel on the INTERNATIONAL LAW in which his book "Law of Nations" have been cited by the courts but as to the CONSTITUTION AND MUNICIPAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, Vattel's influence is nonexistent.

atticus finch said...

apuzo1 wrote:
But the error that you and your supporters make is that you assume that there is only one "common law," i.e., English common law. You fail to understand that there is also American common law which has its first basis in natural law and the law of nations. Hence, when Minor refers to the "common law," it is referring to American common law which emanated from natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law."

Response:

There is a reason why our legal system is referred to as Anglo-American jurisprudence instead of Roman-American jurisprudence or Franco-American jurisprudence. Since the founding of our nation, courts have acknowledged our common law heritage that is rooted in the English common law.

Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago 561 U.S. ____ (2010) observed: ”After declaring their independence, the newly formed States replaced their colonial charters with constitutions and state bills of rights, almost all of which guaranteed the same fundamental rights that the former colonists previously had claimed by virtue of their English heritage.. . . . .. Several years later, the Founders amended the Constitution to expressly protect many of the same fundamental rights against interference by the Federal Government. Consistent with their English heritage, the founding generation generally did not consider many of the rights identified in these amendments as new entitlements, but as inalienable rights of all men, given legal effect by their codification in the Constitution's text. “

Furthermore, courts have acknowledged that the common law was a barrier to arbitrary power of the government. ”Those who emigrated to this country from England brought with them this great privilege "as their birthright and inheritance, as a part of that admirable common law which had fenced around and interposed barriers on every side against the approaches of arbitrary power." Thompson v. Utah, 170 US 343, 349-350 (1898) quoting 2 Story's Const. § 1779

Moreover, “When it is said that we have in this country adopted the common law of England, it is not meant that we have adopted any mere formal rules, or any written code, or the mere verbiage in which the common law is expressed. It is aptly termed the unwritten law of England; and we have adopted it as a constantly improving science, rather than as an art; as a system of legal logic, rather than as a code of rules. In short, in adopting the common law, we have adopted its fundamental principles and modes of reasoning, and the substance of its rules as illustrated by the reasons on which they are based, rather than by the mere words in which they are expressed.' Fung Dai Kim Ah Leong v. Lau Ah Leong, 27 F. 2d 582, 584 (9th Cir. 1928 ) (internal citation omitted)

As such our Common Law heritage is based on English Common Law and not on European Civil Law.

Puzo1 said...

Attichus finch at 8:22 a.m.

That the Founders and Framers were familiar with Blackstone does not prove that they relied upon him when writing the “natural born Citizen” clause. I have provided much information linking the “natural born Citizen” clause to natural law, the law of nations, Vattel, and American common law. You have provided no information linking that clause to Blackstone.

You quote Blackstone’s English common law definition of aliens and “natural-born subjects.” But cite for me one U.S. Supreme Court case that defined a “natural born Citizen” under any standard provided by Blackstone. Not even Wong Kim Ark defined a “natural born Citizen” under the English common law.

Just quoting cases containing the rhetoric of the English common law without linking those cases to any reliance by the Founders upon such rules to define a “natural born Citizen” is of no moment.

If you are going to quote U.S. Supreme Court cases that relied upon the English common law, you have to tell us what the context of those cases is. There is little doubt that the States continued to use the English common law for state law issues. But show me were the U.S. Supreme Court prior to Wong Kim Ark ever referred to the English common law to define a person’s national character. Not even Wong Kim Ark defined a “natural born Citizen” under the English common law. Rather, the Court only went as far as defining a “citizen” under that law.

The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 speak for themselves. The text is what it is. Just telling me about the English common law and what it provided for does not change the meaning of that text. Congress wrote the acts for the new nation. Congress adopted a new system of national citizenship than that which existed under the old English common law. This new system, whether the child was born in the United States or abroad, relied upon jus sanguinis, not jus soli. Even Jefferson relied upon jus sanguinis when drafting the citizenship laws for Virginia. Congress expressed its intent not to follow the English common law by the language that it chose in the acts. With respect to those children born to alien parents, Congress told us in these acts that if a child was born to alien parents, he or she was an alien. Place of birth did not factor into the equation. Such a rule showed that Congress did not follow the English common law which placed its full reliance on place of birth.

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch at 8:25 a.m.

You make a fallacious argument in trying to convince us that David Ramsay’s dissertation on the new national citizenship is not worthy of belief because of something to do with Ramsay’s politics. In fact, what Ramsay wrote is very consistent with all other writers on natural law and the law of nations, including Vattel. What he wrote was also repeated by the various U.S. Supreme Court cases that I have cited in my essay. It looks like the U.S. Supreme Court was not bothered with his politics.

Your James Madison quote is misplaced as any evidence of what a “natural born Citizen” is. Madison was speaking in 1789 about being a "citizen of the United States" which was the status needed for eligibility to be a Congressman. We know that such a citizen is not necessarily a "natural born Citizen." The only issue that the Congress debated and decided was whether Smith had been a citizen of the United States for 7 years which is the requirement of Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 for anyone wanting to be a Representative. The debate was not whether Smith was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” At that time, no adult in being of the Founding generation was a "natural born Citizen."

Smith was born before July 4, 1776. Note that while Madison based his decision on whether Smith was a "citizen" on the "laws of Carolina," Article II's "natural born Citizen" clause provided a completely different standard for citizenship for Presidential eligibility. The former was used to determine whether one was a "Citizen of the United States" for purposes of eligibility for the offices of Representative, Senator, and grandfathered President while the latter was used for Presidents who were born after the adoption of the Constitution. After the adoption of the Constitution, the standard was made more vigorous, with mere birth in the jurisdiction of the U.S. not being sufficient. Under that more exacting standard, birth to U.S. citizen parents was also required.

Even Smith, when arguing in Congress that he was a “citizen of the United States,” did not resort to the English common law for authority. Rather, he cited Vattel and the law of nations as authority for proving that he was a “citizen of the United States.”

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:

Congress told us in these acts [naturalization Acts] that if a child was born to alien parents, he or she was an alien. Place of birth did not factor into the equation. Such a rule showed that Congress did not follow the English common law which placed its full reliance on place of birth."

Response:

Naturalization Acts do not apply to Children born in the United States to alien parents.

Case law supports this position:

"A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1." In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)

In Re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy. 353, 21 Fed. Rep. 905,(1884) Mr. Justice FIELD, in delivering the opinion of the court, in which SAWYER, SABIN, and HOFFMAN concurred, says, (p. 359:) "The inability of persons to become citizens under those laws (of naturalization) in no respect impairs the effect of their birth, or of the birth of their children, upon the status of either, as citizens of the United States." See also Ex Parte Chin King, 35 Fed. Rep. 354 ( Cir. Ct. D. Oregon 1888)

“As respects the two children who were born in this country while their parents were resident and permanently domiciled here, the decision of the supreme court in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U. S. 649, 693, 704, 18 Sup. Ct. 456, seems to me not distinguishable from the present; and I must therefore hold that these children, being citizens of the United States and not aliens, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the immigration officers under the statute upon which they have been excluded.”
In Re Giovanna, 93 Fed. 659, 660 (District Court, SD NY 1899)

“The fourteenth amendment, by the language, "all persons born In the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was intended to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule, which, prior to that time, pertained to the white race. In my opinion, therefore, Allan Benny is a citizen of the United States in virtue of his birth here of alien parents, who at the time of his birth were domiciled in this country.”
New Jersey Supreme Court in Benny v. O’Brien, 32 Alt 696 , 698
(1895)


The Act of April 14, 1802, was made applicable to children born WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES of alien parents, provided such parents became naturalized during the minority of such child and further provided that citizenship should begin at the time such minor begins to reside permanently in the United States. United States v. Karnuth, 19 F. Supp. 581, 582 (WD NY 1937)(emphasis added)

Revised Statutes of 1874, § 1993. The law was enacted in response to scholarly concerns that its predecessor statute granted citizenship to only the FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN of persons who were U.S. citizens on or before April 14, 1802, and not to foreigners whose parents had become citizens after that date. Aguayo v. Christopher, 865 F. Supp. 479, 481 (ND Il 1994)(emphasis added)


Legal scholars support this position:

The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties, with regard to this country, which do not attach to the father. Alexander Porter Morse “A Treatise on Citizenship, by Birth and by Naturalization”
(1881) page 241

Children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States.
10 Op., 328, Bates, 1862. See U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S., 28.
Francis Wharton, “Digest of International Law of the United States”, Vol 2(1887) page 402

As such, the Naturalization Acts were never intended to apply to native born children of aliens.

Puzo1 said...

Attichus finch at 8:27 a.m.,

Chief Justice Marshall’s dissent in The Venus had nothing to do with the way the Court defined U.S. citizenship, which is the first issue any prize court had to resolve and therefore central to the Court's holding. It only had to do with whether the captured ship, sailing from Liverpool to New York before the outbreak of the War of 1812, could be condemned as lawful prize, i.e., whether the owner of the ship lost his ship and goods. The majority said he should and Marshall said he should not. It is misleading for you to even make any such suggestion.

Your statement that Marshall’s definition of “natives or indigenes” (Vattel in French wrote “Les naturels, ou indigenes”) was only in the concurring opinion and of no influence is incorrect. Marshall cited and quoted Vattel when providing those definitions. Subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases, e.g. Inglis, Dred Scott, Minor, and Wong Kim Ark, did the same by either providing Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” without citing him or citing Vattel and his definition.

Under natural law and the law of nations, “native” and “natural born citizen” had the same meaning. Vattel in French wrote “Les naturels, ou indigenes.” The Framers chose “natural born Citizen.” You are simply wrong when you say that the fact they chose “natural born Citizen” shows they did not follow Vattel. On the contrary, the historical record shows that the Continental Congress in 1781 when translating “indigenes” translated the word to “natural born.” This 1781 translation was subsequently confirmed by the 1797 translation of the part of the relevant sentence and paragraph in Vattel's Law of Nation, Section 212 which also translated the word “indigenes” into “natural-born citizens.” See http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/10/absoloute-proof-founding-fathers-knew.html.

Puzo1 said...

Another expert speaks out on the April 27, 2011 internet image of the Obama alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. See http://thepoliticalsandbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/flat-scan.html and http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=314717. Gary Poyssick, an Adobe software expert, while not going as far as to declare the document a forgery, makes the following conclusions.

1. The image is assembled in layers which contain suspicious “Clipping Masks” which he says should not be found in a normal scan of a document.

2. The scanned birth certificate does not contain a background which would be consistent with scanning it. Scanners contain a white plastic that is glued to the underside of the cover of the scanner and which is placed upon the document that rest on the glass surface when the cover is closed. That white plastic background creates a certain image on the scanned document. The Obama birth certificate image does not contain any such image which one would expect to be there. Rather, it contains a background of security paper which paper would have to be placed underneath the actual scanned document as it rests on the scanner glass. The way all the images line up perfectly, it is virtually impossible for someone to line up two papers documents to such perfection so that such a perfectly aligned image is produced.

3. The resolution of the surrounding pattern is different than the ledger paper on the long-form birth certificate.

4. The image contains letters which could have been made with either a computer or a typewriter. The way some letters appear in the document shows that some of the letters were processed differently.

5. The birth certificate image shows evidence of kerning. Mr. Poyssick would like to see either another document without kerning or that the typewriter used to fill in the long-form birth certificate in 1961 actually had the capability to do kerning. He does state that old typewriter were not able to do kerning.

Mr. Poyssick is not willing to say that the Obama birth certificate image is a forgery. He does say that it is the product of “a document that was, in fact, merged from several originals.” Hence, he sure gives us enough information to doubt that it is authentic. Again, where is Congress and the FBI to do an appropriate investigation and to report to the American people their findings?

Puzo1 said...

Attichus finch at 6/24/11 at 8:38 a.m.,

You claim that the Founders and Framers were not influenced by natural law because natural law advocated slavery and denied women equal rights. You also state:

“There is a reason why our legal system is referred to as Anglo-American jurisprudence instead of Roman-American jurisprudence or Franco-American jurisprudence. Since the founding of our nation, courts have acknowledged our common law heritage that is rooted in the English common law.”

And may I ask from where did slavery originate and have support in the English colonies? Let me help:

“The first slaves used by Europeans in what later became United States territory were among Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón's colonization attempt of North Carolina in 1526. The attempt was a failure, lasting only one year; the slaves revolted and fled into the wilderness to live among the Cofitachiqui people.

The first historically significant slave in what would become the United States was Estevanico, a Moroccan slave and member of the Narváez expedition in 1528 and acted as a guide on Fray Marcos de Niza's expedition to find the Seven Cities of Gold in 1539.

In 1619 twenty Africans were brought by a Dutch soldier and sold to the English colony of Jamestown, Virginia as indentured servants. It is possible that Africans were brought to Virginia prior to this, both because neither John Rolfe our source on the 1619 shipment nor any contemporary of his ever says that this was the first contingent of Africans to come to Virginia and because the 1625 Virginia census lists one black as coming on a ship that appears to only have landed people in Virginia prior to 1619. The transformation from indentured servitude to racial slavery happened gradually. It was not until 1661 that a reference to slavery entered into Virginia law, directed at Caucasian servants who ran away with a black servant. It was not until the Slave Codes of 1705 that the status of African Americans as slaves would be sealed. This status would last for another 160 years, until after the end of the American Civil War with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

Only a fraction of the enslaved Africans brought to the New World ended up in British North America-- perhaps 5%. The vast majority of slaves shipped across the Atlantic were sent to the Caribbean sugar colonies, Brazil, or Spanish America.

By the 1680s with the consolidation of England's Royal African Company, enslaved Africans were imported to English colonies in larger numbers, and the practice continued to be protected by the English Crown. Colonists began purchasing slaves in larger numbers.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#North_America (footnotes omitted).

You can also read Alexander McLeod (cited in my essay above) wherein he will tell you much about slavery in the British colonies and its connection to the British Crown. And these were the British colonies which operated under the English common law.

The English colonies and the United States after its founding continued to practice discrimination in many forms, against not only blacks but against peoples of all races, colors, sexes, and religions.

In the United States, women could not vote until the 19th Amendment.

So, according to you we had all this wonderful Anglo-Saxon law. But yet we had discrimination of all sorts, slavery, and women could not vote, to mention just a few.

My comment is not to say that these social problems did not exist among other peoples of the world. In fact, slavery has been practiced by every civilization in the world (by people of all races, colors, and religion) since time immemorial. And we have had discrimination in all its forms also worldwide and since the beginning of time (also practiced by people of all races, colors, and religions). Rather, my point is to show the absurdity of your position that the English common law was godly and morally superior to other legal systems and in how you condemn natural law.

Puzo1 said...

Dr. Conspiracy is again up to his threatening of political leaders who would dare to use their brain when it comes to Obama. It is the Obot tactic that they tag any politician who would dare question Obama's eligiblity with some sinister label. Of course, apart from the race card, their favorite label is "birther."

The Obot media has even created a litmus test for political candidates, forcing them to confess if they are "birthers." This rite of passage test for any would-be politician is almost equivalent to some religious test.

Here is Dr. Conspiracy at his disgusting game and I quote him and the Congressman:

"According to From the Trenches World Report, Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R – Va) has written a letter to a constituent that contains a very birther-friendly section. The Congressman wrote:

'As you know, President Obama recently released to the public the long-form version of his birth certificate. Since then, concerns have been raised about the validity of the birth certificate as well as the claim that the President has been using a Social Security Number previously issued to another person. These concerns have been raised with the relevant oversight committees in the Congress and if there is enough evidence and more experts reach the same conclusions then these claims will lead to an investigation.'

I would just encourage the good people of Virginia with the knowledge that they will have the opportunity to correct their electoral error next year."

Dr. Conspiracy, the Grand Exhalted Ruler of Anti-Birtherism, in grand pompous style, thinks he can tell the "good people of Virginia" how to vote on Congressman Goodlatte simply because he dare report to the public that our government might be investigating the issue of Obama's alleged frauds and elibility to be President.

Here is a little bio on Congressman Goodlatte: http://www.congress.org/bio/id/604&submit=go

thalightguy said...

Logic tells us that Obama is not eligible

The 14th Amendment of the United States does not define who a natural born citizen is

People shouldn’t construe the 14th Amendments all "persons born" as natural born citizens, logically It doesn't add up.

The 14th Amendment says:

All “persons born” (A) or “naturalized” ( B ) “in the United States” ( C ) and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” ( D ), are “citizens” ( F ).

Writing out into logic it Reads:

F = IF ( A or B = C ) And D

It is without a doubt that a naturalized citizen can never be defined as a natural born citizen.

The 14th Amendment groups all “persons born” in the same category as “naturalized” to determine one outcome, the definition of a statutory citizen.

In Conclusion, Logic does not allow for “persons born” found in the 14th Amendment to be defined as natural born citizens.



How Can a Person Born with Dual Nationality be Defined as a natural born citizen



The Founders feared “Foreign Influence” ( G ).

They knew “naturalized” ( H ) "citizens" ( F ) could have “divided allegiance” ( I ) therefore they made it a requirement that the “President” ( J ) be a “natural born” ( K ) citizen.

The U.S. State Dept. defines a person with “Dual Nationality” ( L ) as a person who has divided allegiance

G = I
I = H or L

K = F AND NOT I
J = K

This logically Concludes:

A natural born citizen is a person that is born owing sole

Allegiance to the United States.

And that Obama does not meet his job requirements and needs to submit a letter of resignation.

MichaelN said...

atticus finch said...

Prior to the enactment of the Naturalization Act of 1790 the common law rule governing children born of aliens was adopted from the English common law as enunciated by Chief Justice Coke in his opinion in the Calvin's Case in 1608.
----------------------
Atticus.

What then did Lord Coke mean when he said...

"Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation"

"that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject"

Is not Coke saying that there are two qualities essential to be NBS?

Is not Coke saying that if the parent is not a subject, then the child cannot be a subject, even if born in England?

Puzo1 said...

thatlightguy,

I totally agree with your analysis.

See my essay entitled, Obama May Be a Naturalized Born Citizen but Not a Natural Born Citizen, available on this blog at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-may-be-born-naturalized-citizen.html

Puzo1 said...

Attichus finch at 6/24/11 at 8:39 a.m.,

The Minor Court had to first determine whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen in order to decide whether she had any constitutional right to vote. The Court concluded that she was a “natural born Citizen” under the natural law, law of nations/common law definition that it gave of that term. Hence, the Court’s resolving the issue of whether she was a citizen and that she was a “natural born Citizen” was central to the Court’s overall decision. As I have stated on this blog in previous articles and comments, the Court’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” is therefore binding precedent.

Why did the Court have to first decide whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen? Mrs. Minor argued that since she was a citizen of the United States, she enjoyed the privileges and immunities of a citizen under Article IV, Section 2. She added that the right of suffrage was a privilege that belonged to the citizens. Finally, she argued that under the Fourteenth Amendment, the State of Missouri was precluded from abridging her right to vote. Hence, the Court was required to determine if Mrs. Minor was a citizen in order to address her argument that the Missouri statute and constitution that denied her the right to vote were unconstitutional. Because the Court had to decide the question of Mrs. Minor's citizenship, its ruling as to what a "natural born Citizen" is and that she was a "natural born Citizen" is not dicta but rather precedential. The Court disagreed with Mrs. Minor and ruled that voting was not a privilege or immunity granted to citizens. It said that being a citizen did not guarantee one the right to vote. Hence, it ruled that the Missouri laws which denied her the right to vote were constitutional.

atticus finch said...

The problem with Chief Justice Waite's gratuitous comment about “natural born citizenship” is that it had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the court in finding that the Privilege Clause of the 14th Amendment didn't confer the right to vote to women even if women were citizens. That is why his "natural born citizenship" comments were dicta.

If Minor's citizenship status were germane to her right to vote then Chief Justice Waite would have addressed the issue of her status as a citizen of the United States. Moreover, there was no discussion as to the citizenship status of Minor’s PARENTS. In fact, Justice Waite noted “She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” Minor v. Happperset, , 88 U.S. 162, 170 (1875)

Furthermore his comment about "doubts" of native born or natural born citizenship status of children born to other than citizen parents, he himself remarked “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [citizens children born without reference to citizenship of their parents].” Id at 168.

As such, Chief Justice Waite's gratuitous comments about natural born citizen weren't germane to his decision and in fact no subsequent courts have relied on his "comments" as law of the land in defining natural born citizen.

Twenty-three years later, in the Wong Kim Ark case, Justice Gray made a passing reference to the Minor case when he observed:

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 64, 680 (1898)

It is noted that Justice Gray mentioned that Minor being "born of citizen parents within the United States was a CITIZEN" not a NATURAL BORN CITZEN.

atticus finch said...

the thalightguy wrote:

Logic tells us that Obama is not eligible

The 14th Amendment of the United States does not define who a natural born citizen is.

. . .

In Conclusion, Logic does not allow for “persons born” found in the 14th Amendment to be defined as natural born citizens.


Response:

Natural born citizen and naturalized citizen are subset of the term citizen.

In other words, a citizen under the 14th Amendment is either born in the United States (natural born citizen) or is naturalized (naturalized citizen).

Jus Soli doctrine that citizenship follows place of birth has been the guiding principle of United States citizenship laws since the founding of this nation.

Justice Thompson in his majority opinion in Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbour, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), stated: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and IN THOSE OUF OUR OWN COUNTRY, that ALL PERSONS born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were NATURAL BORN BRITISH SUBJECTS" Id at 120 (emphasis added)

Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion the Dred Scott case noted: [W]e find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.” Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Curtis, J, dissenting)

Likewise, Justice Story in Levy v. McCartee 31 U.S. 102 (1832), observed the Jus Soli doctrine as enunciated by Lord Chief Justice Coke: "[I]f an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenæ, subjects born, because they are born within the realm. Id at 113. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99, 164(1830) (Story, J., concurring )(" Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are SUBJECTS BY BIRTH.")

Furthermore, Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927)observed:

"The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the JUS SOLI," Id at 660 (emphasis added)

Moreover, "United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

Finally, "[a]t common law and under the early judicial determinations in the United States it was established that birth in a country conferred citizenship. In re Reid, 6 F. Supp. 800, 802 (D. Or. 1934)

As such, the 14th amendment codified the Jus Soli doctrine that place of birth established
natural born citizenship.

cfkerchner said...

Atticus Finch is an Obot troll back in Mario's blog recycled tired old favorite disinformation arguments of the Obot camp. He has nothing better to do in life since spreading disinformation is his chosen career.

As to set theory we can start by defining that there are two types of Citizens as to the time they obtained it. Citizens at Birth and Citizens after Birth. All citizens made after birth are Naturalized Citizens, i.e., made citizens by man-made laws, not nature and natural law.

Of the Citizens at Birth some are made Citizens at Birth by man-made laws or constitutional amendments and thus technically they are naturalized citizens too, since they obtained it by the actions of Congress and laws and man, not by nature and natural law. The largest portion by far of Citizens at Birth are the Natural Born Citizens who obtained their citizenship via nature and natural law. See my essay on this matter at this link:

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"!
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/of-trees-and-plants-and-basic-logic_05.html

Trolls like Finch are a waste of time and energy, imo. They should be relegated to only spreading their misinformation and disinformation to their Obot blogs and sewers. His sole purpose here is to engage Mario in endless repetitious debate of long dis-proven Obot arguments. His hope is that some newbie reading Mario's blog will read his troll tripe and believe it.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Dixhistory said...

@ CDR Charles Kerchner in regards to his post on Re. The Obots absurd claim that a simple typo caused Obama to get a Connecticut SSN.

============================
Sir,

You are what the likes of John Wayne would call a straight shooter.

I like the term coward because that is what I think we have in congress. I do mean all of them. You may include the Judicial along with them as well as the electors in this past election cycle.

I hate to hear these elected people say "in a democracy like ours" because that is what they need to get their world order out in the open.

Puzo1 said...

Attichus finch, 6-26-11 7:50 a.m.,

In your comment, you conflate "natural born citizen" with "citizen of the United States." Given that the Founders and Framers, the Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court have always treated these classes of citizens separate and distinct, you cannot just simply use the words interchangeably.

Also, the 14th Amendment never established the status of "natural born Citizen." Rather, the amendment only declared a person born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction a “citizen of the United States.” That can be clearly seen by reading both the text of the Amendment and its legislative history. Both Minor v. Happersett and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark confirm this also.

After the Founding when the "first citizens" came into being, additional "citizens" could be created by birth or naturalization. But by birth was only through birth in the country to "citizen" parents. The Founders and Framers bestowed upon a child born under such birth circumstances the status of a “natural born Citizen.” With “natural born Citizen” being well-defined by natural law and the law of nations and no positive law being needed to create that status, the Framers also did not see any need to define the term in the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark is the first U.S. Supreme Court case that allowed for a born "citizen" to be created by other than birth in the U.S. to "citizen" parents. To reach that result, it could not rely upon natural law and the law of nations but rather on the English common law. Justifying its decision with the English common law, Wong Kim Ark then resorted to positive law, i.e., the 14th Amendment and its "subject to the jurisdiction" clause to declare Wong a “citizen of the United States.” It said that a child born in the U.S. to domiciled alien parents was "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and therefore a "citizen of the United States."

Hence, after Wong Kim Ark, we have:

(1) born citizens by birth alone, not needing any positive law for that status and who the Constitution and the Framers called the "natural born Citizens." These are children born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to U.S. citizen parents;

(2) born citizens created by positive law such as the 14th Amendment and Congressional Acts which the Constitution and Congressional Acts call "citizens of the United States," and which citizens, possessing at birth a foreign alienage inherited from one or both alien parents, are in effect naturalized at birth. These are children born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to one or two alien parents and children born out of the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to one or two U.S. citizen parents; and

(3) citizens so made after birth under Congressional Acts and treaties which the Constitution and Congressional Acts calls naturalized citizens. These are children born out of the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to parents both of whom are aliens and who are given that status by naturalizing after birth by satisfying the requirements of those Congressional naturalization acts or treaties.

As you can see, only No. 1 is a "natural born Citizen."

cfkerchner said...

When addressing the types of citizens and sets and subset we need to be clear as to what we are talking about and not mix and match things. There are two parameters that should be kept very clear in any discussions of Citizenship issues ... WHEN and HOW which are two different logic domains in discussions:

1. WHEN was the Citizenship obtained ... at birth or at some time after birth

2. HOW was the Citizenship obtained ... by man made laws or constitutional amendments or by nature and natural law

The Obot trolls try to mix and match those two parameters in their logic discussions in such a way to confuse people. Don't let them.

Again read and the links therein:
Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. "natural born Citizens (NBC)" are "Citizens at birth (CAB)" but not all "CAB" are "NBC"!
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/of-trees-and-plants-and-basic-logic_05.html

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

cfkerchner said...

I made a short post in my WordPress blog on the WHEN and HOW logic domains to be kept clear when discussing U.S. Citizenship issues. If you want to spread this around in other blogs to help battle the Obot disinformation and misinformation zombies and trolls, here is the link to it for your convenience:

Types of Citizens of the United States discussed as to WHEN and HOW Logic Domains | by CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/types-of-citizens-of-the-united-states-discussed-as-to-when-and-how-by-cdr-kerchner-ret/

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://protectourliberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

Puzo1 said...

WND reports that there is a new poll out. This is a WND/WENZEL poll. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.85 points.

"The poll indicated 43.5 percent of Americans believe that a Hawaii birth would make no difference in Obama's eligibility, as the Constitution requires both parents of a U.S. president to have been U.S. citizens – and Obama's father was not a citizen."

"'Even among Democrats, more than one in four – 28 percent – said they now want an inquiry, as do 43 percent of independents and 77 percent of Republicans. Interestingly, men are much more skeptical than are women about the question of eligibility – only 42 percent of men said they think Obama proved his eligibility by releasing the electronic birth certificate, compared to 59 percent of women.'"

Read more: Stunning numbers want Congress to probe Obama's eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=314585#ixzz1QQZyo0ui

By the way, the Obots blame what they call faith-based initiatives, analogizing to religion, for such support for the "birthers." They would never say that there are a great number of Americans who, based on their independent research and thinking, have come up with their own conclusions.

thalightguy said...

Re: Puzo1 said...
thatlightguy,

I totally agree with your analysis.

See my essay entitled, Obama May Be a Naturalized Born Citizen but Not a Natural Born Citizen, available on this blog at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-may-be-born-naturalized-citizen.html

June 25, 2011 9:03 PM

....................................


Mario,

I humbly request your permission to attach the link that you have provided in the above comment to any non-profit dealings that I may partake in to educate the American People about the non-eligiblity of one Barack H. Obama Usurper to the Office of the Presidency.

juniper55 said...

Regarding Obama SSN -

He should have filed tax returns since his first job in the 1970s. They would have the SSN on it.

(I have since 1979 when I turned 16)

Presuming he was an American citizen, of course!

If he was declared as a dependant on Stanley Ann's tax form, or on his grandparents' forms, then his SSN should be visible on some of them too. Especially during his college years if they wanted the deductions.

(I was NOT a dependant on my parents' forms - it messed up my chances to get Pell grants and student aid so I filed independently all the way through college)

Also, who you claimed as a dependant was more stringent back then.

THEY are all dead so can't we get a FOIA on their tax forms?

Then we can see if there was a switch somewhere.

paraleaglenm said...

This is the most significant snippet of your excellent essay:

"[T]he United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument was totally consistent with the then-existing Congressional naturalization acts. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to domiciled alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment."

Justice Gray abandoned his reasoning in Elk in order to join the 'jus soli' faction. His 'reasoning' applied the Commerce Clause to Elk being an Indian 'not taxed' in order to deconstruct any analagous comparisons to Ark.

It is a vague and twisted bit of logic, inconsistent at best, weakening the authority of stare decisis in both Elk AND Ark, in my opinion.

It is clear that Justice Gray decided to violate existing naturalization law, ignoring the plenary power of congress over such law as he admitted by citing Chirac vs Chirac.

Here is an appellate's brief from Wong Kim Ark, a very excellent read: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA

There ought to be a commission to analyze the holdings of judges who rely more on ideology than law, as described above, and remove such judges from the bench!

cfkerchner said...

New Wash Times Ad Placed by ProtectOurLiberty.org: We Have a Criminal and Forger in the White House! Why Isn’t Speaker John Boehner Investigating? – 27 Jun 2011 Wash Times National Weekly pg 5

See and Get a Copy of the Ad Here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58789325/We-Have-a-Criminal-and-Forger-in-the-White-House-20110627-issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-5

Proof that Obama Has Forged His Long Form Birth Certificate Posted on the White House Servers and Xerox Copies Given to Reporters on 27 April 2011: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58721290/Obama-Birth-Certificate-Final-Affidavit-of-Douglas-Vogt-June-24-2011-Total-of-9-items-now-listed

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

paraleaglenm said...

I found a letter from FDR describing Oliver W. Holmes as a suitable replacement for a sick Horace Gray.

The aura of AGENDA permeated his praise for Holmes, being of 'like mind' and purpose, as was Gray.

Notice how Gray set aside the naturalization act and the enumerated power of congress in order to establish jus soli as the over-riding principle of citizenship at birth.

They did this to undermine congress, the borders, and U.S. sovereignty.

Families gather to accumulate wealth and to perpetuate heritage. This is contrary to an all-powerful central government.

These were Marxists, the first wave.

Their enemies are the unhypnotized free thinkers -- Boca Verite -- striving to remain at one with Natural Law and God . . . and the Tea Party.

Notice that LexisNexis is no longer available to the common man. Their service no longer accepts credit cards for one-time payers, or individual researchers.

Nemo me impugne lacessit . . . we must gather together, and the Tea Party is the natural choice.

Mr. Apuzzo is a likely candidate on the Art. II and naturalization issue. Leo Donofrio has done much, but he is wildly errant in his appraisal of McCain's eligiblity, and other issues.

I disagree that Minor is binding, for it has not been 'followed.' If LexisNexis was still available, I'd do a $10 Shepardizing . . . Article II and the intent of the framers is sufficient definition.

Robert said...

Now that it is known that Chester Arthur was indeed a usurper, like Obama, how can we accept court decisions tainted by Horace Gray? Wouldn't his appointment and his body of work be just as invalid as Sotomayor's and Kagan's?

We do have a big mess to clean up, don't we?

Puzo1 said...

thalightguy,

You have my permission to use my essay, with attribution.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

Since Obama has had to prove that he is a "natural born Citizen," the media is so quick to make every U.S. citizen a "natural born Citizen." Here is an interesting story in which the writer, Shannon Rae Gentry, writing on naturalization, quickly declares the person a "natural-born American." Here is the story:

"One of the most memorable stories, Ted recalls, was that of a man from Virginia Beach who was born to a U.S. Army solider and an Italian mother shortly after WWII in Italy. “Although a natural-born American, his birth was never properly recorded at the U.S. Embassy in Italy, probably as a result of the post-war and occupation turmoil,” Carlsen estimates. “The family returned to the United States, and [he] lived the rest of his life thinking he was a U.S. citizen. The error was not discovered until [he] applied for his Social Security, and it was then determined that his status was one of an illegal alien. For the next two years, with the help of his congressman and a local TV station, he was administered the oath of citizenship and received his certificate on July 3, 2009 on the Garrison House lawn in Southport.”

http://www.encorepub.com/welcome/?p=7163

Harry said...

Check out Post and Email article re: standing. What does this do for us?

paraleaglenm said...

"If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father; for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character,..."

Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 242; 7 L. Ed. 666; 1830 U.S. LEXIS 537 (1830)

The elipses hide an element Obots would jump on, but the application of Sec 3 of the 1795 Act is clear.

In addition, I did a search of all SCOTUS cases following Minor vs Happersett, and only one followed it citing in regard to the fact that a 'naturalized' citizen has all rights and privileges of a 'native born' citizen, except being eligible to the presidency.

This does not mean that a new case before SCOTUS would be in error following Minor as Mr. Donofrio suggests.

Puzo1 said...

Be sure to read the new report by nationally recognized computer expert, Mara Zebest, entitled "Barack Obama: Long Form Birth Certificate." Ms. Zebest opines that the April 27, 2011 computer image of Obama's alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. She explains in full detail in her report how she reaches her conclusion. At the end of her report, she provides a brief resume on her credentials which are impressive.

The report may be read at
http://www.wnd.com/files/Obama_LFBC_Report_final_draft.pdf

Again, where is Congress and the FBI to lead an investigation on Obama's fraudulent activities. The evidence point to the inescapable conclusion that we have an impostor sitting in the Office of the President and Commander in Chief. A majority of the American people are demanding an investigation. Why does not Congress and the FBI assure the American people that they have checked out the allegations against Obama and report back to The People they are supposed to serve and protect?

4zoltan said...

Ms. Bentley is mistaken. Apparently, she does not realize that zip codes can change over time.

If we review the passport applications of Stanley Ann Dunham, we see that she used her parents Honolulu home as her mailing address. The zip code in the 1970's for her parents house was 96814. If this were entered as 06814, you get Danbury, Connecticut. Later this zip code was changed to 96826.

Ms. Daniels' response is a nonresponse, since she doesn't answer the question of whether a typo could result in a Connecticut SSN.

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

Here is what Susan Daniels says about your comment:

"The zip code coincides with him attending Punahou, which was only blocks away, when he returned from Indonesia. That zip code was 96826."

So, what evidence do you have that Obama would have used the 96814 zip code when he or whomever filled out his Social Security number application? Please provide that evidence.

cfkerchner said...

Re. The Obot trolls peddling tripe on various blogs continue to regurgitate the absurd claim that a simple typo caused Obama to get a Connecticut SSN.

Hi all,

As I read the Social Security Administration's (SSA) official response and position, they state that the 042-68-4425 SSN that Obama has been using since 1986 (upon his arrival in Chicago IL) was never issued. So if the SSA says the number is invalid and never existed how could the Obots zip code typo error explain that. Let's see what the Obot answer is to that anomaly. The Obots keep reaching for the moon to explain away all the flaws in Obama's life narrative. But put all those flaws in a pile and the evidence is overwhelming that Obama is a total fraud. There is certainly enough evidence to warrant a congressional investigation being called for by Speaker John Boehner in the house of reps. But he is a coward and won't do it because he knows the answer. Boehner would rather see the constitution and our rule of law get totally flushed down the toilet forever rather than face up to some short term pain that the country might have to deal with in investigating and removing Obama from his usurpation of office. We can survive threats of violence and even violence that might occur if Obama is investigated. We cannot survive as a nation if we lose our Constitution and the rule of law.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

4zoltan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

Ms. Daniels' own evidence is that the President received his SSN in March, 1977.

We also have Chris Stunk's FOIA lawsuit:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35161730/Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-FINAL-7-29-10

These documents contain Stanley Ann Dunham's passport applications for January, 1972 and June, 1976 and show her mailing address (her parents house) as:

1617 South Beretania,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814

We also know that when President Obama filed his Selective Service registration the address he used was;

1617 South Beretania
Honolulu, Hawaii 96826

So clearly, between June, 1976 and July, 1980 the zip code for his grandparents house changed.

Here is an explanation on zip codes:

“An important thing to keep in mind about ZIP codes is that they change over time. In some cases these changes can be quite dramatic, but more commonly they are small and subtle. When a ZIP codes changes its definition it does not change its name like a census tract. The ZIP code that was called ’63301′ in St. Charles county, Mo in 1985 has since been broken into first two and now three ZIP codes. These new codes were not called 63301.01, 63301.02 and 63301.03; they were called 63301, 63303 and 63304. So what is referred to as 63301 today represents about a third of the area that it referred to in 1985.”

http://www.oseda.missouri.edu/jgb/ZIP.resources.html

4zoltan said...

cfkerchner,

"As I read the Social Security Administration's (SSA) official response and position, they state that the 042-68-4425 SSN that Obama has been using since 1986 (upon his arrival in Chicago IL) was never issued."

Do you have a link for this official response?

I can think of several reasons why someone might get this response.

But first, I would point out that if the SSN has never been issued, then it has never been issued to someone born in 1890.

What does that say about the reliablity of the databases being used by Ms. Daniels?

cfkerchner said...

@4zoltan

Since you responded to my message addressed to Obot trolls spreading tripe, thus you are admitting that you are an Obot troll and are defending the tripe you are spreading.

Also, you are apparently conceding that Obama is and has been using the SSN 042-68-4425. You are confirming that. I am most happy to hear you admit that point. You as an Obot troll are conceding that Obama is using a Connecticut SSN and that he used it to create a back-dated and forged draft registration in the 2007/2008 time frame.

The official response from the Social Security Administration is part and parcel of Atty Orly Taitz's lawsuit filed in the DC courts against the SSA. You can find that case link on the internet many places including Atty Taitz's blog. But you already know that, don't you? You are just playing dumb or are you that uninformed?

As to what Susan Daniels reported, she obtained that from the public data bases which show the number associated with Barack Obama. Listen to her report here:
http://www.kerchner.com/audio/sdinterview.mp3

Mr/Ms/Mrs Obot troll @4zoltan, do you believe the Obama birth certificate PDF file and JPF image files show evidence of tampering and forgery?

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

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

From Susan Daniels:

"Zip codes do change and include different areas. More numbers are added as needed but zip code numbers are not dropped and I challenge the writer [4zoltan] to document anywhere that the post office says they eliminate numbers already in use.

On Ann Dunham's passport the same address in Hawaii at different times had a zip code of 96814 and 96822. When Obama allegedly applied for his Selective Service number for that address he used 96826. Let's assume that it was a typographical error when his was issued. I am attaching information about zip codes 06814, 06822 and 06826. The last two, according to the US Postal Service, never existed and 06814 is for the specific use of the military as an APO address. See attached.

I am also attaching a document directly from the Social Security Administration which I printed last month. It says that if you are twelve or older you must apply in person. Allegedly Obama got his SSN in March 1977; he was fifteen at the time and living in HI. Why would he have gone, birth certificate in hand, to CT to get his number?"

cfkerchner said...

All:

Be careful. On 27 April 2011 I checked my copy of the PDF file obtained directly from the White House servers of the PDF file using both a hexadecimal editor program which looks at the very core level coding and also with a simple basic text editor such as "WordPad" and I could find NO evidence of any readable ID header identifying the author that is visible. There could be one embedded deep in the binary code which government and law inforcement forensic examiners could access, but I could see nothing readable ID'ing an author at the hexadecimal level or with a simple text editor such as WordPad. As I said, I did this on 27 April and I repeated it today. That "Larry" fellow that did the call-in to the Peter Boyle show may not have had an original PDF file directly from the White House servers but instead had a copy that someone had "re-saved" and thus had a header added on to it along the way until it got to "Larry". Imo, either "Larry" had a corrupted file with stuff added in as a header from someone "re-saving" the PDF file or the Obots have created another strawman red-herring story and fake file to send us on a wild goose chase looking for the wrong man and making public claims that will be proved false.

Be careful on this!!!! And be sure to be always looking at a mint copy of the PDF file that was obtained DIRECTLY from the White House server and has not been "re-saved" after opening. Please give Mara Zebest, the Adobe software expert, a chance to confirm or deny this "Larry" observation reported on the Peter Boyle show. I could not see it looking at a virgin copy directly off the White House servers from back to 27 April 2011. If so, she should tell the world how she did it. I cannot find any ID header visible in the file on 27 April or now, even at the hexadecimal editor level.

As they always say verify, verify, and triple verify. The Obots have spread out on the net so much false, misleading misinformation and disinformation on purpose to mislead people, you have to triple check everything.

So be careful folks before running too far and wide with this "revelation" put out by "Larry" on the Peter Boyle show.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

Here is Susan Daniels' link to the Social Security Application (SS-5 08-2009) provided by the Social Security Administration:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ss-5.pdf

Note that it says: "NOTE: If you are age 12 or older and have never received a Social Security number, you must apply in person."

As Susan Daniels points out, Obama was 15 years old when he applied. So are we to believe that he personally went to the Connecticut Social Security Office? Or did he go to the Hawaii Social Security Office? If Connecticut issued his Social Security number, would we not expect Connecticut to want to see him and not Hawaii?

So what do you have to say about all this?

4zoltan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

"If Connecticut issued his Social Security number, would we not expect Connecticut to want to see him and not Hawaii?"

Connecticut does not issue SSN. Neither does Hawaii. Nor any other state for that matter. Here is what the SSA website says,

"Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html

SSN numbers are assigned and SSN cards are issued from Baltimore.

So young Barack Obama would have gone to the Social Security office in Honolulu, Hawaii, filled out a ss-5 card and that office would have sent it to Baltimore for processing. And card would have been issued from Baltimore.

I will respond to the rest of Ms. Daniels statements later, but wanted to present this information first.

By the way the SSA website also says this,

"Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that."

essay said...

Hello i want to say that this article is amazing, nice written and include almost all significant info. I would like to see more posts like this .

4zoltan said...

Mr Apuzzo,

From Ms. Daniels,
"On Ann Dunham's passport the same address in Hawaii at different times had a zip code of 96814 and 96822."


Unfortunately, this is not true.

Here is a timeline based on Ms. Dunham's passport applications and other sources of information.

Date zip code address

06/29/1967 96822 2234 University Ave.

10/21/1971 96814 1617 Beretania

01/14/1972 96814 1617 Beretania

06/2/1976 96814 1617 Beretania

07/1980 96826 1617 Bertania (President's SSR)

04/27/1981 none 1617 Beretania

1981/1983 96826 1617 Beretania (Columbia Student Directory)

04/27/1986 96822 1512 Spreckels St.

So the 1617 Beretania address has had two zip codes (96814 and 96826). The other two addresses University Ave and Spreckels St. had the 96822 zip code. In fact, both are still in the 96822 zip code. But for the critical time period of 1976 to 1980, there are only the two zip code possibilities.

More later.

Have a great 4th of July

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

Here is what Susan Daniels has to say about your latest comment:

"He [Obama] did not start using the CT number until the mid-80s. At that time he was already twenty-five. He did not have a Selective Service number until sometime after May 2007 (the date on the form). If he was a legal citizen, he would have been required to register in 1980 and would have committed a felony by not registering. He said in an interview that he registered right after high school in 1979. Between '75-'80 it was not mandatory to register for the draft. He subsequently changed what he said and made the year 1980. He is an unmitigated liar who can't remember what his "truth" is supposed to be."

4zoltan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

"He [Obama] did not start using the CT number until the mid-80s."

Which means he didn't buy a house or car until he was 25.

"He did not have a Selective Service number until sometime after May 2007 (the date on the form)."

Not according to WND,

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=115147

"He said in an interview that he registered right after high school in 1979."

He actually said,

"I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there.

“And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren’t engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue.” This Week with George Stephanopoulos ABC, September 7th, 2008

He registered in July, 1980 which was after he graduated from high school. That he didn't remember the exact date after 28 years is not exactly earth shattering info. I suppose, we could go back and forth over whether this is a lie or a simple misstatement.

"He is an unmitigated liar who can't remember what his "truth" is supposed to be."

Interesting statement.

Let's recap

Ms Daniels "lied" about where the SSA issued SSNs, she "lied" about 1617 Beretania having a zip code of 96822. Or did the trained, professional investigator just make some mistakes?

Puzo1 said...

Be sure to view this excellent video by ppsimmons. It explains the attempts made by Congress for amend the "natural born Citizen" clause. At the end, it also explains, despite the repeated lies put out by members of Congress, how no court has yet ruled on the merits of Obama's eligibility to be President.

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw&feature=youtu.be

Puzo1 said...

A Birther Summmit is being planned. Be sure to visit the website for all the developing details.

http://birthersummit.org/

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

Here is Susan Daniels' response to your 7/2/11, 1:55 p.m.:

"Whose the liar now? The attached shows verification from a government website that shows that Obama's date of registration for Selective Service is 9/4/80. Yes, Obama "shucked and jived" about signing up as soon as he graduated from high school in '79 and it was a lie. As a matter of fact, it was not mandatory between the years of 1975-80 to register. It '80 it became mandatory again.

And, for the edification of the uninformed zoltan, Obama has never owned a house and while he was at Occidental he drove a BMW belonging to his Pakistani friend, the one he then went to visit in 1981... Tell zoltan to show evidence Obama either owning a house or a car. And I don't mean point me to another Snopes entry. I want hard evidence like I provide.

Obama doesn't even own the "mansion" in Chicago. Tell him to read: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=289501

Why does zoltan "cherry pick" what he said to George Stephanopoulos? Stephanopoulos tells the story about how 400 people from Columbia were interviewed and and not a single person remembered Obama. And Allen Root, who was in the allegedly same class as Obama and also majored in Political Science said he didn't remember him and he knew everyone who was studying for that degree.

4zoltan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

"Obama has never owned a house"

Does their condo they purchased in 1993 qualify as a house? So maybe technically this isn't a lie by Ms. Daniels.

5450 S East View Park Unit: 5450-1Document #: 93608057
http://www.ccrd.info/CCRD/controller

"Obama doesn't even own the "mansion" in Chicago."

Apparently, Ms. Daniels is not familiar with living trusts and estate planning.

"And Allen Root, who was in the allegedly same class as Obama and also majored in Political Science said he didn't remember him and he knew everyone who was studying for that degree."

But then there is this from Jim Davidson.
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/jim-davidson-i-met-obama-at-columbia-and-told-wayne-root-about-it/

And this from Politfact.com:

"Cathie Currie, who currently teaches social psychology at Adelphi University, recalled Obama joining her group occasionally to play pick-up soccer games on the lawn outside the library. She was a graduate student at the time, and Obama was an undergrad."

"Stephanopoulos tells the story about how 400 people from Columbia were interviewed and and not a single person remembered Obama.

Another "lie" by Ms. Daniels or did she just make another mistake?

"Fox News contacted some 400 of his classmates and found no one who remembered him." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108881386721289.html

Frankly, I'm beginning to have doubts about the professional skills of Ms. Daniels.

About the only rumor missing from the "professional" investigator is the one where the President is a shape-shifting reptile.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/obamareptilianlondonbaggage15apr09.shtml

Happy 4th of July.

atticus finch said...

There is no "hybrid citizen" in that a person who is born in the United States is a "citizen" but not a "natural born citizen." In other words, stating that Obama is an United States citizen but not a natural born citizen is similar to being "partially pregnant" either he is a natural born citizen or not.

If he is not a natural born citizen because of misguided notion that he was not born under the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States phraseology due to the status of his alien father then he must be an alien.

However, numerous courts have held that native born children of alien parents come within the 14th Amendment citizenship clause. Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949) ("It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1" ;Benny v. O'Brien 32 Atl 696, 697(New Jersey 1895)("Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were 'domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power."; Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 US 454, 457 (1920)("It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN")(emphasis added); Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F. 3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999)("Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of the United States.")(emphasis added)

As such, there has not been one decision by United States courts that they have held that a native born child of an alien father or alien parents was not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" under the 14th Amendment and thus was not a United States citizen.

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch at 7-6-11 at 7:36 a.m.,

There is no "hybrid citizen." Rather, there are either "natural born Citizens" or natualized citizens. All "citizens of the United States" who are not "natural born Citizens" are naturalized citizens, either at birth or after birth.

The cases you cite define a "citizen of the United States" who is not a "natural born Citizen."

The 14th Amendment did not intend to nor did it change the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen." The Amendment provides for the status of "citizen of the United States," which can be obtained without being a "natural born Citizen."

The Mustata v. U.S. Dept. of Justice case made a passing comment as part of its facts. There was no legal analysis as to what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.

SaipanAnnie said...

4zoltan,

Regarding your comments on Mr. Obama's social security number, you stated:

"By the way the SSA website also says this,

"Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that."

This description sounds astonishingly like you wrote it.

Hmmm......

I'm curious. Was this information posted subsequent to 20 January 2009, perchance?

SaipanAnnie said...

"Hybrid citizen" - "Atticus Finch"

"Mongrel people" - Barack Obama

Interesting.


African-Americans are "sort of a mongrel people".
Statement to Barbara Walters, The View, July 2010

SaipanAnnie said...

"The Obots absurd claim that a simple typo caused Obama to get a Connecticut SSN."

Absurd indeed. Think about it. If SSA incorrectly read the zip code, the card would have been mailed to the 'wrong' zip code - and Obama would not have received it!!!!!

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

(1) Concerning your wrong zip code theory, how do you explain that the Obama Social Security number that he is using was issued to someone else rather than Obama. How does your zip code error account for that fact?

(2) As Susan Danials pointed out, if you are age 12 or older and have never received a Social Security number, you must apply in person. As Susan Daniels points out, Obama was 15 years old when he applied. So are we to believe that he personally went to the Connecticut Social Security Office? Or did he go to the Hawaii Social Security Office? If Connecticut issued his Social Security number, would we not expect Connecticut to want to see him and not Hawaii?

(3) Also, even if the Social Security Office mailed the social security card to Obama, if the Social Security Administration read the wrong zip code, how did Obama eventually get a social security card given that the Social Security Administration would have mailed the card to the Connecticut zip code rather than to the Hawaii zip code.

So what do you have to say about all this?

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

Susan Daniels cites and quotes from this source http://www.usrecordsearch.com/ssn.htm thus:

"The area numbers are assigned to geographical locations. They were originally assigned the same way that zip codes were later assigned (in particular, area numbers increase from east to west across the continental US as do the ZIP codes). Most area numbers were assigned according to state (or territorial) boundaries, although the series 700-729 was assigned to railroad workers regardless of location (this series of area numbers was discontinued in 1964 and is no longer used for new SSNs). Area numbers assigned prior to 1972 are an indication of the SSA office which originally issued the SSN. Since 1972 the area number in SSNs corresponds to the residence address given by the applicant on the application for the SSN."

We know that the social security number that Obama is using is based on a Connecticut residence or address. There is no evidence that Obama ever lived in Connecticut. I am now aware of any explanation why Obama would have used a Connecticut address when filing for his social security number. What do you have to say about this?

4zoltan said...

Mr Apuzzo,

USRECORDSSEARCH.COM?????

As opposed to the Social Security Administration's own website?

Really???

Ms. Daniels believes that USRECORDSEARCH.COM knows more about how the Social Security Administration works than the Social Security Administartion?

This is Ms. Daniels' problem, she is totally dependant on public databases, whose reliablity is questionable.

Once again here is what the Social Security administration says on its website:

"Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since."

There is also this:

"Since 1973, social security numbers have been issued by our central office. The first three (3) digits of a person's social security number are determined by the ZIP Code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number. Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by our field offices. The number merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State."

SaipanAnnie said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

No matter what 4zoltan, atticus finch, and all other identities masking *The One* post here at Bocca a la Verita, Truth is Truth.

Truth is not relative. It is not mutable. It is not a 'narrative' one creates to suit one's purposes.

Perhaps you can share with us the story of Bocca a la Verita, and why it is so sacred to you.

Thank you and God bless you for your integrity.

SaipanAnnie said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

No matter what spin 4zoltan, atticus finch, and all other identities masking *The One* post here at Bocca della Verita, Truth is Truth.

Truth is not relative. It is not mutable. It is not a 'narrative' one creates to suit one's purposes.

Perhaps you can share with us the story of Bocca della Verita, and why it is so sacred to you.

Thank you and God bless you for your integrity.

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

Here is Susan Daniels response to your post of July 17, 2011 3:14 PM:

"They [the Social Security Administration] completely rewrote many of the sections of the SSA after I started accusing him [Obama] of using a phony number. They added that crap about the zip codes. Look at the very last lines of the article. It says verified by and then list sections of the SSA that support it.

As to the zip codes. The Dunhams moved to the apartment complex on S. Bretania, Honolulu in the late 60s so Obama could go to Punahou, which was two blocks away. His grandmother was still at the complex at the time of her death, but the family moved to different apartments in the complex during that time period. At different times their address had zip codes of 968014, 96822 and 96826. In fact, on Obama's "alleged" application for Selective Service he uses the zip code 96826.

Those who know he is using a phony number are trying to say that the number was incorrectly read as 068 numbers, which is the way CT zip codes start. However, if anyone goes to google and enters 06814, 22 or 26 they will find that the last two have NEVER been used and 06814 is an APO address only.

Susan Daniels"

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan:

I see that you have avoided
my question how did Obama get his Social Security Card if as you claim the Social Security Administration entered the wrong zip code (one for Connecticut) into its data base rather than Obama's zip code which was from Hawaii.

I also asked that you provide proof of this alleged SSA error by providing a copy of Obama's original Social Security number application but you also have not done that.

A reply will be most appreciated.

4zoltan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

I'm sorry missed your post from July 15th, 2011, 6:56 P.M.

1) There is no evidence that the SSN has been assigned to anyone else. Please provide a name, address or DOB of such a person.

2) As the SSA says SSN are assigned and SSN cards are mailed from Baltimore, Maryland. The President would have handed in his SS-5 card in Honolulu, HI and the card was sent to Baltimore for processing. That is where the error in zip code could have occurred.

3) In the 1970's the US Postal Service was using Optical Character Readers that read the City, State and Zip Code on typed mailing labels. So when the SSA mailed the Social Security Card to Barack Obama the address would have read

Barack Obama
1617 Beretania Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 06814

The OCR at the Post Office would kick this out and a Post Service employee would have gone over it. The employee would look up the 1617 Beretania address and realized it was for Honolulu, HI. He would have than sent it to Hawaii.

The Post Office knows how to deal with mail that has the wrong zip code.

More to follow.

jayjay said...

zloty:

Sounds as though maye YOU should consider your own reptilian shape changing ala Randall in Monsters, Inc.

I think Susan Daniels has the better information since, after all, the obots are routine and vociferous liars as we all know ... and that starts with Mr. Big right at the top of their food chain.

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

You said:

Once again here is what the Social Security administration says on its website:

"Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since."

There is also this:

"Since 1973, social security numbers have been issued by our central office. The first three (3) digits of a person's social security number are determined by the ZIP Code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number. Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by our field offices. The number merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State."

I note that you did not provide a link to the SSA website where your alleged quote appears. Please do so now so that we can confirm the veracity of your post.

4zoltan said...

Mr Apuzzo,

First quote

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html

Second quote

http://www.ssa.gov/employer/stateweb.htm

Now Ms. Daniels claims that the Bertannia address had three zip codes (96814, 96822 and 96826). I disagree and say that based on Ms. Dunham's passport applications the address has only had two zip codes>

96814 - pre-1971 to 1980(at least)
96826 - 96826 (from at least 1980) to present.

Can Ms. Daniels provide documentation that the Bertannia address ever had a zip code of 96822?

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

Susan Daniels says:

"As of the late '60s, the Dunhams lived on S. Bretania St. in an apartment complex. Madelyn still lived there when she died. The moved several times to different apartments in that complex. Over the years they had the zip codes of 96814, 96822 and 96826. In checking with the postal service, 06822 and 06826 were NEVER used in CT and 06814 is an APO address only.

All the information from the previous owner of the number has been scrubbed. Obama "allegedly" got the number the last two weeks of March 1977 (yes I can prove it) at the age of 15 but he didn't start using it until 1986 at the age of 25. What number was he using, then, when he registered at Occidental and Columbia?

4zoltan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

The only times 96822 is associated with the President or his family is when his mother lived at the University Ave and the Spreckels St. addresses. Bretannia address has not been associated with 96822.

In July, 1980 the President registered with the draft, his SSR shows he was using the 042 XX XXXX zip code.

He attended Occidental in September, 1980. Logic (in the face of a lack of any other evidence) would suggest he used that SSN.

Since SSNs are based on the state zip code, the SSA would only need to look at the first three digits of the zip code on an ss-5 application. So if the first three digits are 068, you would get a Connecticut zip code.

Thank Ms. Daniels for pointing this out in an earlier response.

Also ask Ms Daniels what she thinks of this article:

"However, in the USA the case is somewhat different. According to Susan Daniels, of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc. in Chardon Ohio, when searching through database aggregators such as IRB, it is common to find a subject referenced with two or three Social Security Numbers (SSN). Here are some of the reasons a person may show-up with multiple SSN’s:"

"a wife’s or child’s SSN could end up with father’s name"

"a parent’s SSN could show up with a child"

"the subject bought something with someone else and the SSNs could end up with each other’s name"

"the database producer is relating several SSN’s to one address"

"an error by whoever entered the data "

"Susan Daniels of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc. (9754 Thwing Road Chardon, OH 44024, Tel.:440.286.4072) has been a Private Investigator for 15 years."

http://www.confidentialresource.com/?s=susan+daniels

So according to this Susan Daniels someone could make a mistake in entering data in the database.

Like entering a DOB as 1890?

SaipanAnnie said...

In the classic film "Miracle On 34th Street", the reality of Santa Claus was proven in court by the argument that, though no address was posted on most of the letters, all mail addressed to Santa Claus was duly delivered to him by The United States Post Office.

Thus, the judge had to rule that the man before him, claiming to be Santa Claus, was in fact, authentic.

In the case of the man who claims to be Barack Hussein Obama, the *fact* that The United States Post Office delivered to him a social security card without a proper address, proves that he too is authentic.

SaipanAnnie said...

4zoltan says:

"In July, 1980 the President registered with the draft, his SSR shows he was using the 042 XX XXXX zip code.

He attended Occidental in September, 1980. Logic (in the face of a lack of any other evidence) would suggest he used that SSN."


You're slipping, sir. Doesn't your 'narrative' state that BHO attended Occidental following his 1979 high school graduation?

But, then again, you've been slipping with dates a lot lately....

As for "a lack of any other evidence" do you really believe that all such evidence has been forever destroyed?