Saturday, July 30, 2011

Obama’s Rape of the Fourteenth Amendment—From Defining a Natural Born Citizen to Authorizing His Threatened Dictatorial Raising of the Debt Ceiling

                                                              
Obama’s Rape of the Fourteenth Amendment—From Defining a Natural Born Citizen to Authorizing His Threatened Dictatorial Raising of the Debt Ceiling

                                                       By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                              July 30, 2011

Reconstruction For putative President, Barack Obama, and his enablers, the Fourteenth Amendment is the gift that just keeps on giving. He has used it to impose legitimacy upon himself concerning the question of whether he is a “natural born Citizen.” Now we see that he may again need the Fourteenth Amendment to carry out his plans. While White House spokesman, Jay Carney, has reportedly ruled out such use, Obama may in the end seek to use it to impose a higher debt ceiling on the American people without any Congressional say.

                                                         The Natural Born Citizen Clause

We have seen the argument put forth by Obama’s camp that the Fourteenth Amendment makes him an Article II “natural born Citizen.” They maintain that the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” was confirmed or changed by the Fourteenth Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S. 649 (1898), a U.S. Supreme Court case that interpreted that amendment. They maintain that this amendment and Wong Kim Ark confirmed or established that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is based on the English common law and that it means any child born in the United States, even if born to one or two alien parents, and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They add that for children born in the United States, the citizenship of the parents is not relevant, unless the parents are ambassadors or members of invading armies. They proclaim that this territorial birthright citizenship is what a “natural born Citizen” is and that there is not need to satisfy any parental citizenship component. But the historical record and case law show that a reading of the Constitution to produce this definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not correct.

The Founders and Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other parts of the Constitution gave us both a "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen of the United States." These are separate and distinct terms which must be given a meaning of their own. For births after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible to be President. Hence, the issue with Obama is whether he is a "natural born Citizen," not a "Citizen of the United States."

The U.S. Supreme Court has always defined a "natural born Citizen," an idiom and a term of art, as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This is still the only definition of the term ever provided to us by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court has never given us any other definition. This American common law definition was confirmed in the precedential case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875), which dealt with the citizenship issue head on in order to determine whether Virginia Minor had the privilege to vote as a “citizen of the United States” under the Constitution, a privilege which she argued could not be denied to her by the State of Missouri under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court did ultimately hold that based on the history of voting in America, voting was not part of the privileges and immunities granted to citizens.  It therefore held that Minor did not have a constitutional right under the Constitution to vote and that the Missouri constitution and statute granting that right only to male citizens were not unconstitutional.  The Court did add that women probably should have the right to vote but that only Congress could rectify the matter, not the courts.  This part of the Minor case was later overruled by the Nineteenth Amendment which guaranteed women the right to vote. 

But the part of the Minor case that is more important and which still has precedential value has to do with citizenship.  Minor said:

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. at 167-68. Under Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which it borrowed from Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, at the time of birth, the child must be born in the United States to a father and mother who are both U.S. citizens either by birth or naturalization after birth. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Secs. 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”).

Also, Minor did not resolve the question of whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States.” But the Minor Court explained that it knew what a “natural-born citizen” was. The Court had no doubts about that definition. It defined the term under natural law and the law of nations as codified by Vattel in Sec. 212 of The Law of Nations. In fact, the Court took Vattel’s definition almost word for word. Including in the definition of a “natural-born citizen” a reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents, the Court clearly did not rely upon the English common law. What it did not decide and did not need to decide was the question of what is a “citizen of the United States.” Since Virginia Minor was a “native” or “natural-born citizen,” there was no need for Minor to address that issue and left it open to another day. This question of what is a “citizen of the United States” was addressed and answered in Wong Kim Ark in 1898.

A careful reading of Wong Kim Ark shows that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor that Court’s decision amended the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which the Founders and Framers relied upon when drafting that clause. Rather, the Court’s decision shows that under our Constitution, there are two different types of birthright citizenships. There is no indication in its text or in the history of its debates that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to or that it did in fact define or amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Constitution makes a distinction between an Article II "natural born" "Citizen of the United States" and a Fourteenth Amendment "born" "citizen of the United States." The Constitution provides for different birth circumstances for these two different classes of citizens upon whom it bestows birthright citizenship. These are therefore two different types of birthright citizenships.

In Article II, the Constitution demands the status of "natural born." In the Fourteenth Amendment, it demands "born" in the United States and "subject to its jurisdiction" at the time of birth. Only a child born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to citizen parents can be an Article II "natural born" "Citizen of the United States." Minor v. Happersett (1875). In contradistinction, a child born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to one or two alien parents can under the Fourteenth Amendment be a "born" "citizen of the United States." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1989).  It should be noted that Wong Kim Ark also added in its holding that the alien parents of the U.S.-born child were domiciled in the United States.  The Court felt that the fact of domicile gave the United States sufficient jurisdiction over the parents which at birth spilled over to the child. 

If Obama were born in Hawaii, a fact that he has yet to conclusively prove given the questionable authenticity of his long-form Certificate of Live Birth that he released on the internet on April 27, 2011, and if his parents are Barack H. Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham, who are reported to be his parents, he can at most be a Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) born “citizen of the United States,” but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is the constitutional standard that he must meet to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a “citizen of the United States” at the time of Obama’s birth. But his father, being born in 1934 or 1936 in what was then the British colony of Kenya, was under the British Nationality Act of 1948, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (“CUKC”). Obama himself by right of decent from his father under the same Act was also born a CUKC. Hence, because Obama was not born in the United States to United States citizen parents, he was not born under the sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Obama was not born with sole citizenship in the United States. Consequently, he was not born with unity of allegiance to and citizenship in the United States. Obama, therefore, cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

                                                                  The Debt Ceiling

Our nation is currently faced with a budgetary desperate situation. Simply put, our federal government over the last decade has spent greatly more money than it took in. Our federal government must continue its business. But it must reduce its spending and increase its revenue. Whether its spending reduction or revenue raising, both sides of the equation are tied to taxes. By reducing the mammoth size of our federal and state governments and their programs, we would be able to reduce our public expenditures and need for more tax revenues. Unfortunately, such choices probably will impact on the American way of life. An alternative that makes much more sense is to help our nation to get richer by putting into place forces which will increase the amount of money the nation makes and thereby allow the government to collect more taxes from current and new income sources without increasing taxes on any one segment of the population which in the end may just be counterproductive.

But Obama’s enablers and maybe even Obama himself want to take the fast and easy way out. Now we see Obama’s enablers and maybe even Obama himself in the future suggesting that he resort to the Fourteenth Amendment to impose his will upon the American people regarding raising their debt ceiling above the current 14 Trillion Dollars without the input or control of Congress.

In a news story entitled, Senate Quickly Kills Boehner Debt Bill, it is reported:

The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, ruled out more definitively than he had before the possibility that Mr. Obama would cite the Fourteenth Amendment to disregard the debt-limit law and order government borrowing to proceed if no deal was reached. House Democratic leaders, former President Bill Clinton and some constitutional lawyers have said that Mr. Obama should, if necessary, invoke the amendment, which holds that “the validity of the public debt ... shall not be questioned.”

“This administration does not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment gives the president the power to ignore the debt ceiling. Congress has the authorities necessary to ensure that we meet our obligations,” Mr. Carney said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/us/politics/30fiscal.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2.

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed during Reconstruction following the Civil War. Its purpose was to address the social, political, and economic problems that led up to and that resulted from that war. The debt clause was only to assure that debts incurred by the United States, including those resulting from that war, would be honored. The amendment sanctified the “public debt,” provided that it was “authorized by law.” It also made sure that neither the United States nor any State would pay any debt incurred by anyone in their effort to overthrow the government of the United States or suffered by anyone from his or her slaves being emancipated. It declared such debts, obligations, and claims illegal and void.

How would Obama expect to unilaterally raise the People’s debt ceiling without that debt being “authorized by law” (meaning Congressional approval) and consider it to be constitutionally valid under the Fourteenth Amendment? Note that the debt belongs to the People and not to their government. Only if our political and legal institutions were to again turn a blind eye to the Constitution could Obama get away with such unconstitutional behavior.

It is only expected that Obama and his handlers would again rape the Fourteenth Amendment for their purpose of maintaining political power and satisfying their self-ambitions. Here we see that he would dare override the authority and will of a co-equal branch of government, the legislature. Doing such an act would show that he has no respect for and attachment to Article I, Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Constitution, separation of powers, and the republican form of our government under which the People act through their elected representatives for the purpose of achieving the greater good.

Concerned Americans who questioned Obama’s eligibility to be President said early on that if Obama and his enablers were ready, willing, and able to turn a blind eye to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 regarding his eligibility to be President, they would do the same when it came to other important issues with which our nation may be faced in the future. Here, we again see how desperate people will get for the sake of maintaining power and showing the world that they are right.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 30, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

28 comments:

Brianroy said...

1) Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark NEVER renounced US Allegiance, nor did his parents do so for him.
2) Wong Kim Ark was maintained in a permanent US State domicile every year of his life as his primary residence from birth to age 21.
--By Contrast, Obama lost his Hawaii Citizenship, and appears to have NOT returned every year he was in Indonesia. He prevents access to the Punahou Elementary School records to ascertain this with certainty, and to prevent his disclosure as a foreign student in the school records as of 1968-1969 ff. perhaps?
Form FS-277, was signed and sworn to by Obama’s own mother before the required US Consulate, 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
that Barack lost US residency, that Barack swore allegiance and was naturalized (indefinitely) to the nation of Indonesia as of August 13, 1968. Hence, even by WKA standards @ 652-654 and 704-705, Obama FAILS to meet the WKA criterion.

-- Also by contrast, neither Obama or his legal representatives dare produce any birth (or even Social Security identity) documentation into the Court records, because they are legally fraudulent documents and claims, and the officers of the court introducing Obama’s forgeries would be subject to disbarment, fines and imprisonment.

What is of interest, and what could also overturn any WKA influence on the Natural Born Citizen debate by a future Court, if we survive as a Republic (in part by thwarting a Super Congress Politburo Oligarchy by current traitors to the US Constitution in both parties), is that WKA violated its own decision in its citing @ 668 the 1343 A.D. Statute in the Rolls of Parliament , followed by the 1350 A.D. clarification @ 668 of WKA , followed by the 1483 A.D. TWO PARENT DEFINITION OF CITIZENSHIP that by COMMON LAW, “that he who is born beyond the sea, and his father and mother are English, their issue inherit by the common law…” Cf. WKA @ 671.

Brianroy said...

In 2005, P.A. Madison posted a good article on the 14th Amendment
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
which pre-dates any Barack Obama controversy by a literal 2 years.
From his very first act as a putative Presidential Elect, Obama discarded the rule of Law and the US Constitution with the hiring of a sitting senator to the Secretary of State position, violating Article 1.6 (2nd paragraph). And prior to that, he violated US Campaign Laws by employing terrorist organizations in Gaza and the West Bank to cold call tens of millions of times to vote for Obama, and paid them off with $900,000,000. He strips the US nukes unilaterally by treaty, impedes First Amendment free speech to mention Jesus Chrrist while proselytizing Islam, and worked directly hand in glove for Communist Americans who worked with and for known agents of the KGB. If the Communist Party USA is right, that Obama is a Communist mole, then his fraud and hatred of the US Constitution in his actions to destroy it is directly linked to his being an ex-KGB asset in the US under Ayers, Palmer, Soros, Jarrett, and others, it seems to me.

SaipanAnnie said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

Perhaps 'Atticus Finch' can advise us here.

Is not the political, personal? What did Obama do, circa 2000, when faced with overwhelming credit card debt?

atticus finch said...

Brianroy wrote:

"By Contrast, Obama lost his Hawaii Citizenship, and appears to have NOT returned every year he was in Indonesia.. . .

that Barack lost US residency, that Barack swore allegiance and was naturalized (indefinitely) to the nation of Indonesia as of August 13, 1968. Hence, even by WKA standards @ 652-654 and 704-705, Obama FAILS to meet the WKA criterion."

Response:

There was no requirement for a minor who was United States citizen to return every year to United States in order for the minor to retain his or her citizenship.

The applicable statute governing immigratino and nationality when Obama was a child was Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which provided in relevant part:

section 349 (a),

“From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by — (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday:

As such, given that Obama returned to Hawaii at the age of TEN in 1971 and had continuously resided in the United States by the time he was 25 YEARS OLD then he never lost his United States citizenship.

Moreover, Obama being a minor at the time was legally incapable to renounce his United States citizenship and swore allegiance to Indonesa.

Brianroy said...

I say Atticus Finch is incorrect.
The swearing of allegiance dismisses all claims to a Natural Born Citizenship, because Obama is forced to "naturalize" before reaching adulthood, and instead, he retained a British and a Kenyan Commonwealth Citizenship until age 23, and never formally renounced foreign allegiances, including to Indonesia, before a US Consul. Hence, dump the 1952 INA defense.
Under Wong Kim Ark at the citations used, Wong Kim Ark was REQUIRED to be a STATE Citizen EVERY YEAR OF HIS LIFE from 0 to age 21 and MAINTAIN PERMANENT Residency. The argument the Obama defenders use is Wong Kim Ark to misconstrue and mislabel Obama as a Natural Born Citizen. The Justices at WKA stated that "had" WKA not kept a permanent US and State Citizenship with residency, or at any time he or his parents swore allegiance for him to another nation, that would be an IMMEDIATE disqualifier. But since these did not apply to WKA, that disqualifier was duly noted as BEING PRESENT for future cases reading their decision and intent regarding WKA.
Since Obama swore allegiance to Indonesia, was called effectually Stateless by his mother, and was adopted/naturalized as an Indonesian with the expectancy of an "INDEFINITE" Indonesian Citizenship and residency on August 13, 1968, the legal requirement of having failed the Original intent of the US Constitution to have a permanent US Soil State residency to age 21, and 14 years thereafter (or all 35 years of one's life to age 35) is clear. I have written more at length on that Original Intent in the words of the US Constitution and subsequent Amendments at: http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/02/obligatory-literal-definition-of.html And I believe if it ever gets debated at the Supreme Court level, like in Heller(2006) focusing on clarifying the Second Amendment, there will be a greater at length discussion and win for Constitutional Originalism regarding Article 2's NBC Clause and the first section of the 14th Amendment, etc.

atticus finch said...

Brianroy wrote:
"Since Obama swore allegiance to Indonesia, was called effectually Stateless by his mother, and was adopted/naturalized as an Indonesian with the expectancy of an "INDEFINITE" Indonesian Citizenship and residency on August 13, 1968, the legal requirement of having failed the Original intent of the US Constitution to have a permanent US Soil State residency to age 21, and 14 years thereafter (or all 35 years of one's life to age 35) is clear."

Response:

"Dumb the 1852 INA defense"?

Please explain how a SEVEN YEAR OLD CHIILD is "forced" to give up his United States citizenship?
Do they threaten to take away his dessert?
Do the parents have the legal power to renounce the United States citizenship of the child?
The INA Act of 1952 provided that a child who is naturalized in a foreign state has the RIGHT not to lose his or her UNITED STATES citizenship by the simple act of establishing residence in the United States prior to his or her 25 birthday.

In Obama's case, he returned to Hawaii at the AGE OF TEN and remained in Hawaii until he attended college in California and thereafter Columbia University.

As for your reading of Article II, Section 1 requiring that a Natural Born Citizen of the United States to have a permanent residence in the United States to the age of 21 and 14 years thereafter to meet the minimum age of 35 years eligibility requirement to be President is wrong.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a person running for president to have a permanent residence in the United States up to the age of 21.
What the constitution requires is that the person running for president has been a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years at anytime prior to running for the presidency.

If your reading of the Constitition was correct, then anyone who was a child of a United States citizen who served overseas in the military with his family including the child would be excluded from running for the presidency.

As for your contention that a child who is a United States citizen can simple become "stateless" by any action of his or her parent is contrary to case law on the subject in which courts have determined that parents' actions do not forfeit's a child's United States citizenship. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)(child born to nationalized citizens in the United States who subsequently returned to Sweden with child) Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952)(child born to alien Italian citizens in the United States and under Italian law the child was also a national of Italy who subsequently returned to Italy with child)

Moreover, the fact that Obama was a child who lacked the legal capacity to understand his legal rights and obligations can't be held to the same standard as an adult who would explicitly renouncement of his US citizenship. See Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)(requirement of preponderance of the evidence that person intent to renounce his citizenship), Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) (loss of citizenship required the individual's assent).

As such, no parent has the legal authority under United States laws to render his or her child who is a United States citizen "stateless".
Moreover, a child lacks the legal capacity to enter into contract to renounce his or her United States citizenship.

atticus finch said...

Brianroy wrote: "The Justices at WKA stated that "had" WKA not kept a permanent US and State Citizenship with residency, or at any time he or his parents swore allegiance for him to another nation, that would be an IMMEDIATE disqualifier. But since these did not apply to WKA, that disqualifier was duly noted as BEING PRESENT for future cases reading their decision and intent regarding WKA."

Response:

Nowhere in Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649)(1898) did the court indicate that permanent residence was a requirement to maintain United States citizen. In other words, living in another country doesn't jeopardized a person's United States citizenship.

As for the act of swearing allegiance to a foreign state by either the minor or by a minor's parents thereby revoking a minor's United States citizen, the Wong Kim Ark court observed: "Whether any act [renouncement] of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful." Wong Kim Ark at 704

In other words, the Wong Kim Ark did not address the issue of whether or not a minor or his or her parents can revoke the minor's United States citizenship but did conclude that it was "at least doubtful".

As for your argument that this "disqualifier" [not have a permanent residence in the United States as a minor and the ability of parents to swore allegiance to a foreign state on behalf of minor] has never been followed by subsequent courts. See Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)(child born to nationalized citizens in the United States who subsequently returned to Sweden with child) Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952)(child born to alien Italian citizens in the United States and under Italian law the child was also a national of Italy who subsequently returned to Italy with child)

paraleaglenm said...

Any 'deal' concerning the debt limit capping/cutting spending that does NOT comply with S&P and Moody recomendations, due to the president's refusal to sign into law anything that doesn't include increased borrowing is tantamount to forcing the U.S. into having its AAA rating reduced.

THIS IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE as it intentionally and tortiously injures U.S. citizens AND the United States economy . . . not to mention an unconstitutional 'enforcement' of the 14th Amendment's 'debt' clause.

Brianroy said...

1. In Indonesia, Soebarkah would be Barack Obama's "other name" in Indonesian culture. Soebarkah is his SNU, and shows that he was officially adopted into Indonesia to the total renunciation of all other nationalities. The SNU is NOT a nickname, but a formal full naturalization proof of the child into Indonesian nationality to the denial of all other national citizenships. Under US Law, if he naturalizes OUT to a non-Treaty non-Convention nation, he is required to naturalize back IN by the age of 21, before a US Consul, which he never did. The same actions of August 13, 1968 and vice versa, would be notified to the IRS by the Dept of State via P.L. 104-191, which is why Obama uses a stolen Social Security Number as his tax id number, because his SS # was previously flagged in late 1968, and never reissued back by a verification of his citizenship.
The use of the Stolen SS # to someone born in 1890 and the non-citizen listing per P.L. 104-191 PROVES Obama LOST his US Citizenship, sir.

2. Obama was NEVER a US Natural Born Citizen at birth or at ANY time. "...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414


“…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was ...a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.”
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

Hence, from birth Obama was NEVER a US Natural Born Citizen.

3. Not once, and NEVER, has any identity of birth or birth location proof of Obama been produced by his lawers or the DOJ to prove Barack was ever born on US Soil. Instead, in just one case, Robert Bauer (Obama Counsel / Perkins Coie) flippantly said some partisan organization vetted the fraud birth certificate, but then REFUSED to introduce it into Court Evidence under penalty of perjury and disbarment. Even under 533 US 53 (2001) @54,62 per 333 US 640 (1948) @653, Obama is incapable of introducing Court acceptable proof of a US Soil birth. Since his mother was NOT age 19 and US Statute age, the presumption is from birth, he was never US Born, and is from birth an illegal alien in the USA based on the preponderance of the data.

atticus finch said...

Brianroy wrote:"Under US Law, if he naturalizes OUT to a non-Treaty non-Convention nation, he is required to naturalize back IN by the age of 21, before a US Consul, which he never did. The same actions of August 13, 1968 and vice versa,"

Response:

Nowwhere in the applicable statute governing immigration and nationality (INA Act of 1952) was a CHILD who was a United States citizen required to "naturalize" back to the United States by the age of 21.

Moreover there is no such legal term as "non-Treaty non-Convention nation". If you read the actual statute (INA Act of 1952) no was no such language as ""non-Treaty non-Convention nation".

The problem with your idea of treating children who are United States citizens being naturalized in a foreign nation based on distinction between a "Treaty Convention" nation and a "non-Treaty non-Convention nation" is that this distinction is a violation of the equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment.

As for your argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen. I have discussed that issued numerous times and I don't need to rehash my response to that argument.

atticus finch said...

Brianroy wrote: "Obama is incapable of introducing Court acceptable proof of a US Soil birth. Since his mother was NOT age 19 and US Statute age, the presumption is from birth, he was never US Born, and is from birth an illegal alien in the USA based on the preponderance of the data."

Response:

In a court of law the moving party
(i.e. the party wishing to establish a fact) is the party who has the burden of proof showing that the fact existed.

In this case, the birthers have the burden of proof to establish the fact that Obama was not born in the United States.

Any "proof" outside the court is irrelevant and immaterial.

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

On the question of where Obama was born (the birth certificate issue), the answer to which is necessary but not sufficient to show his eligibility to be President, Obama, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5’s eligibility requirements, is constitutionally duty bound to conclusively prove where he was born, that he is at least 35 years of age, and that he has been a resident within the United States for 14 years before executive power may constitutionally vest in him under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1. This is a burden of proof that he and only he has and which he must satisfy to show that he, as the President-Elect, is “eligible to the Office of President” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and therefore is constitutionally entitled to be confirmed by Congress under the Twentieth Amendment.

The privacy game that Obama and Hawaii have played is an absolute joke and makes a mockery of our constitutional form of government and of anyone left in our nation who engages in critical thinking. Please spare us your insults.

jayjay said...

atticus finch:

You seem oblivious to the old saw "... fool's names and fool's faces are often seen in public places ..." - or perhaps you don't realize that the internet is about as public as you can get.

Even though you haven't "blessed" us with your "face" yet, we've seen far more than enough of your "name" so please now cease and desist as it is very apparent your are grossly misinformed about your hero's eligibility and more of the posters here are considerably better-versed on the matter.

Brianroy said...

Who is Atticus Finch? If we had a list of the White House's West Wing Pseudonyms, would Atticus Finch be one of them? Just asking.

Atticus hasn't bothered to address the distinction between a CITIZEN and a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, applying the term as equal to even a NATURALIZED CITIZEN in his application of argumentation. It's an old trick, but Atticus can neither answer the citizen status of Obama correctly nor cite the Law per US Supreme Court decision correctly. It is this: "The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States or the prohibition of power to the States..." is not upon me, but those seeking that power as President, or "...is upon those making the claim" 333 US 640 (1948) @ 653.

Atticus also mis-argues Wong Kim Ark in this way: WKA's guidelines are unaffected by Perkins v. Elg some 4 decades in the future, but Atticus seems to argue as to insist that the WKA Court prognosticate into the future, as if fortune-telling the WKA Court into fictitious divining knowledge it did not possess nor argue in order to shore up their Obama is or is not conclusion, it seems to me.

Notice that Atticus concurs that both Perkins v. Elg parents were US Citizens at the time of the child's US Soil birth, making that child a Natural Born Citizen by having TWO US Parents and a birth on US Soil, writing: "Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)(child born to nationalized citizens in the United States...."
--and that alien national parents had foreign national claims upon the child, even if US born, making the child absent a Natural Born Citizen claim, and incorrectly equating a sole US allegiance at birth Presidential qualification with aliens of foreign allegiances birthing a child here, giving the child CONTRARY multiple allegiances, writing: "Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133 (1952)(child born to alien Italian citizens in the United States and under Italian law the child was also a national of Italy...." The two terms "Multiple Nationality" and Sole Nationality" are NOT synonymous in regards to a NBC requirement for the US Presidency.

As I CORRECTLY wrote, therefore: "
2. Obama was NEVER a US Natural Born Citizen at birth or at ANY time. "...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414


“…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was ...a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.”
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

Hence, from birth Obama was NEVER a US Natural Born Citizen. "

Atticus and the Obama West Wing (if it so applies) now stands corrected.

bdwilcox said...

The West Wing also conveniently forgets this rather inconvenient passage from the Wong Kim Ark ruling itself: "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

To summarize, according to the Wong Kim Ark ruling:

child born on soil of country to alien = citizen

child born on soil of country to citizen = natural born citizen

James said...

Yes, I agree bdwilcox.
"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

What the court was trying to say is that WKA had the same in the way rights as a NBC. Both NBC and "Citizen at Birth" derive their citizen from the same source - birth on the soil. However, The court was careful to acknowledge WKA as a "Citizen at Birth" distinct from that of a NBC but recognized that in the way of rights in terms of citizenship that WKA could be recognized as equal to that of NBC even WKA WAS NOT a NBC.

Robert said...

Atticus Finch, Dr. Conspiracy, Fogbow, et al are all intelligent and fully informed writers. They have been engaged in this discussion for a long time. They keep up with all of the evidence, court cases, etc.

It is unreasonable to believe they do not fully understand that Mr. Obama is not and can never be a natural born citizen and that he is not eligible for the office of POTUS.

They are certainly aware that Obama has never presented clear and reliable documentation of his place of birth.

They know without a doubt that all of the birth documents released by or in behalf of Mr. Obama are certifiable forgeries.

They are fully aware of Mr. Obama's own revelations and stipulations that establish he is not eligible. They are aware of the Executive, Congressional, and Judicial cover ups.

As active as they are in the blogosphere they must also be aware of the issues surrounding Mr. Obama's fraudulent selective service registration and social security number(s).

It's simply not believable that they need any further information or discussion to know the truth.

So, the only logical conclusion is that they just aren't interested in the truth or in the security of our country as a Constitutional Republic. They're not on our side.

Their mission is to extend and confuse the discussion as long as possible. The tactic is to keep US patriots and freedom lovers engaged in fruitless endeavors as long as possible so that their (Obama's) forces can strengthen and position themselves for the final decisive attack.

It's like a side show Paris peace talks or cease fire. They are taking advantage of a patient, civil people so that their ruthless colleagues can organize, recruit and prepare for the dirty work ahead. Remember Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground are willing to accept 25 million casualties - those who won't convert to their ideology - those who seek to retain a free Constitutional Republic.

Stop feeding the pig. Don't engage in their nonsense any more. Discussions with them is a waste of time and only serves THEIR purpose.

Instead, continue to educate, recruit, organize and prepare a counter army that loves freedom and our Constitutional Republic. Concentrate especially on those in elected office, military, law enforcement and other positions of civic responsibility. Encourage active participation in these endeavors.

SaipanAnnie said...

Brianroy,

Who is Atticus Finch? If we had a list of the White House's West Wing Pseudonyms, would Atticus Finch be one of them? Just asking.

You're not asking him to be honest, are you? That's unfair. He simply doesn't know how.

cfkerchner said...

Logically, in reading that WKA decision, and using an analogy the court is saying ... a Toyota auto is as much a car as a Ford auto is a car.

It is clear that while a Toyota is a car and a Ford is a car, a Toyota is not a Ford.

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

Puzo1 said...

With all the need for loyalty and attachment to the new Constitutional Republic, all the importance of loyalty oaths and allegiance which the Founders and Framers stressed, and all their fear of foreign influence infecting the new nation, how could someone reasonably believe that the Founders and Framers would have allowed anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution to non-U.S. citizen parents (could be to British parents), causing them to be born with a foreign allegiance (could even be allegiance to Great Britain) to be eligible to be President and Commander of the Military.

Puzo1 said...

Below please find a link to the Birther Summit Registration page.

http://www.birthersummit.org/register.html

Please go to this page to register for the Birther Summit in March 2012 in Washington, DC.

Puzo1 said...

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that doctors challenging Obama care have suffered no injury and so have no standing. The case is New Jersey Physicians Inc. v. Obama, 10-cv-1489. Plaintiffs maintain the act is unconstitutional in that it goes beyond Congress’s commerce clause powers.

Here is most of the story as reported in Law.com at http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202509468238&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=New%20Jersey%20Law%20Journal&pt=New%20Jersey%20Law%20Journal%20Daily%20News%20Alert&cn=NJLJ%20Daily%20News%20Alert%3A%20August%204%2C%202011&kw=CIRCUIT%20SAYS%20%27NO%20HARM%2C%20NO%20STANDING%27%20TO%20DOCTORS%27%20CHALLENGE%20TO%20OBAMACARE&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1.

Although the primary plaintiffs were West Orange cardiologist Mario Criscito and a non-profit corporation that advocates "patient access to affordable, quality healthcare," the Court found the only allegations pertaining to an injury in fact were as to Criscito's "Patient Roe," whose sole claim was that he pays for medical care out of his own pocket.

But the court found no facts alleged to indicate that Roe is in any way presently impacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, nor that a future "concrete and particularized" injury is "imminent."

***

Under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), standing requires showing an injury in fact, a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and a showing of the likelihood that the injury would be redressed by a favorable decision.
On Wednesday, Circuit Judges Michael Chagares, Joseph Greenaway Jr. and Kent Jordan agreed with Wigenton, finding the complaint's "minimal allegations" pertaining to the plaintiffs' provision or receipt of healthcare were too sparse allow standing to be conferred.
The complaint's allegations relating to Patient Roe, in particular, are "factually barren," Chagares wrote. The only details provided were that Roe is a New Jersey resident who "chooses who and how to pay for the medical care he receives" from Criscito and others.
But Roe failed to set forth a current, actual, concrete and particularized injury caused by the individual mandate, Chagares wrote.

Roe also failed to demonstrate that a future concrete and particularized injury is imminent, such as whether he will be a non-exempt person subject to the mandate to obtain individual health insurance in 2014. "Absent more specific allegations, ... we simply cannot conclude on the record before us that there is a realistic danger or genuine probability that Roe will suffer a cognizable imminent injury resulting from the individual mandate," Chagares wrote.
The allegations concerning Criscito also fell short. He claimed the act would impact the manner in which he seeks payment for his professional services and renders treatment. But "the plaintiffs plead no facts in their complaint to buttress these arguments, and thus prove nothing more than an impermissible 'conjectural or hypothetical' injury in fact," Chagares wrote.

Finally, with respect to New Jersey Physicians, the suit alleges only that the group's "members and their patients will be directly affected by the legislation at issue ... should the [legislation] become effective."
That claim fails to establish associational standing because it demonstrates no specific allegations establishing that at least one of its members has suffered harm or would do so, Chagares said.

***

I hope that the Third Circuit will not attempt to charge plaintiffs’ counsel for the Government's legal defense costs for filing what the Court said in my case was a frivolous appeal involving standing to sue like they did to me in the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case which I also appealed to the Third Circuit and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court which denied my petition for certiorari on the question of standing.

jayjay said...

Robert:

Quite right you are ... "feeding the pig", indeed. Except that these Communist-wannabes who are as eager to destroy this country and do as much damage to it as if Obama are not merely "pigs".

They are equally as criminally guilty as is Obama since, keep in mind there is such a thing as "accessory after the fact" as seen in


“TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 3
§ 3. Accessory after the fact
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed,
receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his
apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the
fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or
(notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine
prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable
by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15
years.”


Many of those you characterize as pigs being fed are indtead actually criminals working hard to protect, defend, and support a man who has clearly committed criminal acts under our laws (as they now have) and they only think they are playing at the "game" of politics not understanding what is really at stake. Call them Flying Monkeys, pics, Obots, Afterbirthers, or any other appelation you wish - they are in fact accessories after the fact and when Obama falls they will also.

A number don't seem to realize that - or don't care. Wasting time with them is pointless as you clearly point out.

SaipanAnnie said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

How wise, your observation about The Founders' wisdom re: eligibility for The Presidency of their precious, hard-won republic.

Sophists, charlatans, and outright liars have managed to [temporarily] snake their way into positions of power in America but their days are coming to a fast close.

cpanon said...

Hi All
Dow -510, worst loosing streak since Jimmy Carter. US, as Bachman said(like Greece and actually worse if non-FASB rigged accounting is used), debt >100% of GDP, 18 weeks of new unemployed claims >400K, as the pupil was instructed according to Cloward-Priven plan. Encrute in salt, a $35,000 dinner invite. What else to you expect with a multiple, definitional, deterministic bastard.

Puzo1 said...

When it comes to foreign influence and loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States and defining a “natural born Citizen,” Obama's enablers say that, provided the child is born in the territory of the United States, it does not matter that a child’s parents at birth may be citizens of another nation. Would the Founders and Framers agree with Obama and his enablers? I do not think so.

Brianroy said...

I notice that everybody seems to have glossed over the point posted by the "To Kill a Mocking bird" pseudonym poster, Atticus Finch, who wrote on August 2, 2011:

{Quote} Any "proof" outside the court is irrelevant and immaterial. {Unquote}

Did you get that?

THAT INCLUDES ANY OBAMA CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH, LONG OR SHORT, HAWAII OFFICIAL CONFIRMED OR NOT. NO PROOF OF A US OBAMA BIRTH TO THE COURT MEANS IT IS WORTHLESS HEARSAY -- Atticus agrees.

So anytime Atticus bring up the Obama Birth Certificate, don't forget to give him his own quote back.

Somebody give me a "heh-heh-heh".

cfkerchner said...

Listen to CDR Kerchner (Ret) on the Terry Lakin Action Fund radio show via PodCast at: http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/images/stories/audio/tlafaug08.2011-16kbpsva.mp3

Donations to help CDR Kerchner's print media efforts to expose the criminal and usurper Obama can be made at:
ProtectOurLiberty.org
http://www.protectourliberty.org