Sunday, September 11, 2011

Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the Terry Lakin Action Fund Radio Hour

                         Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the Terry Lakin Action Fund Radio Hour


                                                         By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                           September 11, 2011





Please listen to David Moxley’s interview of Attorney Mario Apuzzo. Mr. Moxley’s interview was done for TLAF (Terry Lakin Action Fund) Radio Hour and pre-recorded on Friday, September 9, 2011. Attorney Apuzzo discusses Obama’s Article II eligibility, the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and the state of the political and legal battles to bring the issue of Obama’s eligibility to justice.

In the interview, Attorney Apuzzo also discusses the injustice suffered by LTC Terry Lakin, who most recently served as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the Pentagon's DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic. He was also the lead Flight Surgeon responsible for caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey's pilots and air crew. LTC Lakin was also selected for promotion to Colonel. As a commissioned officer, LTC Lakin took an officer’s oath which provides:

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331, Oath of Office.

Note that the oath refers to “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” If a sitting President is not legitimately holding the power of his office, he can be considered a “domestic” enemy. The officer’s oath is also different from an enlisted person’s oath. While enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, an officer’s oath does not include any provision to obey orders. Officers are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. Hence, the officer’s oath calls for loyalty to the Constitution and the Constitutional Republic and not to the President. Another way to look at the oath is that it calls for allegiance to a political philosophy (republican government) and not to the President or Commander in Chief.

Consequently, LTC Lakin was faced with an ethical dilemma for which there is no precedent because it concerns on one side the question of whether the President and Commander in Chief is legitimately holding the power of that office and on the other side the legal requirement that an officer obey all legal orders and follow The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Ch.47. Pursuant to his oath, LTC Lakin attempted to make sure that Obama meets the Article II eligibility requirements of the Constitution and that he is therefore not a “domestic” enemy, a matter that for LTC Lakin could have been easily resolved by Obama himself. Instead of getting the truth, he was court-martialed without being given any right to meaningful discovery, was found guilty of disobeying orders, was sentenced to 6 months in federal prison (he served 5 of those months and then got released), was caused to forfeit all pay and allowances, and was dismissed from the Military.

The show will air Monday, September 12, 2011, at 3:00PM on http://www.americaswebradio.com/.  The following is the link to the podcast which will be posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011: http://www.radiosandysprings.com/showpages/TLAF.php.

Please note that the Terry Lakin Action Fund Show is changing its name to Officer’s Oath. Dr. Terry Lakin and friends will be hosting the new show.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 11, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved



68 comments:

ZorbasLeGreque said...

Dr. Lakin is now licensed as a doctor in Colorado. He had to answer some

questions, the questionaire is published on the web.

On the question:

"Have you ever been terminated by an employer for a reason that would be

considered a violation of your profession's practice law?"

Dr. Lakin answered "No"

and on the question:

"Since you were issued a license to practice your profession in any state or

country, have you had any final criminal conviction(s) or plea arrangement(s)

resulting from the commission or alleged commission of a felony or crime of

moral turpitude in any jurisdiction?"

Dr. Lakin answered "No"

https://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/cproweb/HPPS_Profile_GUI.Print_Profile?

p_profile_id=13729&p_verification_code=414500


Dr. Lakin is not only a convicted felon but also a lier.

Puzo1 said...

ZorbasLeGreque,

You give the following questions from the Colorado’s Division of Registrations’ web site, accessed at https://www.dora.state.co.us/pls/cproweb/HPPS_Profile_GUI.Print_Profile?p_profile_id=13729&p_verification_code=414500, and say that Dr. Lakin’s "No" answers makes him a "lier" [sic]:

-"Have you ever been terminated by an employer for a reason that would be considered a violation of your profession's practice law?"

-"Since you were issued a license to practice your profession in any state or country, have you had any final criminal conviction(s) or plea arrangement(s)resulting from the commission or alleged commission of a felony or crime of moral turpitude in any jurisdiction?"

I note from your comments that you have avoided addressing the main issue in Dr. Lakin's situation, i.e., the unprecedented ethical dilemma with which he was faced.

It looks as though the Colorado Medical Board does not agree with your statement that Dr. Lakin is a liar. It even renewed his medical license on June 1, 2011, with an expiration date of April 30, 2013. Additionally, he also has an active medical license since 2006 in Maryland. I would think that both Colorado and Maryland would have taken action against him if what you said is true.

I also note that you did not take issue with his "No" answers to these question: "Have you ever had public disciplinary action taken against your license by any board or licensing agency in any state or country? No." “Have you ever entered into any agreement or stipulation to temporarily cease your practice or had a board order issued restricting or suspending your license?” “Have you ever had to involuntarily surrender your United States Drug Enforcement Agency Administration Registration?” Finally, the Colorado Division of Registrations states that it “will take action to obtain compliance with the requirements to provide accurate and timely information as required by law when information is received that indicates information required by law has not been provided or is not accurate.” You could have easily reported to us that disciplinary action has been taken against Dr. Lakin as confirmed by the Automated Licensure Information System (ALISON). You did not so report. Surely these licensing authorities are aware as you are of what happened to Dr. Lakin and have not taken issue with his answers or taken action against his license to practice medicine.

So far you have only made unfounded accusations against Dr. Lakin. Now it is time to provide evidence and legal analysis which supports what you said.

Provide what facts support your allegation that Dr. Lakin lied when he answered "No" to the quoted questions. After providing your facts, provide your legal argument which fully supports your allegation.

Your comments would also be of value to all of us if they addressed the central question of the ethical and moral dilemma with which Dr. Lakin was faced between honoring his constitutional duty to the Constitution and honoring his legal obligation to follow “constitutional” orders.

Robert said...

ZLG,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but Dr. Lakin answered the questions truthfully.

First off - actions of tyranny via an illegal kangaroo court don't count in my book.

Military courts receive their authority directly through the chain of command from the office of the President. As Mr. Obama is not a legal president, the court has no constitutional authority or "standing" to try cases. It can rely only on ignorance, cowardice, and force of tyranny. It's holdings aren't worth the paper they're written on.

2nd - the Lakin kangaroo court tried him under his military professional status, not his medical professional status.

3rd - Lakin did not commit a felony. He just upheld his oath of office. It was the court who committed treason, violated his rights and punished an honorable soldier for their invented "crime" of honoring his oath of office. "Made up" crimes aren't on the "felony" list. The only felons in this deal were the court; especially the judge. They ignored their oaths of office, the rule of law, and ignored the constitution to protect themselves and keep "embarrassing" information about our putative president from being properly disclosed and vetted.

Finally, if Lakin is a "lier", you are an "idiet".

Why else would you be so quick to defend your own demise and that of our country? Please take another look at history and see if you really want to be among the "useful idiots". They are always among the most expendable and first targeted once their "usefulness" expires. It's really amazing to see these lemmings as they are gathered and hypnotized by the same empty rhetoric of establishing the next perfect world while they are really just being used as pawns so some psycho demigod can gain power.

See: Stalin, Lennin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Chavez, Pol Pot, Mao, Marx, Il, etc. None of these guys believed for a minute or even cared that what they were promising would or could ever come true. They all had "manifestos" and other documents of grand promises. They just used those words "just words" to manipulate the ignorant masses, eliminate the opposition, and become god. Obama fits in with these guys very comfortably and has openly admired several of them. Please, get a clue!

When we get back to our Constitutional Republic and have a real President and responsible/honorable Legislative and Judicial branches, the Lakin ruling will be completely nullified along with a long list of constitutional violations, not only by Obama, but extending back many years.

Texoma said...

Mario (continuing this conversation from the previous post),

That is a very good point about Spiro Agnew’s mother, Margaret Marian Akers (maiden name). She would have lost her US citizenship by marrying Spiro’s father (Theodore) if the marriage took place before his naturalization. If this had happened, then she would have regained her US citizenship when Theodore naturalized, which we know took place before Spiro’s birth, and hence Spiro was born in the US to two US citizen parents.

I am convinced that Margaret Akers married Theodore Agnew (Anagnostopoulos, his Greek surname) after he naturalized.

According to a 1930 census, Theodore, who came to the US from Greece in 1897, naturalized in 1903. Research indicates that Margaret Akers was born about 1884, which would make her about 19 years old at the time of Theodore’s naturalization. It is very doubtful that Margaret Akers married Theodore before 1903, and this is because she was a widow when she married Theodore and had at least two children from her previous marriage. Her first marriage was to a man named William Pollard, but I could not find their marriage date nor a death date for Pollard. One of Margaret’s children with Pollard was W. Roy Pollard, an older half-brother, who Spiro grew up with in Baltimore, MD. So, if Roy Pollard was just a few years older than Spiro, then Margaret Akers probably became a widow and then married Theodore sometime in the 1910s.

Now here is an interesting question for you. Here is the scenario: Margaret Akers is a widow with two children. She marries Theodore Agnew before he naturalizes. Theodore adopts her children. She loses her US citizenship due to her marriage to a non-citizen, but would her children also lose their US citizenship? I think the answer would be “no”, as US citizen children do not lose their citizenship on account of the actions of their parents, which we know later was the opinion in the 1939 US Supreme Court case of Perkins v. Elg. What is your opinion?

atticus finch said...

LTC Lakin's challenge Obama's orders failed under the political question doctrine.

The judge in LTC Lakin's court martial did not allow the defendant to go on a fishing expedition through discovery to find out if Obama was constitutionally eligible to be president. The judge denied his request as being immaterial and irrelevant to his violation of Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) and furthermore, the judge ruled as a matter of law that the deployment order was lawful.


The court's opinion in United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) is instructive. In that case, Michael New filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court alleging that the the uniform order was unlawful and that the judge in the court martial violated his constitutional rights by not having the overnment "submit any evidence justifying the uniform order by reference to safety considerations or maneuver areas." Id. In other words, New argued that the government failed to offer evidence to show that order was justified.

New also argued that the uniform order was unlawful because it was issued pursuant to a military deployment that was itself unlawful because its violated United Nations Participation Act and because the deployment violated the Commander-in-Chief Clause, the Appointments Clause, and the Thirteenth Amendment.

The military judge at his court martial ruled that the political question doctrine applied and thereby rejected New's arguments.

The New court, affirmed the military judge's decision in relying upon the political question doctrine, by observing:

"[N]othing gives a soldier "authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience." 55 M.J. at 108 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F.1996)). Two of the canonical factors from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), "an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made," 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, and "the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question," id., are uniquely powerful when the context is a soldier's use of the "self-help remedy of disobedience." Also supporting a broader sweep to the political question doctrine in military trials is the point made by Judge Effron in his concurring opinion — that the doctrine "ensur[es] that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government" by adjudicating the legality of political decisions. Id. at 110. Thus we find no defect in the Court of Appeals' application of the political question doctrine, even though that application might be highly contestable in another context. Compare Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 24-28 (D.C.Cir.2000) (Silberman, J., concurring) (finding that no "judicially discoverable and manageable standards" exist for application of the Constitution's war powers clause or the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq.), with id. at 37-41 (Tatel, J., concurring) (concluding that such standards do exist). Given the threat to military discipline, we have no difficulty accepting the military courts' reliance on the doctrine. Id.

As such, the judge of LTC Lakin’s court martial ruled as a matter of law that the deployment orders were lawful and under the Political Question doctrine, LTC Lakin’s attempts to disprove Obama’s eligibility was immaterial and irrelevant.

ZorbasLeGreque said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

you are blowing smoke-screens. I did not talk about any of the other questions.

Dr. Lakin was asked:


"Since you were issued a license to practice your profession in any state or country, have you had any final criminal conviction(s) or plea arrangement(s)resulting from the commission or alleged commission of a felony or crime of moral turpitude in any jurisdiction?"

Dr. Lakin has a final criminal conviction for refusing to obey lawful orders and thus abandoning his battlefield patients. He himself testified under oath that he committed the crimes he was accused of. For this felony he served prison time.

Still he answered the question with "NO". That is why I call him a liar - someone who has lied.

Puzo1 said...

ZorbasLeGreque,

The issue is whether Dr. Lakin committted "a felony or crime of moral turpitude." You say that he did. I say he did not. The burden of proof is on you.

You have neither facts nor law that show you are correct. If you do, present them.

ZorbasLeGreque said...

@ Robert

we all have a right to our own opinions - but not our own facts. They are the same for everyone. And fact is the admission of Dr. Lakin to his felony and his subsequent final criminal conviction for a felony of moral turpitude - abandoning his battlefield patients.

ZorbasLeGreque said...

So, abandoning his battlefield patients is - for a military doctor - not a felony or crime of
moral turpitude?

You astonish me.

Puzo1 said...

ZorbasLeGreque,

You said:

"We all have a right to our own opinions - but not our own facts. They are the same for everyone. And fact is the admission of Dr. Lakin to his felony and his subsequent final criminal conviction for a felony of moral turpitude - abandoning his battlefield patients."

You have no evidence that Dr. Lakin admitted to or was otherwise convicted of committing any "felony" or any "crime of moral turpitude."

Even though I have asked you to provide your facts and law that you contend support your allegations, you simply continue to accuse without any such support.

Puzo1 said...

ZorbasLeGreque,

You said:

"So, abandoning his battlefield patients is - for a military doctor - not a felony or crime of
moral turpitude? You astonish me."

Again, in the legal system, we do not have license to simply make up our own definitions that may suit our own personal agendas. That is why we have a rule of law and not a rule by personal opinion.

So, if you are going to make an argument here, you have got to provide your facts and legal suppport. In default thereof, we simply have your personal opinion and nothing more.

Puzo1 said...

ZorbasLeGreque,

How we love to dramatize the injuries that our political opponents cause others in order to gain some political advantage.

You talk about "abandoning his battlefield patients."

But who abandoned those patients, putative President Obama, who is supposed to be the Commander in Chief, or Dr. Lakin? Obama knew quite well what the consequences of his actions toward LTC Lakin were going to be. Yet, he persisted in that course of conduct because he did not sense any political risk in changing that course. Then for political reasons, he later on released his alleged long-form birth certificate of which Dr. Lakin had been asking.

So, for Obama, the putative Commander in Chief of the Military, gaining some self-perceived political advantage tied to the moment in time that he would release his alleged long-form birth certificate was more important than to protect his officers such a LTC Lakin and to provide for his troops on the battle field.

jayjay said...

Mario, Robert, et al:

Seems like Zora The Geek is merely another of the Flying Monkeys trying to hop onto the website with the clear infention of an attempted impugning of Terry Lakin.

Not only does he fail miseraly in this attempt, he shows the typical Obot lack of judgement in his headlong rush to try to "help" a man who is not only a criminal but is a clear Islamic-loving person who wisshes to destroy this country and all it stands for. Zorba must be in the MSM since his intents seems identical to theirs.

I wonder why he also hates his own country so intensely and tries to attack those working to preserve it???

Maybe he's just another of the ignorant asses we've all seen repeatedly. A sad commentary on this guy as a citizen (if he is - it's hard to tell any more and certainly some of these Obots are not legally in this country which is why they try so hard to destroy it from within.

dmacleo said...

missing a movement under ucmj has no bearing or relationship to the medical board felony questions.
under us code its not a felony.

ZorbasLeGreque said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

have you any hints that President Obama even knows of Dr. Lakin ?

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

I of II

It is absurd to suggest that asking Obama to provide proof that he meets the requirements of the “natural born Citizen” clause involves going on some “fishing expedition.” Why should not LTC Lakin be allowed to discover information which could show that his decision not to follow an order was eminently reasonable? Even if not relevant on the question of guilt, it surely is relevant on the question of punishment. The use of relevant information which forms the basis of an officer’s good faith belief in his actions to lessen punishment was seen in the court martial of William Calley, who was prosecuted for the My Lai Massacre in 1968. The New York Times quoted Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway as stating that the court reduced Calley's sentence because he honestly believed that what he did was mandated by his orders. There is no legal basis for denying LTC Lakin the chance to provide information to the court showing that his belief that Obama was not legitimate under the Constitution was both proper and reasonable and therefore if not totally exonerating him of any wrongdoing then at least mitigating the degree of punishment that he received.

In our constitutional republic, civilian power trumps military power. Hence, there cannot be any legitimate military power unless there is first legitimate civilian power. Military orders have a chain of command for their source. We cannot deny that all legitimate military orders have the ultimate sanction of the Commander in Chief, whether he personally gives those orders or not. LTC Lakin would have had standing to seek a declaratory judgment on the question of whether his military orders came from a legitimately elected President and Commander in Chief. His standing arises from the fact that his failure to follow a military order could result in his eventual court martial prosecution, conviction, and punishment. Hence, how could the judge rule “as a matter of law that the deployment order was lawful” if LTC Lakin raised the issue of whether the Commander in Chief is legitimately holding his office and there had not yet been any resolution of that issue first?

Your citation of United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) is misplaced. In that case, Michael G. New, formerly a medical specialist in the United States Army, was convicted by a court-martial of violating a lawful order to add United Nations insignia — a shoulder patch and a field blue cap &#x2014 to his basic uniform. He showed up for deployment without the required U.N. materials added to his uniform an his superiors removed him from the formation. He was given a second chance to adjust his uniform accordingly and he still refused. He still refused and he was court-martialed for failure to follow a lawful order. New challenged the uniform order on various grounds, one of which was that the military show that the order was justified because only to be worn in a maneuver area or because it was necessary for safety reasons. He also argued that the Army’s participation in the U.N. mission in the Republic of Macedonia violated various constitutional and statutory laws. The military courts found him guilty. The Federal District Court in Washington dismissed New’s habeas corpus petition because of the political question doctrine. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with that court, dismissing the petition based on the political question doctrine and not reaching the question of standing.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

Unlike what happened in that case, the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President is not a political question. Rather, it is a constitutional legal question that arises under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The specific constitutional legal question is whether he is a “natural born Citizen.” As Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 163 (1803) long ago established that our judicial branch of government is duty bound to interpret the Constitution to provide meaning to its clauses and is well equipped to do so. In interpreting the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” which has a settled meaning under American common law, a court would be looking to find that well-defined legal standard, which can be found in Vattel’s Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (1758), which was confirmed in Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and would not be making or interfering with any political or military decisions made by any government agency or department. Compare Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 24-28 (D.C.Cir.2000) (Silberman, J., concurring) (finding that no "judicially discoverable and manageable standards" exist for application of the Constitution's war powers clause or the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq.), with id. at 37-41 (Tatel, J., concurring) (concluding that such standards do exist).

Unfortunately, our courts have created a virtual impossibility for their defining the “natural born Citizen” clause by injected into the mix not only the doctrines of political question and separation of powers but also an unreasonable application of the doctrine of standing. Indeed, the court warned that the political question doctrine “might be highly contestable in another context.” LTC Lakin’s case presented just that context.

Robert said...

ZBG,

"we all have a right to our own opinions - but not our own facts. They are the same for everyone."

Here's why I'm laughing at you.

III. MISSING MOVEMENT. UCMJ ART. 87.
A. Background. The offense of missing movement is a relative newcomer to military criminal law, arising from problems encountered in World War II when members of units or crews failed to show up when their units or ships departed. Article 87 was designed to cover offenses more serious than simple AWOL but less severe than desertion. United States v. Smith, 2 M.J. 566
(A.C.M.R.
1976), aff’d, 4 M.J. 210 (C.M.A. 1978) (not discussing the missing movement offense).
B.
Elements. MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 11.b.
1.
That the accused was required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft or unit;
2.
That he knew of the prospective movement of the ship, aircraft, or unit;
3.
That the accused missed the movement; and
4.
That the missed movement was either through design or neglect.

Upon further reading I discovered that depending upon the severity of the offense the maximum term of imprisonment can vary. In lesser cases in may be one year. More severe cases allow for two. Only UCMJ cases where the max imprisonment exceeds one year qualify as felonies. Apparently Lakin's alleged offense was determined to be of the lesser severity as evidenced by the States review of his records and their subsequent licensing of the good doctor.

Regarding the case itself: Whereas Col Lakin would admit to parts one thru 3, he clearly does not have to accept responsibility for item 4. In compliance with his oath of office he was compelled to secure clarity that his orders were from a legal source. Any design or neglect preventing Col Lakin from verifying his orders comes from his chain of command which extends up to Obama - putative CIC. It was clearly not Lakin's design or neglect that precluded the missing movement situation. He had served honorably before and was ready to go again once his orders were verified as legal. He was caught between the proverbial "rock and a hard place" in a liability conflict of orders and responsibilities. Lakin showed correct and professional due diligence. His chain of command let him down.

Judge Lind further violated Lakin's rights by prohibiting the discovery that would have exonerated Lakin immediately, but would have been "embarrassing" (her words) to the putative president.

For Lind to suggest that discovery would be "embarrassing" for Obama logic demands that she must have known that Obama can not show that he is legally President or Commander in Chief. We all know that he has no records to present that can establish him as a "Natural Born Citizen".

Enlighten us. Is Minor v Happersett - which set binding precedent that "NBC" is one born in the country to two citizen parents, a fact that's the same for everyone or do you apply it to everyone but Obama? I don't remember seeing an Obama exclusion mentioned in the case anywhere.

atticus finch said...

What the birthers don't understand that if a military personnel violated Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) the government's burden of proof is to prove each of the following the elements of the offense which is the following:
(a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation;
(b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and
(c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation.

As such, at Lt Col Lakin's court martial, the government needed to show only that there was in effect a certain lawful general order, that Lt Col Lakin had a duty to obey it and that Lt Col Lakin violated the order by his refusal.

If Lt Col Lakin wanted to show that the order was unlawful then he
has the burden of overcoming the presumption of lawfulness of the order. United States v. Hughely 46 M.J. 154 (1997). However, the order to deploy soldiers is a non-justiciable political question. United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95, 109. (2001). Moreover, the an accused may not excuse his disobedience of an order to proceed to foreign duty on the ground that it does not conform to his notions of legality. United States v. Johnson, 17 U.S.C.M.A 246, (1967).

Since motive is not an element of the offense under Article 92 then his beliefs about the lawfulness of the order was irrelevant on the merits. See United States v. Huet-Vaugh, 43 M.J. 105 (1995)(violation of Article 87 "missing movement")

As such, Lt Col Lakin had the burden to overcome the presumption of the lawfulness of the order he had violated; moreover, his motive or beliefs about its lawfulness is irrelevant.

atticus finch said...

The doctrine of Political Question which has its origins in the Supreme Court case in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) involves the function of the separation of powers among the judiciary, legislative and executive branches of the federal government. The key inquiry is whether the matter has" in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government. Baker at 211.
The Baker court has set forth factors indicating the existence of a political question:

“Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Baker at 217.

The issue presented in LTC Lakin’s case was whether a military court martial is the correct forum to address the qualifications of a sitting president. In other words, using the language in Baker case, is the judiciary, specifically a military court martial, the proper venue question Obama’s qualifications as president or does the Constitution provide that “issue to a coordinate political department.”

Fortunately, the Constitution does provide which branch of government has the power to evaluate the qualifications of a president through the Twelfth Amendment, the Twenty-fifth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment.
In each of these Amendments, Constitution provides congress with the power
to decide whether the President meets the qualifications to serve.

LTC Lakin through his actions by ignoring a deployment order believed that he can compel a sitting President of the United States to answer his inquiries of Obama’s qualifications of being a President.

Unfortunately for LTC Lakin, the military justice system have strictly adhered to the Political Question doctrine when military personnel have violated their deployment orders and argued that the deployment orders were unlawful. United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Judge Effron concurring opinion in United States v. New 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F 2001)is instructive in explaining why courts martial are not the proper forum to question legality of deployment orders:

“The political question doctrine serves a particularly important function in military trials by ensuring that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government. Since the days of George Washington, America has demonstrated that military professionalism is compatible with civilian control of the armed forces. With few exceptions, American military personnel have been faithful to the concept that once their advice has been tendered and considered, they are duty-bound to implement whatever policy decisions the civilian leadership may make. . . . . . There is nothing in the more than 2 centuries of our history as a Nation that suggests courts-martial should be empowered to rule on the propriety of deployment orders as a matter of either constitutional or military law. “

As such, the judge in LTC Lakin’s court marital was correct in not allowing LTC Lakin to go on a fishing expedition to obtain President’s Obama birth certificate in order for LTC to be personally satisfied that President Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.

SaipanAnnie said...

ZLG said:

have you any hints that President Obama even knows of Dr. Lakin ?

Perhaps you should ask President Obama to phone Dr. Lakin. Sincerely apologize. This would be amazing. A good first step indeed. 'Historical' in fact.

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch, 9-12-11, 7:59 a.m.,

There are several problems with your argument.

On of the elements of a violation of Article 92 is that the order must be lawful. With the chain of command comming from the Commander in Chief, any order that comes from an eligitimate Commander in Chief is not lawful.

The presumption of lawfullness is overcome when it is shown that the Commander in Chief is not legitimate.

LTC did not challenge an order to deploy which as you say is the subject of a nonjusticiable political question. Rather, he challenged whether the Commander in Chief is legitimate which as a consequence renders the deployment order unlawful. Additionally, LTC Lakin's motive or belief did not concern the order, but rather the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief.

In other words, LTC Lakin had no problem with the deployment order provided the Commander in Chief was legitimate. This is not a political question but as I said in my previous post, a constitutional legal question.

cfkerchner said...

New Wash Times Ad: Obama Using Stolen SSN and Forged Birth Certificate. Why Isn’t Speaker John Boehner Investigating? – 12 Sep 2011 Wash Times National Weekly pg 5

See and Get a Copy of the New Ad Here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/64697099/Obama-Using-Stolen-SSN-Forged-Birth-Certificate-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-12-Sep-2011-pg-5

The Obots want to talk about the side effects of Obama's usurpation of office when they should be explaining the criminal activities of the usurper-in-chief, i.e., using a SSN that was never issued to Obama amongst other federal felony high crimes. They want to change the subject away from the factual evidence of criminal activity by Obama and talk about a million other things instead. It is a favorite tactic to repetitively talk about the splinter in someone else's eye in this battle and ignore the log in Obama's. These Obots are committing misprision of a felony and some day they will be taken to task for their part in the orchestrated top down cover-up operation to protect their criminal boss who has been committing identity theft for decades.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch, 9-12-11 at 8:03 a.m.,

Your citation to and quotation of Baker does not prove your argument.

1. Defining an Article II "natural born Citizen" is committed to no other branch of our government other than the judiciary.

2. There does exist "judicially discoverable and manageable standards" for defining an Article II "natural born Citizen." I have cited and quoted the many historical and legal sources that provide us with a definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

3. Defining an Article II "natural born Citizen" does not require a policy decision involving non judicial discretion. On the contrary, it requires interpreting the Constitution which it is the courts’ duty to do.

4. A court's deciding the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" does not involve any lack of respect by the court for any other branch of government. On the contrary, the other branches of government are looking to the courts to resolve the matter.

5. There is no "unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made." Assuming that an election is a “political decision,” simply stated, the voters and the Electoral College cannot constitutionally elect and Congress cannot confirm an illegitimate president. There is no other “political decision” of which I am aware.

6. We do not have any multifarious pronouncements by various departments on the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." On the contrary, Congress has said that it is up to the courts to resolve the issue.

Conclusion: we do not have a Baker political question doctrine problem with the courts defining an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Regarding LTC Lakin, again he questioned whether the order was lawful given the Commander in Chief's failure to conclusively prove his eligibility for that office. The lawfulness of the order is a material element of an offense under Article 92. The burden of proof was on the military. That burden of proof does not disappear by the military arguing that the matter is a political question when in any case, I have shown it was not a political question.

Joe said...

Hi Mario,
Enjoyed listening to you today. I checked into the challenge period in my state, MS, but it was unclear what the procedure was without a primary.

I think the reason that the Presidency has been elevated to a Monarch stems from lawyers. Lawyers are not allowed to critisize each other and are required to take each others word as true, as if they were not human, as if they were better than the rest of us. You know the doctrine I speak of. This has been applied to everyone in our Government. Now we have a mess because no one is allowed to question them.
Even Federal Government doesn't need to answer to local government. As if they were not on the same side. ie Feds v Prince William County VA, illegal alien kills nun after being picked up numerous times and released. The county requests docs, the feds say screw you. nice world we have created.

cfkerchner said...

Proof Obama Uses Stolen Connecticut SSN – Obama 2009 IRS Tax Return | @ CDR Kerchner’s Blog

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/proof-obama-uses-stolen-connecticut-ssn-obama-2009-irs-tax-return-cdr-kerchners-blog/

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org

ZorbasLeGreque said...

SaipanAnnie said...

ZLG said:

have you any hints that President Obama even knows of Dr. Lakin ?

Perhaps you should ask President Obama to phone Dr. Lakin. Sincerely apologize. This would be amazing. A good first step indeed. 'Historical' in fact.

----------------------------------
Apologize for what exactly ?

Puzo1 said...

ZorbasLeGreque,

So, Obama does not know anything about LTC Lakin. Furthermore, Obama does not know for what he should apologize. Indeed,

“Where ignorance is bliss, / ‘Tis folly to be wise.’” –Thomas Gray, “On a Distant Prospect of Eton College.”

Carlyle said...

Orly Taitz in HI tomorrow?

Sep 14 was supposed to be the big day in which DOH was required to appear in court and "show cause" as to why they ignored Orly's subpoena. Is this still on? I can find nothing on the web dated more recent than mid August - not even on Orly's site.

What is going on?

Puzo1 said...

Dear Mr. Apuzzo,

I am unable to access my blogger account. May I trouble you to post this on my behalf? It is in response to a question by ZLG, posted at your latest blog entry.

Thank you.

Saipan Annie


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

President Obama could quite graciously state that he understands that Colonel Lakin acted, not out of malice, but out of authentic concern for his country.

And, as President of every citizen in America, Mr. Obama regrets that, in pursuit of moral conviction, Colonel Lakin and his family suffered as they did.

An invitation to Col. Lakin and his family to join in Thursday's Medal Of Honor bestowal at The White House would be magnanimous. Unprecedented!

ZorbasLeGreque said...

Saipan Annie said:
----------------------------------
President Obama could quite graciously state that he understands that Colonel Lakin acted, not out of malice, but out of authentic concern for his country.

And, as President of every citizen in America, Mr. Obama regrets that, in pursuit of moral conviction, Colonel Lakin and his family suffered as they did.

An invitation to Col. Lakin and his family to join in Thursday's Medal Of Honor bestowal at The White House would be magnanimous. Unprecedented!

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

You still have given no hint why and how President Obama should know about Dr. Lakin. He surely does not read Mr. Apuzzo´s blog.

Do you think a President of the United States is briefed about soldiers who miss movement and are subsequently court-martialed and sentenced to three months at Leavenworth ?

Puzo1 said...

ZorbasLeGreque,

We do not now if you have first hand knowledge of what Obama knew or did not know about LTC Lakin.

As far as many who have concluded that Obama is not eligible for the Office of President and Commander in Chief are concerned, Obama knew quite well what happened to LTC Lakin.

So, if Obama wants to plead ignorance of LTC Lakin's plight, he better make is plea known to the public. He himself has to make that plea rather than you for him.

Puzo1 said...

Dear Mr. Apuzzo,

Apologies for again troubling you. Please post this response to ZTG.

Thank you.

Saipan Annie

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

ZLG said:

You still have given no hint why and how President Obama should know about Dr. Lakin.


Compassion is not bound by the timing of one's awareness. Whether President Obama knew or not is immaterial. He can now be duly informed.

I sense 'The Real Barack' would want to do the right thing - and make his father proud.

cfkerchner said...

BREAKING!!! OBAMA'S SSN does not pass an E-VERIFY INVESTIGATION! - New YouTube Video by PPSimmons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3WUL4gQFHQ

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/proof-obama-uses-stolen-connecticut-ssn-obama-2009-irs-tax-return-cdr-kerchners-blog/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Help the Cause to Get the Word Out Into the Print Media. Please if you can visit my site and donate whatever you can. Thank you.
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

cfkerchner said...

All:

Several members of Terry Lakin's family wrote to Putative President Obama about Lakin's concerns and his case. Thus Obama was notified of the case via the family letters. Obama never answered them.

The Obots here want to talk about trivial points like that rather than discuss Obama's lack of natural born Citizenship status, having a forged birth certificate, using a stolen CT SSN number, and engaging in real estate transaction and tax fraud with his property in Chicago IL. The Obots will talk forever about anything and everything other than Obama's clear cut criminal activities before and after he entered the White House. It is a favorite tactics of Obots. Scroll a blog with off topic or personal arguments about things not key to the true legal identity of the usurper-in-chief, Obama. They are mental midget cut and paste experts with a top down, White House orchestrated, disinformation agenda and quite skilled and trained at mind games and disinformation and internet blog trolling, but corrupt when it comes to supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution.

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/proof-obama-uses-stolen-connecticut-ssn-obama-2009-irs-tax-return-cdr-kerchners-blog/

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org

cfkerchner said...

Obama ID theft: Attorney Orly Taitz Gets Call from Legal Counsel for Congress – She’ll be Meeting with Legal Counsel of One of the Top Committee Chairs in Congress | @ BirtherReport.com « CDR Kerchner's Blog
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/attorney-orly-taitz-gets-call-from-legal-counsel-for-congress-shell-be-meeting-with-legal-counsel-of-one-of-the-top-committee-chairs-in-congress-birtherreport-com/


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

cfkerchner said...

Team Obama Launches New "Attack Watch" Website Featuring Jerome Corsi And Again Admitting Obama Not Natural Born Citizen | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/09/team-obama-launches-new-attack-watch.html


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

Frank Davis said...

Appuzo Said: ' The Minor Court had not doubts as to who the “natural- born citizens” were. Rather, the Court said that, notwithstanding what “some authorities” contended, there were doubts that children born in the country to alien parents were even “citizens,” let alone “natural-born citizens.”

Appuzo,

(1) In the opinion, the court states that there is one class that clearly qualifies...that has never been in doubt: one born in the U.S., of citizen parents. It further states that there are other categories that MAY qualify, although there is doubt as to the one other it mentions:

"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."

Therefore, the opinion clearly states doubt as to what classes qualify overall, and as to the clear definition, but for one single class.

Note that the court references authorities above - implying therefore that those asserting that jus soli is the only thing that matters are qualified to do so.

(2) Again, the statement of the court was obiter dictum in the end, and therefore has no binding authority as the opinion states specifically states that the provision at issue was one that conferred voting rights only on "male citizens." Therefore, the question of whether one is a "natural born citizen" is not an issue important to the case there at hand, because the prohibition dealt with all citizens who were female, not any subset.

(3) Vattel did not claim that both parents needed to be citizens of the nation in question - rather, only the father:

"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."

Of course, both at the time of the drafting of the Constitution as well as when Vattel wrote, in most cases wives had the citizenship of their husbands conferred upon them.

Continued...

Frank Davis said...

...Continued

(4) The problem of making the parentage a central focus arises, of course, when we consider the children of naturalized citizens. Second-generation Americans, for instance, are raised by people who may have had very little experience with the U.S. prior to having children. In fact, most immigrants do end up keeping a firm grasp on their home nation's heritage and customs - especially in the early years of our nation.

Such individuals would be defined clearly as "natural born citizens" but would likely have been raised with divided senses of nationalities.

(5) The issue is further illuminated when you consider the situation where a child of citizen parents born in the U.S. is raised for the majority of their lives abroad. This was often the case with children of diplomats or military officials - people that we consider the best representatives of our country. But to claim somehow that a person who has spent the minority of their lives in the country that they claim to be a "natural born citizen" of has no significant chance of divided sensibilities is ignoring the influence of the world and asserting, somehow, that the parents "Americaness" will be the sole influencing factor. That seems naive.

Continued...

Frank Davis said...

...Continued

(6) Your discussion of Wong Kim Ark is superfluous in the end. The main issue was the fact that the parents were prevented from becoming citizens by the Chinese Exclusion Act. The situation at issue was whether regardless of citizenship of parents, Wong Kim Ark could claim birthright citizenship. And it was wholly based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

The question that you seem to think was open here and that Ark closed was not left open by Minor at all. First, again, the Minor dictum as it was written was not binding because it was dictum. It also did nothing to change the landscape because the only claim it asserted was that two citizens plus birth in the country equals natural born citizenship - something no one ever doubted. What was left in doubt were other classes of NATURAL BORN citizens...not "citizens."

What Ark answered was whether birthright citizenship existed, in the affirmative. This becomes important to the question of natural born citizenship because it, in essence, maintains that the U.S. government is forbidden from imputing foreign citizenship to those born within its borders (certain cases, like the children of foreign ambassadors, are exceptions because children born to ambassadors are by legal fiction technically residing in the U.S., and subject to its jurisdiction).

Therefore, despite arguments from the government that such individuals are "aliens" the Court asserts that they are citizens by their birth. They themselves would be allowed to change their citizenship, but their government cannot. Those born in the U.S. are not granted citizenship, but are already citizens and only their actions can relinquish it.

The focus therefore is not only on where the person is born, but what that person asserts. The person's parentage ends up being of no importance at all.

This is not a clear expansion in any way of what might be meant by "natural born citizen." HOWEVER, it clearly indicates that those born in the U.S. are citizens in a way that is quite different from those who seek or are naturalized. The government is PREVENTED from taking action against their citizenship because it is a natural right of their birth.

Considering that the nationality of the parents was considered unimportant, it indicates the level of importance it has in determining the makeup of our citizenship that Vattel seems to claim is so central to society.

But, considering that Vattel was European, Swiss specifically, and that the concept of "bloodlines" and the imposition of identity by family is a European notion that we as a nation ran to our "melting pot" partially to escape from...I wonder why it is that you seem so intent on latching onto one of the more unAmerican aspects of his philosophy to argue what the founders wanted for America.

Joe said...

There are only two attorneys in this country that know this issue and the volumes of information amassed about it.

Leo refuses to ever walk in a courtroom.

That leaves you Mario.

There is no way anyone can match you no matter how much they paid. We need you to file something in one of the States during the alloted challenge period (doesn't require standing) but not in the 3rd or 9th circuit appeals jurisdiction.

You are the only one who can do it. Do you realize this?

help us Mario....

ps how do we challenge a VP when they are not named until late August before the election?

Puzo1 said...

Here is a briefing from Dean Haskins on The Birther Summit in Honolulu: Day 1

"We spent a very long (and hot) day talking with many people on the island and filming several scenes with the “big check” that will be compiled into a video once we get home. There was one conversation, however, that I want to share with you tonight. We spent at least a couple hours at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children today. I got a call this morning from a reporter with the Honolulu Civil Beat who wanted to interview us, so he met us at the Medical Center. His story should run tomorrow.

After that interview, we went into the records office, and Miki asked to file a form to get her son's birth records. While she was filling out the form, I happened to overhear a woman who was sitting at a desk say something about the “race” field on a birth certificate she was preparing. I asked her if this was the office that responsible for filling out the birth certificate information for babies born there, and she said that it was.

Because she had just asked something about the “race” field on the birth certificate she was working on, I asked, “Back in 1961, would anyone have ever entered 'African' as the race of a parent?” She said, “No, back then they probably would have listed a black person's race as 'negro.'” I asked, “So, the word 'African' wouldn't have been used, because that is a nationality and not a race, right?” And she responded, “Right. Nowadays we can use 'African American' though.” To which I added, “But, the word 'African' by itself has never been used as an entry for race?” And she simply said, “No. Never.”

And there you have it . . . from the folks at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children."

bdwilcox said...

Frank (Marshall) Davis should try peddling his argument on late night TV with a free set of steak knives. Then maybe someone here might buy it.

Puzo1 said...

Frank Davis,

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, where the “natural born Citizen” clause may be found, provides for presidential and vice-presidential eligibility standards. These standards are bright line rules for qualification for constitutional offices.

Our U.S. Supreme Court has never defined an Article II “natural born Citizen” other than as a child born in the country to citizen parents. As I have shown in numerous of my essay on this blog, this definition has existed since the Founding and has been confirmed by various U.S. Supreme Court cases (including Minor v. Happersett (1875), which explained that there are two classes of “citizens,” a class simply called “citizens” and a class called “natural-born citizens” and defining a “citizen” simply as a “member[] of a nation, and nothing more” who owes allegiance to that nation and is entitled to its protection, and a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents) up to the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (which confirmed Minor’s definitions of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and expanded the class of person who fall in the “citizen” class mentioned in Minor which the Minor Court did not need to do because Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen,” and who the Wong Kim Ark Court called a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States”). To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never changed this American common law definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Expanding the class of “natural born Citizen[s]” to include those born in the United States to one or two alien parents, i.e., to include a class of persons who are not born in the country to citizen parents, would be an unprecedented expansion of the “natural born Citizen[s]” class under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which has been long historically established. To change the constitutional rules regarding qualifications for constitutional offices would require a constitutional amendment under Article V. Hence, our constitutional jurisprudence does not lend itself to expanding the definition of a “natural born Citizen” without a constitutional amendment. Since the definition of a “natural born Citizen” has been well established by our constitutional jurisprudence and would require a constitutional amendment to change, any court ruling on the merits of the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” would be bound by stare decisis and the constitution itself to conclude that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. There exist no modern sound policy reasons showing why a Court should not be bound by stare decisis on the original American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Puzo1 said...

The Birther Summit in Honolulu: Day 2

I of III

Before I share some of today's highlights, I would like to clarify something. I have become aware that one of the particularly irksome Obots reported that she called Kapiolani Medical Center to try verify my story from yesterday, and got this response: “We have no comment on this topic [the Haskins story], except to say it is not true.” First, as I believe this Obot to be of dubious character, I think it's entirely possible that she never actually made any call to anybody; however, if she did actually call and get that response, I believe it is quite revealing of the lengths to which the administration of Kapiolani Medical Center will go to cover their tracks where Obama is concerned.

As we walked into the hospital yesterday, our videographer taped our entrance, but as soon as we were in the lobby, a security guard informed us that we could not tape any more footage without the consent of the administration (which, he said, would take us more than a day to obtain). Had that not happened, we would have taped our time in the records office, and could have clearly shown the conversation that I reported (however, if we had, it is likely that the employee would not have been so forthcoming).
When one enters the records office, there is a counter that separates the waiting area from the rest of the office, and the waiting area has four chairs with an end table in the corner. The videographer and I were sitting in two of those chairs. Behind the counter, there is a desk directly ahead of anyone standing at the counter, and there are two desks to the right. There was a female employee at one of the two desks to the right, a female employee who was helping Miki Booth, and a female employee who was sitting at the desk directly behind the counter. That was the employee with whom I had the extemporaneous conversation.

We made no comments about anything to do with Obama, as Miki was merely filling out the form to receive her son's records. The conversation I had with the employee included nothing about why were here in Honolulu or anything about Obama. I simply asked the questions as I reported yesterday.

Now, if the Obot is lying about making the call, that would be understandable, and of little import, as we already know the character issues that exist with those creatures. However, if the director of ANYTHING with Kapiolani Medical Center did actually issue that statement, then the director is, for some reason (that we can probably all figure out), lying. This director would have had to have been present to be able to state that the conversation never took place; and, in addition to the three female employees who were present, there were two other people with me who witnessed the conversation. Supposedly, this director stated that the only person who would have been in the records office would have been a receptionist. That is a blatant lie, as there are three desks directly behind the counter. Why would they have two unassigned desks right behind the counter?

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of III

We know why an Obot would lie—it's in their nature to lie. But, why would a director at Kapiolani Medical Center lie? Lying about something like this (that the director could have no first hand knowledge of) certainly opens the door to speculation about any other statement Kapiolani Medical Center has issued about this, or any other matter. We'll likely be returning to Honolulu later in the year, and I personally challenge this “director” to meet with us in the room where the conversation took place, and explain why there are three occupied desks directly behind the counter, if the only person there would have been a receptionist. I also challenge this “director” to allow us to provide videotape evidence that will verify the layout of the records office, which would prove that this director's statement was a lie.

Because of our tight schedule here, I have not had an opportunity to call this “director” myself, but I think I'll do just that when I get back to the mainland. Since I was there and she wasn't, it should prove to be an interesting conversation—and I'll let you all know what is said. Actually, I can't wait to speak with her!

This lying is downright disgusting! But, where Obama is concerned, that seems to be all we ever get.

Today, we visited the Department of Health, and it turned into quite the showdown. Miki Booth did most of the talking, and I can assure you that the gentleman to whom she spoke was not happy that we were there. His name was Jesse Koike. At one point, Miki pointed out that on Obama's “long form birth certificate,” the word “THE” in Alvin T. Onaka's stamp was misspelled, and that it actually shows “TXE.” He seemed not to be aware of that, but then explained that they have THREE different “sealers,” so one of them might contain that misspelling. Later on in the conversation, Jesse explained that they have FIVE different sealers, so one of them might contain that misspelling. Hmmmm . . . is it three or five? When Miki asked to see the sealers, he conveniently declined.
Why is this important? It wouldn't surprise me to hear in the near future that the Department of Health has “discovered” that one of their sealers contains a misspelling of the word “THE” in Onaka's stamp. If they do that, you'll know why.

Eventually, a long line of people formed behind us, and they were becoming increasingly vocal about having to wait. Jesse called a supervisor, and we heard him frantically state, “We have birthers down here!” We couldn't contain our laughter at that. Of course, there wasn't anyone higher up who would speak with us, and we were told that Mr. Onaka was in Guam. One can only imagine why he was in Guam. Good luck with that one, Hawaiians.

Miki asked how she could get a copy of her son's actual long form birth certificate, and Mr. Koike informed us that the only way to do that would be to have a court order. Does anyone happen to recall a court order being part of the Obama narrative regarding how he obtained his supposed long form birth certificate from Hawaii? I didn't think so.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

III of III

Miki also asked Mr. Koike why some “long form birth certificates” contain information about the parents' birthplace, while others don't, and Jesse responded that only a “LFBC” for someone born after 1976 will contain the parents' birthplace information (I use quotation marks because Onaka conveniently changed the rules during this Obama debacle so that nobody in Hawaii can actually obtain copies of their actual LFBC—only computer abstracts that they now call a long form birth certificate). When Miki pointed out that the parental information is necessary for a passport, Jesse told her that, in those cases, people must ask the Department of Health to update their birth certificates to include that information. Miki's response to that answer was dead on. She said, “That is just lame!”
Hawaii has been a lovely place to visit, but in dealing with places like Kapiolani Medical Center and the Department of Health, it is more than apparent that they are absolutely involved in a covert operation to conceal the truth. Especially at the Department of Health, there was an almost palpable air of deception in the verbal exchange—as if someone were trying much too hard to prove his own innocence. We'll likely be back in a month or two, and we would love an opportunity to sit down with Mr. Onaka and/or Loretta Fuddy, and have an open and honest conversation about our questions; but, I'm not very hopeful that will ever happen. If they would possibly be willing to do so, they can certainly call me at 202.241.3648 to arrange it. Because of what I've personally witnessed, and what we all knew already, I'm not holding my breath.

We've been told by a number of people about the overwhelming loyal support for Obama by the residents of Honolulu, but we spoke with many individuals on the island, and while there was the occasional blind (rabid) supporter, most of the people to whom we spoke were very open to what we had to say, and were not complimentary at all about either Obama or Neil Abercrombie—it seems many of them have become aware of the fact that they are receiving a very bad deal from both of them.

On a lighter note, Miki took me to a couple notable places for me to be able to get some pictures. The first was Pearl Harbor. My late father was stationed at Hickam Air Force Base during the Korean War, and it was especially nice to visit the area for that reason. While we were at Pearl Harbor, Miki was taking some pictures of me for my wife, and a gentleman approached me and asked if his wife could take a picture of him with me. I asked why he would want a picture of me, and he said that he saw my Birther Summit T-shirt, and had read in the news that we were here. So, I posed for the picture.

(picture attached)

After Pearl Harbor, we visited a replica of a Japanese Buddhist temple. During the visit, I found out that morning doves know they can fully trust birthers, as I stretched out my hand to feed some Koi in a pond, and this guy perched there and ate every bit of the food I had my hand.

(picture attached)

Of course, Miki Booth has been invaluable on this trip, not only for her fierce spirit bent on exposing the truth, but also for her knowledge of the island where she grew up.

(picture attached)

I fly out of Honolulu Thursday at 1 pm and return home to Lynchburg, VA at 11 am Friday. I promise we will not grow weary in well doing, and thatwe have only just begun to fight to expose the truth that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president of our great nation.

Dean Haskins
Executive Director, The Birther Summit

Frank Davis said...

Appuzo,

You have, in the above established the following:

"Natural born citizen" includes, definitely, people born in the U.S. to citizen parents.

The Supreme Court's denial of certiori in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, although it does not create general precedent, not means that in Indiana the official and binding definition under the law of a "natural born citizen" is ANY citizen born in the United States, regardless of citizenship of parents. (Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”)

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Puzo1 said...

We have seen many videos and pictures about 9-11. But there is one story that definitely needs to be seen and heard. That story is knows as "Boatlift."

Please watch this video. You will see what is in people when the moment comes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDOrzF7B2Kg&feature=player_embedded

Puzo1 said...

Frank Davis,

I of II

The Framers wrote a Constitution which included presidential eligibility requirements. Why do you think that they would leave those requirements to expansion or alteration at someone's whim without constitutional amendment? On the contrary, since the "natural born Citizen" clause is part of the eligibility requirements to be President (along with 35 years of age and 14years a resident), we can reasonably conclude that the Framers wrote a bright line rule when they included the "natural born Citizen" clause. Hence, the definition of a "natural born Citizen" does not only include all those born in the U.S. to citizen parents. Being a bright line rule, it also excludes from being a "natural born Citizen" all those who are not so born.

In Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), the court conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, nowhere in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. The Founders and Framers placed their trust in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. They came to learn what natural law was from studying ancient history and its influence in the then modern world. They knew from studying this history and the great publicists, including Emer de Vattel who was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite, that natural law became the law of nations. And Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. There he said that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Indiana state court in Ankeny did not even discuss natural law and the law of nations. The court hardly knew who Emer de Vattel was. This should be an indication to anyone who has seriously studied the Obama eligibility issue of how much reliance we can place on the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.

Also, Ankeny relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and its historical sources for its decision on what a “natural born Citizen” is. They made a monumental declaration as to the meaning of the clause based solely upon a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case that did not even involve any dispute regarding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and which ironically confirmed Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” as stated by Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The court mistakenly said that Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875) “left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.” Minor did no such thing. Minor said that there are two classes of people who make up our citizens,

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

the “natural born citizens” and the “citizens.” Regarding the “natural-born citizen” class, Minor did rule concerning what a “natural-born citizen” is. It told us that there is no doubt what people belong to the “natural born Citizen” class, telling us that it is comprised of those born in the country of citizen parents. That definition is based on natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Indeed, this confirms that the Founders and Framers gave us only one citizenship definition to be used to determine eligibility to be President. Regarding the “citizen” class, Minor added that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents belonged to the “citizen” class. The Framers gave Congress the power to make future “citizens of the United States” through naturalization. Hence, the doubts have been over the definition making persons the parents of a future “natural born Citizen,” not over the definition making the child of those parents a “natural born Citizen.”

Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case, answered the question left open in Minor, which question concerned whether Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law, which historically had been used to define British nationality and not American nationality, to define a “citizen of the United States.” But Ankeny mistakenly concluded that Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. There is nothing in the Wong Kim Ark decision that suggests that the Court declared Wong Kim Ark an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happerset (1875) already had told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no doubt and if Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. government would not have argued that he was not even a “citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark never said that Minor was wrong in defining a “natural born Citizen” in the way that it did under natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law.

Finally, Ankeny is only a state decision. The “Supreme Court” to which you refer is not the United States Supreme Court. The decision is not binding on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

P.S. You continue to spell my name wrong. It is Mario Apuzzo. Please note your records accordingly.

cfkerchner said...

Breaking The System – Obama’s Strategy For Change – by David Horowitz and Liz Blaine – pub 2010
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/breaking-the-system-obamas-strategy-for-change-by-david-horowitz-pub-2010/

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

Puzo1 said...

Senator Wants Inquiry Into DOJ Civil Rights Hires
The National Law Journal

"Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said this week he wants the U.S. Department of Justice inspector general to look into the hiring practices at DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said at a hearing that he believes the Civil Rights Division has been hiring only lawyers from liberal backgrounds, at the expense of conservatives. As The National Law Journal reported in May, hires made during the Obama administration have tended to come from traditional civil rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union or the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

***

Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, told senators in written testimony this week that the division has a "steadfast commitment to the fair, vigorous and evenhanded enforcement of all of the laws within our jurisdiction."

I wonder if that includes Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

Read the full story here: http://www.lawjobs.com/newsandviews/LawArticle.jsp?hubtype=News&id=1202514610336&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=nw20110916&kw=Senator%20Wants%20Inquiry%20Into%20DOJ%20Civil%20Rights%20Hires&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

Frank Davis said...

Apuzzo, [Noted]

There are several problems with your argument:

Both Minor and Wong Kim Ark dealt with Fourteenth Amendment citizenship questions. Neither created binding precedent in any way as to natural born citizenship.

To illuminate this fact for Minor: if for some reason the Court had stated that Minor was NOT a natural born citizen (e.g., because they concluded that women were not considered natural born citizens, but only citizens and only until marriage), such a determination would not change the outcome in any way of the Minor holding.

Any statement that is a legal conclusion or that does not touch on facts before the court is dictum, and not binding. Because of the fact that had the Court come to the opposite conclusion about Minor as a natural born citizen has no effect on the courts holding that she as a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment did not have a constitutional right to vote linked to being a citizen, Minor decided nothing in a binding manner.

Where you argue that Minor did not leave the question open regarding whether someone who had one citizen parent could qualify as a natural born citizen, you make the mistake of thinking that classes that Minor did not mention were thereafter foreclosed from consideration. It's in fact the opposite: because such facts were not before it, such a determination could not be made.

Now, your criticism of Ankeny's lack of independent historical research isn't really relevant. Legislation and case law are the preferable authorities in court opinions. Resort to historical records, declarations of historical figures are less than preferable. Now that there is some case law, relying on it and the historical research within is exactly right.

So, Ankeny was correct to consider the question still open, it properly relied on Kim and other case law, and drew a reasonable legal conclusion.

As the case was, further, denied certiori without opinion...the Supreme Court saw no huge alteration in precedent, no grand expansion of the definition, etc.

Or, the question of which people born in the U.S. are "natural born citizens" is a matter of so small technical detail that to focus on it is a waste of judicial time - the most reasonable interpretation of the natural born citizen is the citizen born a citizen, and not naturalized at a later date.

cfkerchner said...

AttackWatch.net: Get the Facts. Fight the Lies! The Constitutionalists Counter-Attack, AaaahhhhhTackkkkkkWaaaatch …. the Constitutionalists Counter-Attack!

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/attackwatch-net-get-the-facts-fight-the-lies-the-constitutionalists-counter-attack/

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

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas

Puzo1 said...

Frank Davis,

You insist that Minor’s discussion and ruling on Virginia Minor’s citizenship is dicta. How do you expect to convince us of such a thing when the Court spent a great part of its decision explaining what “citizens” and “natural-born citizens” are because in applying the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2 and of the Fourteenth Amendment, it had to first determine whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen?” In other words, the Court’s decision on whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” was critical to the Court’s analysis and decision on whether she had a constitutional right to vote, notwithstanding that the Court eventually decided that voting is not a fundamental privilege and immunity belonging to citizens under the Constitution. The Court would have never reached the question of whether voting is a fundamental privilege and immunity under the original Constitution if it had first decided that Virginia Minor was not a “citizen,” for privileges and immunities under Article IV, Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment belonged only to “citizens.”

You again repeat your same argument that just because we cannot point to anything in the Minor decision that shows that the Court expressly excluded anyone from being a “natural born Citizen," therefore anyone not expressly excluded can also be included. Your argument completely misses any understanding of what a constitutional presidential eligibility requirement is. Your argument also fails to understand what a definition is. The “natural born Citizen” clause provides a bright line rule for presidential eligibility. That means that the requirement does not stay open to be expanded at will in the future at someone’s whim as you would like to do to bring Obama under the “natural born Citizen” umbrella. The “natural born Citizen” clause, like 35 years of age and 14 years a resident, is one of these bright line formulas.

Also, “natural born Citizen” has long-been defined by definition provided by the law of nations and the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no indication that the definition given, i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents, is not a finite definition which can be expanded some time in the future without constitutional amendment. Using your logic, we could never rely on any definition provided by any court as a definite and predictable meaning of anything.

You said:

“Now, your criticism of Ankeny's lack of independent historical research isn't really relevant. Legislation and case law are the preferable authorities in court opinions. Resort to historical records, declarations of historical figures are less than preferable. Now that there is some case law, relying on it and the historical research within is exactly right.

So, Ankeny was correct to consider the question still open, it properly relied on Kim and other case law, and drew a reasonable legal conclusion.”

My Response:

You say that Ankeny did not have to analyze the Founders’ and Framers’ intent for including the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution and correctly relied upon Wong Kim Ark in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.” But then you concede that Wong Kim Ark was about Fourteenth Amendment citizenship and not about the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” We also know that Ankeny did not rely upon any legislation. And you also agree that it did not rely upon any “historical records, declarations of historical figures.” So where does Ankeny find any support for its definition of a “natural born Citizen?”

Frank Davis said...

I'm repeating it mostly because the nature of Minor's discussion of the definition of natural born citizen (NBC) is essential to your use of it as limiting and stating that there is no expansion of it or consideration of the essential elements of it for the purposes of Presidential eligibility.

If Minor's statement is to be considered binding and limiting, then it must have been a part of the holding of the case.

Obiter Dictum is:

"a statement, comment, or observation in a judicial opinion that is unnecessary to the decision in the case. Unlike the holding (final determination) in a case, dictum is not binding on other courts deciding similar issues. However, sometimes dictum is so widely recognized by other courts that it is adopted into an opinion as though it were binding authority on a matter, and in such a case it is referred to as "considered dictum". Although dictum may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the binding force of a precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the remark was not part of the legal basis for the decision."

http://definitions.uslegal.co...

The question in Minor was whether suffrage was a privilege of citizens. The determination of Minor as a citizen was important in two ways. First, if she was not, then she would not have standing and there is no legal question for the Court. If she was, it is important to consider whether Minor was always a citizen, and whether women generally were always considered citizens. If women were always citizens, then, the Court needed to address whether they were denied the right to vote.

So, on dictum - Minor needed to be a citizen as considered by the Fourteenth Amendment only. Why even discuss the entire time before the Fourteenth Amendment? Primarily, the discussion was important not to whether women were citizens, but the question of whether women were citizens throughout the history of the U.S. prior to the Fourteenth Amendment was essential in determining whether the fact that they had been denied the right to vote was therefore evidence that not all citizens had the right to vote.

Showing the many ways they were considered citizens, therefore, strengthens the holding that citizens did not have the constitutional privilege to vote - it was a right that was granted in addition. The Court discussed many forms of citizens as part of this argument, of which NBC was included.

However, if women were not considered to be NBCs, that would not have changed the holding, because it mattered only if they were citizens generally. If women were determined not to be NBCs, the Court showed many other ways that they were considered historically to be citizens and therefore entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protections.

Showing after that that they did not have the right to vote showed that it was not a privilege of the Constitution (in part). Because the Fourteenth did not ADD privileges to the Constitution, this was part of the argument that it was not originally contemplated as one, and Minor was not entitled the right to vote even though she was a citizen.

The NBC discussion is dicta, then, because if Minor were not an NBC, she would still have been a citizen, and the holding was the same.

Continued...

Frank Davis said...

...Continued

IF you insist that the NBC definition is part of the holding, then it must be the case that in order to be a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, one must be a NBC as defined. It is essential only if NBC determination is part of the determination of Fourteenth Amendment citizenship.

This is not the case, since there is no need to find a person is a NBC. It was part of the general argument about what privileges citizens were granted under the Constitution.

Further, if it is part of the holding, then it must actually expand the definition of NBC in terms of eligibility for being President from what the founders likely considered or intended. If Minor was a NBC, she was qualified to be President (meeting the other two requirements aside).

This is the problem with your insistence on holding a literal concept of what the Founding Fathers understood at the time the Constitution was written.

In fact, there are several problems with thinking of this as a holding in that manner. At the time, a woman legally acquired the citizenship of her husband. If a woman were elected and then married a foreign citizen, would she be ineligible? Women also could not serve in the military - but then why would the commander in chief be a woman?

So that's the problem with your statement "The “natural born Citizen” clause provides a bright line rule for presidential eligibility. That means that the requirement does not stay open to be expanded at will in the future at someone’s whim as you would like to do to bring Obama under the “natural born Citizen” umbrella."

YES, there is a bright line - but that line is only an undefined term. We aren't CERTAIN what they meant. If Minor was a NBC, then women could always be President. I think that this is true, but it makes little sense that was what was really contemplated at the time - especially when we think of Minor as someone the Court has just ruled could not vote.

She could be President, but not vote for herself?

Let me ask you then:

Do you claim that the definition set forth in Minor for a NBC:

(1) is part of the holding or is it dictum?

(2) qualifies Minor as someone eligible to be President?

Puzo1 said...

Frank Davis,

Minor’s analyzing Virginia Minor’s citizenship status was necessary to the Court’s inquiry whether, as a citizen, she had the privilege and immunity to vote which under the Fourteenth Amendment could not be abrogated by any state. The Court’s declaring her a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen” was an essential part of the legal basis of its decision on the question of whether she had the right to vote.

It is true that for Minor to show that she was entitled to Article IV privileges and immunities and protection of those rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, she only needed to be a “citizen” and not also a “natural-born Citizen.” Without deciding what a post-Founding “citizen” was, the Court necessarily declared her a “natural-born citizen” which automatically also made her a “citizen.” The Court said that there was no doubt as to how a “natural-born citizen” was defined. The Court also said that there were doubts whether a child born in the country to alien parents was a “citizen.” The Court did not resolve these doubts because it did not have to and also because there were doubts as to the correct answer. That the status of “citizen” would have been sufficient for Minor’s purposes does cause the Court’s decision on what a “natural-born citizen” to become dicta and non-binding. The Court nevertheless felt that what it was doing was central and important to resolving the question of whether Virginia Minor could vote. It devoted a lot of attention to the question of Virginia Minor’s citizenship status. Hence, what Minor said about citizenship is central to its decision and valuable as a binding precedent on the meaning of a “natural-born citizen.”

Minor’s definition of a “natural-born Citizen” is part of the Minor holding and the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” did not come from the Fourteenth Amendment and there is no need to expand the definition to include other persons who now do not meet that definition. Minor showed that the Fourteenth Amendment is not even relevant when analyzing the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Minor explained that our nation had “citizens” and “natural-born citizens” before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. It provided a definition of a "natural born Citizen," telling us that it is found in "common-law," not the Fourteenth Amendment which had been passed in 1868. Hence, no constitutional amendment, including the Fourteenth Amendment, or U.S. Supreme Court decision (including U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), or Congressional Act (not to imply that any such Act could) ever amended or abandoned this American common law definition and it still prevails today, being confirmed by Minor and later by Wong Kim Ark.

The original “natural born Citizen” definition provides a bright line rule for eligibility. This definition still prevails today. There does not exist any sound public policy for our having to give this original definition a different meaning today, by way of constitutional amendment or judicial interpretation.

Answers to your questions:

1. Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is one of two holdings of the Court:
a. Being born in the country to citizen parents Minor, a woman, is a “natural-born citizen” and therefore also a “citizen;” b. Even though Minor was a “natural-born citizen” and therefore a “citizen” of the United States, since historically a citizen did not enjoy any privilege and immunity to vote, the State of Missouri could deny Minor the right to vote on account of being a woman.

2. Whether Minor was or was not qualified to be President in the eyes of the Minor Court does not in any way prevent her from acquiring “natural-born citizen” status just like not having the right to vote did not prevent her from acquiring that same status.

Frank Davis said...

Apuzzo,

(1) You actually must understand this. The NBC discussion is only relevant to the holding if the Court could not reach the holding without it. If the Court could have reached the decision without a particular assertion, then it is NOT part of the holding.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines a citizen as someone born in the U.S. or naturalized as a citizen. Let me ask you this: was it necessary for the court to find that Minor was a NBC in order to determine whether she was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore entitled to the privileges and immunities granted by the Constitution?

An answer of "no" means that the discussion is dictum.

If it is dictum, then Minor does not provide a controlling definition for "natural born citizen."

(2) There are two other qualifications for President: age and number or years of permanent residency.

These are clear qualifications that are not debatable. We know what 35 years old is. We know what 14 years of residency in the U.S. is.

Therefore, if the court states that Minor was a natural born citizen as defined in Article II, she MUST have been eligible even as a woman (she was born in 1824 and spent her life in the U.S.). The Court surely must have known that if they were making a BINDING statement on the Article II definition of natural born citizen in a case where they were discussing a woman who fit the other two qualifications that they were making a statement that Minor was qualified to be President.

Puzo1 said...

Frank Davis,

I of II

(1) You said: “(1) You actually must understand this. The NBC discussion is only relevant to the holding if the Court could not reach the holding without it. If the Court could have reached the decision without a particular assertion, then it is NOT part of the holding.”

This is not a correct explanation of what a holding is. A “holding” is defined as “[t]he legal principle to be drawn from the opinion (decision) of the court. Opposite of dictum (q.v.).” Black’s Law Dictionary 658 (5th ed. 1979). A holding does not disappear simply because the court could have decided the case a different way. The holding of the court is still the holding even though the court could have disposed of the case differently. What makes it a holding is that the court thoroughly and carefully analyzed whatever ground it chose to use to dispose of the case and thereby created a legal principle which can be applied to like cases in the future. That the court could have analyzed some other ground and used that ground to also resolve the case does not make the decision of the court any less the holding. With your theory of what a holding is, we could figure out other ways that a court could have decided a case and declare that these decisions do not have a holding. We would end up with cases without holdings. That is a pretty absurd result. To make the point, a court could decide the merits of a case and conclude that a plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. But upon closer analysis, we can conclude the plaintiff probably did not have standing and that it was therefore not necessary for the court to reach the merits. The fact that the court could have disposed of the case on standing does not cause the court’s decision not to be the holding of the case.

Regarding Minor, the Court had to decide whether Virginia Minor, a woman, was a “citizen” in order to determine whether as a “citizen” she enjoyed a constitutional right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV. So the Court reasoned that once she was shown to be a “citizen,” it did not matter that she was a woman, unless Missouri could still disqualify a woman from voting because being a “citizen” did not guarantee any person the right to vote. It does not matter whether the Court chose to say that Minor was a “natural born Citizen” or just a “citizen.” Either way, Virginia Minor would advance to the next step in the analysis which was whether as a “citizen” she had the right to vote which Missouri could not abrogate. The Court chose the “natural-born citizen” path. It thoroughly analyzed and considered what a “natural-born citizen” was and after saying that it is a child born in the country to citizen parents, found that Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen” and therefore also a “citizen.” After the Court told us what a “natural-born citizen” was, it then made the comment about there being doubts as to whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Court said that it was not necessary for it to decide that question and it did not because Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen” which necessarily also made her a “citizen.” So the focus of the Court’s decision regarding citizenship was in defining who the “original citizens” and the “natural-born citizens” were. The Court did not and did not have to answer the question about who was a “citizen.” We know that this latter question concerning who was a “citizen” was answered by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 which also confirmed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

So as we can see, Minor’s analysis and discussion about citizenship was central to the Court’s answering the question of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” which it answered by telling us that she was a “natural-born citizen” which automatically made her a “citizen” also. Hence, Minor’s discussion and decision on what a “natural-born citizen” is was central to the Court’s holding regarding citizenship (as I explained the other holding concerned whether voting was a privilege and immunity originally guaranteed by the constitution’s privileges and immunities clause) and not dicta.

(2) You again inject the question of whether Virginia Minor was eligible to be President and try to somehow show that for the Minor Court to declare her a “natural-born citizen,” it had to realize that by doing so it was saying that she was eligible to be President. I am sure that in your next post you are going to tell us that the Minor would never have said that women were eligible to be President so therefore it could not have meant to declare her a “natural born citizen.” You are going to add that how could Virginia Minor be eligible to be president if she did not have the right to vote?

First, Minor showed us that it did not decide whether or not Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen” by first deciding whether she could vote or not. Hence, by the same logic, it would not have decided whether or not Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen” by first deciding whether she, being a woman, was eligible to be President. In other words, the definition of a “natural-born citizen” clause is not controlled by whether someone can vote or is eligible to be President. Using your logic, neither women nor minors could have been “natural-born citizens,” for neither of them could vote (women gained the right to vote with the 19th Amendment) and children were not eligible to be President. Yet, Minor told us that our nation has always recognized both women and children, who met the definition of a “natural-born citizen” to be “natural born citizen[s].”

Second, it is absurd to maintain that because as you imply women were not eligible to be President (an assertion which as we can see below has no constitutional support), Virginia Minor was a woman, and declaring her a “natural-born citizen” would have made her constitutionally eligible to be president, the Minor Court could have declared her a “citizen” but not a “natural-born citizen.”

Third, the Constitution does not say that women are not eligible to be President. The definition for eligibility is contained in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The only definitional factors included in presidential eligibility for the post-grandfather period are that the individual must be: (1) a “person;” (2) a “natural born Citizen;” (3) at least 35 years of age; and (4) at least a 14-year resident of the United States. I am not aware of any existing impediment to a woman being able to show that she is a “person,” a “natural born Citizen, at least 35 years old, and at least a 14-year resident of the United States. That fact that she is a woman and did not have the right to vote did not disqualify her from being president under these eligibility requirements. In fact, Minor told us that Virginia Minor was both a “person,” and a “natural-born citizen.” Of course, she could also be 35 years of age and a 14-year-resident of the United States. Hence, she was also eligible to be President. See Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844) (a New York state court in dicta said that Julia Lynch (a female) was eligible to be President).

phil stone said...

Well said - it is the human problem of GREED - politicians appoint and approve justices who will bias decisions that will benefit the appointers. Look at justice Gray's decisions - we have a justice who would like to give the southwest back to Mexico - what sort of rule of law can we expect from people like this ?? My grandfether's cousin Harlan who was chief justice some 70 years ago, was very honest but had bias of his own. I have never thought that "case law" was a legitimate way to evade the laws as written - but it looks like it is being used to trash the constitution. None of the present presidential candidates have claimed to support our constitution as written or the presidential eligibility requirements and apparently do not know what they are. We need a candidate who will put eligibility at the top of the platform. old marine Phil Stone

cfkerchner said...

Barack Obama (II) born in Kenya? His family in the U.S. and in Kenya, government officials in Kenya, and African newspaper say he was.

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

African Newspapers, Kenyan Gov Officials, & Obama Family Accounts Reporting Obama is Kenyan Born
http://www.scribd.com/collections/3248475

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

Frank Davis said...

Apuzzo,

(1) The issue with dicta is not whether or not the court could have come to the holding with other or hypothetical facts. The issue is whether the discussion was essential to the holding or to a part of the holding.

If the question was whether Minor was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, the discussion of whether she was a subset is superfluous.

". What makes it a holding is that the court thoroughly and carefully analyzed whatever ground it chose to use to dispose of the case and thereby created a legal principle which can be applied to like cases in the future."

This is 100% wrong. For instance, concurring and dissenting opinions are thoroughly analyzed legal arguments - but they are not part of the holding, even when they show good grounds for argument.

There are several instances of thorough considered dicta that provide good guidance for the future.

But to be BINDING precedent, it must be essential to a holding.

If you cannot show how the fact that Minor was a NBC was necessary for the court, it is dictum.

(2) The point of the eligibility for presidency is two-fold. First, the Court discussed NBC as an Article II definition - therefore it muse relate to how that is defined as showing the person eligible. But mainly, you argue that we must look to common law and sources outside the Constitution for the full definition, but pick one that is supportive of your position.

When you cite to Lynch v. Clarke, you show the problem with your assertion about common law - the reasoning in that case states the opposite of Vattel. It declares that the common law relied on by the U.S. was that citizens were generally such without any reference to the allegiance of the parents when born here.

In fact, it states:

Upon principle, therefore, I can en-tertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/w...

Puzo1 said...

Frank Davis,

I of II

(1) Given Virginia Minor’s argument that as a “citizen” she had the constitutional right under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV to vote which Missouri could not abridge because of the Fourteenth Amendment, Minor first set out to determine whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” After answering that question in the affirmative, the Court determined whether voting was part of the privileges and immunities under Article IV. It answered this second question in the negative and therefore Virginia Minor lost the case.
In analyzing the question of whether she was a “citizen,” Minor told us that Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to prove that she was a “citizen,” for “citizens” existed since the Founding. The Court explained who the “original citizens” were which did not include Virginia Minor. Then it said that the nation added to these “original citizens” by birth or by naturalization. There was no claim that Virginia Minor was naturalized so the Court only analyzed whether she was entitled to birthright citizenship. It explained that the only birthright citizenship that was created by the Constitution before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed was that called “natural-born citizen.” It then gave the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This clearly shows that this birthright citizenship was not territorial birthright citizenship, for it included the necessarily element of parental citizenship. It also said that another potential birthright, which made people “citizens” (the Court did not say “natural-born citizens”) and which was based on being born in the United States to alien parents, had been in doubt. Since the Court found that Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen,” it was not necessary for the Court to resolve the doubts regarding whether the other birthright citizenship which produced “citizens” but not “natural-born citizens” even existed.

The Court determined that there was only one type of birthright citizen class about which it had no doubts concerning how it was defined. Minor said it was defined by the “common-law.” The Court called this class the “natural-born citizens.” Hence, the only citizenship class that the Minor Court applied to Virginia Minor was the “natural-born citizen” class. The Court did not apply the Fourteenth Amendment to the question of whether she was a “citizen.” While the Court found Virginia Minor to be both a “natural-born Citizen” and a “citizen,” there is no discussion by the Court as to whether she was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States which is a necessary component of Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship but not of birthright citizenship under Article II which calls for “natural born Citizen” status. There is no way that a person could be an Article II “natural born Citizen” under the correct definition of that term and not be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Hence, if one satisfies the “natural born Citizen” elements, i.e., birth in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents, it follows a fortiori that the person was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So as I said, the Minor Court chose to analyze if Minor was a “natural born Citizen” which it found she was and by so finding, the Court also found that she was ipso facto a “citizen.”

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

This discussion and analysis is not dicta because it was necessarily a part of the Court’s overall analysis and decision regarding whether Virginia was entitled to Article IV privileges and immunities which only belonged to “citizens.” In order for Virginia Minor to claim the right to vote through the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV and the protection of that right under the Fourteenth Amendment, she had to first show she was a “citizen.” Hence, for the Court to decide whether Virginia Minor was entitled to the privileges and immunities provided by Article IV and the protection of those rights by the Fourteenth Amendment, given that it said it did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to determine whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen,” and that there was only one type of birthright citizenship before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and that was “natural-born citizen” birthright citizenship, it had to necessarily first decide whether Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen” which also necessarily made her a “citizen.” The Court chose the “natural-born citizen” route to show that Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to have the status of a “citizen,” and explained that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” had long existed under “common-law,” which because of parental citizenship being part of that definition was not the English “common-law” but rather American “common-law.”
Your statement about “concurring and dissenting opinions” is wrong. I said “the court” created a legal principle. “[T]he court” is not a concurring or dissenting opinion.

(2) Finally, your Lynch v. Clarke point is not relevant to my response to your inquiry about women’s eligibility to be president. I know quite well about Lynch and have shown how that New York state court case (not a U.S. Supreme Court case) was wrongly decided. I cited and quoted Lynch for the purpose of showing that in dicta it said that a woman was eligible to be president. Its definition of a “natural born Citizen” has no relevancy to showing that I am wrong in my citing and quoting the case for that purpose. For you to throw Lynch’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” into this discussion about whether women are eligible to be president without showing how that definition shows that I am wrong on the question of women being eligible to be president is dishonest.

Carlyle said...

There are so many things in which there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Almost everything that reaches the higher courts (USSC, in particular) falls in this category. So how come all the 5:4 decisions?

I can understand an occasional misstep or honest disagreement, or the faintest taint of ambiguity - which would account for the fact that some decisions are 8:1 and very rarely even 7:2. But never 5:4 or even 6:3.

So clearly the highest courts are powered by some mysterious fuel that is neither legal, nor moral, nor right.

Various opponents of our Mr. Apuzzo, here - and a most recent example being the commenter FD - all shed some light on this process.

Clearly Mr. Apuzzo is right, but is that enough? I fear not.

FD demonstrates that there is enough legal manure lying about that the USSC could begin by deciding a case with prejudice and bias and then shoveling up enough fancy sounding words to forestall criticism from most quarters.

Do you really think all these 5:4 decisions are reached by objective reasoning, honest deliberation, and obvious conclusions? How could they be? If the answer were right and just, why would it take hundreds of pages of convoluted "logic" to defend a decision. Should not most righteous decisions be simpler to defend and explain than that?

What is the matter with plain simple english - read what it says! Of what merit is it to dig out gnats from all the dark corners and recesses and to bask in the shadows and penumbras?

God help us. We need it bad.