Friday, April 6, 2012

Objection to Candidate Barack Obama’s Petition of Nomination for the Primary Presidential Election Filed in New Jersey

Objection to Candidate Barack Obama’s Petition of Nomination for the Primary
                                    Presidential Election Filed in New Jersey


                                      By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                              April 5, 2012



Battle of Trenton

Today, April 5, 2012, I filed with the New Jersey Secretary of State in Trenton, New Jersey, the Objection Of Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran To Petition Of Nomination Of Barack Obama, also Known As Barack Hussein Obama II, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, and Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah. That office reviewed the Objection and decided that it did merit a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

The Objection to Obama’s nominating petition is that he has not provided competent and sufficient evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing his identity and that he was born in the United States, and that even if he were born in the United States, he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. The Objection therefore demands that the Secretary of State not permit Obama’s name to be printed on the primary and general election ballot.

There will be a plenary hearing on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey  08619. 

The Objection may be read at http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88210603-Purpura-Moran-Objection-to-Obama-Nominating-Petition-4-5-12 .

UPDATE:  The hearing will take place not at 10:00 a.m., as we were initial told by the New Jersey Division of Elections, but at 9:00 a.m.  It will be before Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619.

I have been advised that there are reports on the internet that the court has already dismissed the case and that the hearing has been cancelled.  These reports are false. 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 5, 2011
Update April 9, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

at

37 comments:

  1. JoeApril 6, 2012 at 1:35 AM

    Great Mario !!!!! Good Luck. This is what we have been waiting for. I hope you can get done everything before then. Wow, that was fast.

    break a leg !!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. cfkerchnerApril 6, 2012 at 1:53 AM

    Excellent complaint/objection and legal arguments. With each attempt we get closer and closer to rhetorically nailing the Obama jellofish and usurper in chief to the door.

    ReplyDelete
  3. paleophlatusApril 6, 2012 at 5:28 AM

    My thoughts as well. Will be anxiously awaiting the response you get. And with another ALJ, maybe I best suggest you also,

    Kick some Butt

    ReplyDelete
  4. MichaelNApril 6, 2012 at 6:40 AM

    If you need any web-based searching that might be helpful, then don't hesitate to ask.

    ReplyDelete
  5. thalightguyApril 6, 2012 at 1:24 PM

    BREAKING: Obama eligibility challenge in New Jersey

    http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/breaking-obama-eligibility-challenge-new-jersey

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 6, 2012 at 2:23 PM

    Please note the change in the address of the Office of Administrative Law. The physical location is Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619.

    Here is a link which provides directions to the physical location: http://www.state.nj.us/oal/locations.html

    The plenary hearing on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at 10 a.m. will take place at this physical location.

    ReplyDelete
  7. MickApril 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM

    Have you seen the search page for Minor v. Happersett? For the Justia link it says "ERROR TO THE SUPREME" !!

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=minor+v+happersett&form=DLCMHP&qs=AS&sk=&pq=minor+v+happersett&sp=1&sc=8-18

    ReplyDelete
  8. Harold SmithApril 6, 2012 at 9:56 PM

    I just got done reading through your whole submission. It looks well thought out...seems you have all the bases covered.

    If just one state of the U.S. would act in good faith and do its duty and find Obama ineligible...who knows...we may be able to save what's left of the U.S. before the fraudster trashes it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Harold SmithApril 7, 2012 at 8:48 PM

    I hope there's still something left to save in this country, but I really have my doubts; lately more than ever.

    Why, just the other day while in polite company and having a discussion about "politics", I wondered aloud why Obama is killing people all over the world with drones (people who apparently never did anything to deserve it); and why he is building an anti-missile system which will force Russia into a dangerous launch-on-warning posture; and why he is fixated on a non-existent nuclear "threat" from Iran while ignoring that the spent fuel pool at Fukushima #4 reactor is threatening to end life as we know it on this planet...and the other participants in the "discussion" got mighty angry.

    How do you reason with people who refuse to face reality? How do you help an elderly lady across the street when she doesn't want to go?

    I'm sorry to say that the majority of the people in the U.S. apparently have the government that they need, want and deserve. Obama is their great King, and they are his loyal subjects; ready to give up their rights, their property and apparently even their lives, to sate his every perverse whim.

    ReplyDelete
  10. BrianroyApril 7, 2012 at 9:59 PM

    Please use the ff. in making your points. I believe they are absolutely essential in making your presentation to lock-down this issue:

    "The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States,or the prohibition of power to the States,is upon those making the claim."
    Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 @653 (1948)

    In other words, it is upon Obama and/or his attorneys to produce Court admissible documents establishing his birth identity with location and witnesses to the birth (cf. Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62) for even the very claim of US Citizenship. He has neither done this in Hollister v. Soetoro, nor Farrar (et al.) v. Obama, nor in any other challenge.

    Further, "...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
    The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
    http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel+%2B%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false

    “Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins

    See also: John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59 http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=222&chapter=16297&layout=html&Itemid=27

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

    By being a British subject at birth through the father, it is impossible for Barack to be a United States Natural Born Citizen, when he is so viewed the same by a treaty country having claim to a UKC Citizenship (even a British Natural Born Citizenship) through paternal citizenship into that nation and its colonies, and under such paternal claim upon the child from birth is also recognized under International Law.

    Kenya even after its Independence in 1963, still laid claim by right of descent upon Barack Obama Jr. until age 23,
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/53167165/nationality-of-child-born-abroad
    also in violation of the definition of natural born citizenship; again, as stated "...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
    The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414

    From here you move to Minor v. Happersett, Weedin v. Chin Bow, etc. Please, please use these in any oral and further written arguments. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. jsApril 8, 2012 at 7:58 AM

    Wouldnt it have been helpful to include in the complaint the multiple attempts in congress to alter the meaning of NBC? This would extend the length of the pleading my many pages, however, the demonstration that members of congress attempted to change that article, and its meaning, detailing how they intended to do so, would go far to isolate the single parent citizen part of the opposing arguement and demonstrate that they Indiana and Georgia cases were in fact in error and that a competent ruling in NJ would correct that problem.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 8, 2012 at 9:30 AM

    js,

    Thanks for your input.

    Please note that the Objection is not a comprehensive brief. There are many other pieces of historical and legal evidence that are not contained in the Objection. Those would all be included in a brief.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 8, 2012 at 12:12 PM

    There will be a plenary hearing before a New Jersey Administrative Law Judge on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at 10 a.m. at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619. We do not yet know the name of the judge.

    We allege in our Objection that the New Jersey Secretary of State not print Candidate Obama’s name on the primary and general election ballot because he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” i.e., a child born in the United States to parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth.
    There are two parts to our argument:

    (1) Candidate Obama has not presented the New Jersey Secretary of State or that of any other state with competent and sufficient evidence showing (a) what his true identity is and (b) that he was born in the United States.

    With not having such evidence of identity and place of birth, we can only conclude that Candidate Obama was not born in the United States and is an alien. Since Obama’s U.S. citizen mother was too young to transmit U.S. citizenship to a foreign-born Obama, he would be an alien.

    (2) Under conceded facts and as a matter of law, Candidate Obama cannot be a “natural born Citizen,” regardless of where he may have been born, because he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents.

    We hope that you will be able to be present at the court hearing on Tuesday, at 10:00 a.m. We also hope that you can make a donation to our legal defense fund so that we can cover the expenses associated with prosecuting this case. Donations can be made at our Article II Legal Defense Fund by accessing the web site at http://sites.google.com/site/articleiilegaldefensefund/home/new-jersey-ballot-challenge .

    Here is a link which provides directions to the physical location of the Court: http://www.state.nj.us/oal/locations.html .

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM

    I of II

    Salar Ghahramani, Assistant Professor of Law the University of Pennsylvania, has just published a paper in which he concludes that “even if President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, he is still a natural born citizen of the United States and clearly eligible for the presidency.” His paper may be read at
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032875 There are many problems with Professor Ghahramani’s argument which I will briefly touch upon here:

    (1) He relies on a Congressional Act to define a “natural born Citizen,” looking to 8 U.S.C. 140, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401. What is amazing about this argument is that he does not explain that when the Constitution was written in 1787, there was no such Congressional Act in effect, but yet we had the “natural born Citizen” clause. That same Constitution also only gives Congress in matters of citizenship the power to naturalize. Hence, the definition of the “natural born Citizen” clause cannot possible come from a law that did not exist when the clause was written. Furthermore, the definition of the clause cannot come from an Act of Congress which under the Constitution on matters of citizenship only has the power to naturalize.

    (2) Professor Ghahramani argues:

    “8 USC § 1401(g) says that birthright citizenship shall be given to “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions” (Let’s assume a Kenyan birth here) of parents one of whom is an alien (Father: Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan citizen), and the other a citizen of the United States (Mother: Ann Dunham, American citizen) who, prior to the birth of such person (Barack Obama Jr’s birth in 1961), was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.”

    But this is not the law that was in effect when Obama was allegedly born in 1961. A child born in wedlock and abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA, provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For births between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child). http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html.

    Obama was born in wedlock. Obama's parents' marriage has been confirmed for many years both publicly and in court. Obama himself has confirmed the marriage in his books. There was even a divorce by a court of competent jurisdiction. We know that Obama's father was not a United States citizen but rather a British citizen when Obama was born.

    Obama's mother was a United States citizen when Obama was born allegedly in 1961. Nevertheless, her U.S. citizen status would not help Obama gain the same U.S. citizen status. Obama’s mother, born on November 29, 1942, was 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old. But she had to be at least 19 years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy the legal requirement of Section 301(g).

    Hence, if Obama was not born in the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment, he is neither a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil nor one by naturalization. There is no existing evidence that Obama was ever naturalized. Nor would he qualify to be a U.S. citizen under Section 301(g) INA by being born abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent or by any other act of Congress. If this scenario is accurate, it can be reasonably argued that Obama is an illegal alien.

    Continued …

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

    II of II

    (3) The Professor argues that “[t]he President’s mother, Ann Dunham, was born in 1942. She was 19 when she gave birth to her son Barack.” This is clearly an error as can been seen from what I wrote in No. 2 above. In fact, she was only 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old.

    (4) He states: “It is only the conventional wisdom that assumes that natural born citizenship means birth in the United States. But that is not what the Constitution requires.” I recommend to the Professor that he read Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) which held that “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Id. at 167-68. The Court said “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” That means the United States. This definition was confirmed in United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) (“‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’" Id. at 169-70 (citing and quoting Horace Binney, The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws (1853)).

    (5) He states: “My reading of the law prompts me to believe that those entitled to birthright citizenship must be deemed natural born citizens.” But Congress has the power to make persons from the moment of birth “citizens of the United States.” This is Congress’s naturalization power. Surely, the Founders and Framers did not give Congress, as part of its naturalization powers, the power to expand the class of persons who could be eligible to be President, all supposedly done without a Constitutional Amendment. No, indeed, for the Founders and Framers gave us only one definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents. Congress has no power to change or add to that definition.

    (6) “But my assertions remain untested. The resolution of the matter can only come in two forms: either a constitutional amendment that clearly defines who is a natural born citizen, or a court case.” We do not need any constitutional amendment or court case to confirm the current definition of a “natural born Citizen.” That was already done in Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark. Let someone who does not agree with that definition bring a court challenge to that definition.

    (7) Relying on a mere Congressional Act, Professor Ghahramani proposes to give us a definition of the “natural born Citizen” clause without even presenting any historical or legal sources which inform on the matter. He even says that “[t]here is no doubt in my mind” and speaks of the “absurdity” of what he calls the “birther” argument. How can he make such statements without having done any real scholarly research on the matter?

    Too bad that Professor Ghahramani did not give this matter more study before committing his pen to paper. I hope that the University of Pennsylvania Law School would put into place some policy against its professors publishing papers which are clearly baseless. After all, such papers surely do not reflect well upon a law school that has a very good national reputation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. UnknownApril 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM

    I have myself run across numerous attorneys who do not seem to think very clearly. In this matter it is quite shocking. I have run Apuzzo's material before them and heard rants and raves. This shows how dramatic is the role of prejudice and desire in shaping a person's thinking. Once persons form an opinion it seems like concrete that only gets harder with time. Unless one carries a jack hammer with one it is useless to argue. Too many would prefer to be wrong than change their thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  17. UnknownApril 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM

    This morning I submitted the comment below to an article at the Birther site--"Air Force Lt. Col. David Earl-Graef Pummels Sen. McCain Over Obama's Constitutional Eligibility":http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/04/air-force-lt-col-david-earl-graef.html
    The colonel does not believe that either McCain or Obama was qualified. To penalize parents with respect to their child because they were in the military and a foreign land when the child was born is obviously a mistake and not one the Founders would have knowingly made. Here is the comment:"According to Vattel in his THE LAW OF NATIONS (extensively quoted by attorney Mario Apuzzo --http://puzo1.blogspot.com/--who has researched the whole matter of presidential eligibility for several years and is a real scholar) an exception is made for military outside the USA. This makes perfect sense not to penalize the parents & child involved in the defense of the nation. So according to Vattel and Apuzzo McCain would qualify. To be fair attornet Leo Donofrio(http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/) at his blog disagrees. Donofrio has also done very fine and extensive research on the matter of eligibility. I do believe though that allowances need to be made for military personnel and disqualifying McCain would be a travesty of the Constitution and a misrepresentation of the Founders wishes. There is enough legally accurate material at the above two sites to keep anyone busy for a long time researching this. I myself have being doing so for several years. Best of luck."
    I definitely benefited from Leo's work. I think however that he got too exacting at time and too inclined to follow the letter rather than the spirit of the law. He has now retired from being an active member of the cause but his site is still available with useful information.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM

    Unknown,

    McCain can show that he is a “natural born Citizen” by utilizing American common law. Under that common law and under the proper circumstances, even though he was born “out of the country,” his birth is nevertheless deemed to be "in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” 14th Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(c).

    It does not matter if McCain in 1936 was born in the Panama Canal Zone or Panama proper. Wherever he was born, he was born there to parents who were U.S. citizens and serving in the armies of the state. Emer de Vattel at Section 217 of The Law of Nations (1758) informs that someone born under such circumstances is “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” We know from the historical record and case law that the law of nations became part of “the Laws of the United States.” Article III, Section 2.

    Additionally, when McCain was born in Panama in 1936, that nation did not grant jus soli citizenship (granting citizenship to someone by merely being born on the soil of a nation). That means that even though McCain was born on its territory, because he was born to U.S. citizen parents, Panama did not expect him to have any allegiance to that nation. Hence, Panama did not grant him its citizenship.

    Finally, consistent with the thinking of Vattel in Section 217, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) said that there are two exceptions to jus soli citizenship, i.e., being born in the armies of a foreign power and being born to foreign diplomats. McCain would fall under the former and would therefore not be a citizen of Panama and could only be a U.S. citizen which in quality is that of a "natural born Citizen," since he was born to U.S. citizen parents.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Harold SmithApril 8, 2012 at 8:38 PM

    I wonder, is Salar Ghahramani trying to be funny, or perhaps trying for a career on the federal bench?
    In any case, maybe they can find another "Professor" somewhere to back him up; say a "Professor of Mathematics", who's willing to proclaim that 2 + 2 = 3 and that Obama's Mother was actually 19 yrs. old in August 1961, accordingly. I'm sure there'd be an opening at NIST, for example, for such a skilled mathematician.

    ReplyDelete
  20. TexomaApril 9, 2012 at 12:41 AM

    McCain is not a natural born citizen, but the US Supreme Court might have nonetheless ruled him eligible, since he was not born with a foreign allegiance. If the US Supreme Court were to rule by the letter of the law, then McCain would not be eligible. But if they were to rule by the intent of the Founding Fathers, which was to have Presidents who were free of conflicting allegiances, McCain would be eligible.

    McCain is not a natural born citizen because he was not born on US sovereign territory. Per the 1903 treaty, Panama, not the US, was the sovereign of the Panama Canal Zone, and this included the land used by the US for military bases. The US paid Panama an annual rent for the Canal Zone, which we would not do if we were the sovereign.

    McCain’s situation is similar to that of the foreign-born children of English fathers. In 1541, Parliament passed a naturalization act which granted subject status to foreign-born children of English parents. Parliament decreed that these children were to be “reputed and taken” to be natural subjects. They were deemed to be natural subjects by law, even though they were not natural subjects in fact.

    Vattel uses similar language when he considers the foreign-born child of a military father to be “reputed” born in the country. This “reputing” is being done by man and not by nature. Hence, there is an operation of positive law that deems this child “born in the country” of the citizen father who is serving abroad. But by the laws of nature alone, this child is in fact born in the sovereign foreign country – a country which could lay a claim of allegiance on the child by granting that child citizenship under the principle of jus soli.

    In 1936 (the year of McCain’s birth), Panama law stated that children born in its sovereign territory to foreign citizen parents were not Panamanian citizens at birth. Now, their law did provide that these children could, at the age of majority, automatically become Panamanian citizens if they made that election. However, this provision does not constitute an allegiance at birth, and so McCain was not born with a foreign allegiance.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 9, 2012 at 1:10 AM

    Texoma,

    What is your definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen?"

    Provide the source for your definition.

    ReplyDelete
  22. jsApril 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM

    Panama law has nothing to do with it.

    If both parents were in Panama, under US Jurisdiction, and under the lawful orders of the US Military, then the child is a natural born citizen. If the Military did not authorize the Service member to bring his/her spouse, then this would not be a natural born issue, but the child would still attain naturalization at birth.

    The key is, under orders and with the authority of the USA. We can’t remove the citizenship rights of servicemen doing their duty to protect our country when we sent them to duty stations in foreign lands. That would be absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 9, 2012 at 5:14 PM

    UPDATE: The hearing will take place not at 10:00 a.m., as we were initial told by the New Jersey Division of Elections, but at 9:00 a.m. It will be before Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619.

    I have been advised that there are reports on the internet that the court has already dismissed the case and that the hearing has been cancelled. These reports are false.

    ReplyDelete
  24. LarryApril 9, 2012 at 5:54 PM

    I believe this timely article from African Press International will be of interest to everyone - http://africanpress.me/2012/03/09/president-obama-will-be-forced-by-circumstances-to-apologise-genuine-birth-certificate-surfaces-americans-have-been-led-to-believe-otherwise-revelation-to-change-the-political-landscape/ -

    ReplyDelete
  25. honeydokidApril 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM

    I like your case that you have laid out except you made an error, she was 19 years old when Obama was born, not 18.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 9, 2012 at 7:29 PM

    honeydokid,

    Please provide the dates of birth of Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham which support your statement that the mother was 19 not 18 when Obama was born.

    ReplyDelete
  27. TexomaApril 10, 2012 at 12:45 AM

    Mario,

    The US Supreme Court, in the 1875 case of Minor v. Happersett defined the term when they said: “… it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens …”

    McCain was not born in the country of his citizen parents, and so he is not a natural born citizen. However, he was born free of a foreign allegiance due to the lack of Panamanian civil or political laws regarding children being born on their territory. If such laws had existed, then Vattel tells us that those laws would have to be followed.

    If the US Supreme Court were to believe that the natural born citizen requirement was a means to an end, and that end being a President born with exclusive allegiance to the US, then the court would rule McCain to be eligible. But if they were to rule by the letter of the law, McCain would ineligible. With regard to McCain, we will never know, but if I were a betting man, I would wager that the court would have ruled him eligible due to his lack of foreign allegiance at birth.

    ReplyDelete
  28. TexomaApril 10, 2012 at 12:51 AM

    JS,

    Panama law did not have anything to do with it, but it could have if they practiced jus soli. The only way to guarantee that a child is born with exclusive allegiance to the US is when that child is born in the US (or in its sovereign territory) and to parents who are both US citizens at the time of the birth of that child.

    McCain was a naturalized US citizen at birth, and his birth to a US Naval Officer and US citizen mother in Panama did not remove any of his US citizenship rights. But being eligible to be President is not a right that is afforded to all US citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  29. JustinApril 10, 2012 at 1:55 AM

    Wrong. The Panama Canal Zone was never sovereign US territory. We just rented it. People make the same mistake about military bases, embassies and consulates. None of these are sovereign US territory.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 10, 2012 at 3:02 AM

    Texoma,

    From where did Minor get its definition of a "natural born Citizen?"

    ReplyDelete
  31. honeydokidApril 10, 2012 at 5:30 AM

    Sorry I was just going by the Professor Ghahramani article,I wasn't paying that much attention as I was reading. Then it hit me and figure it out myself and I want to retrack my statement about Obama mother being 19. She was 18 and she was 117 days short of being 19. I wish you all the luck, trying to get Obama name off of the ballot. We surely don't need people like him running our country.

    ReplyDelete
  32. UnknownApril 10, 2012 at 5:50 PM

    Larry--- The link you provided was very interesting. Also a second more recent article there about the Imam who fled to England for safety during conflict about birth place. He is going to hold a press conference at some time. The document they present looks better than anything so far. And there are names and signatures at least and a raised seal.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Reality CheckApril 10, 2012 at 6:10 PM

    Hello Mario

    I had a post all written this morning saying I would challenge you to a wager on the outcome of the hearing today in Trenton. I decided to hold off however. The wager was that I would contribute $100 to the Article II SuperPAC if you prevailed in the Pupera challenge but you would contribute $100 to The Fogbow forum operation if you lost. I decided not to make the post since it would be like taking candy from a baby. I knew you had no chance. That is because the basis for your and Pupura's arguments are entirely false. President Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born in Hawaii. There is no evidence to the contrary. The two parent citizen requirement theory is nonsense.

    If you still want to take the wager I am open but I am sure you will not.

    ReplyDelete
  34. girlyApril 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM

    Mr. Apuzzo, A couple of years ago I came across a website which contained letters from our Founding Fathers during the Revolution. This might help your case. I hope it's not too late.

    One particular letter was written by Benjamin Franklin to a Mr. Dumas from France thanking him for the copies of Vattel's Law of Nations and how Congress was using it to write the laws of a new nation (my words). Here's an excerpt:

    ..."I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. "Le court Expose de ce qui s'est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies," bc. being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us...."

    http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=459&division=div1

    ReplyDelete
  35. TexomaApril 10, 2012 at 11:50 PM

    Mario,

    The Minor court used almost the same language as Vattel who defined the term natural born citizen in 1758: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    ReplyDelete
  36. TexomaApril 10, 2012 at 11:52 PM

    Justin,

    We are in agreement. Earlier I said: “Per the 1903 treaty, Panama, not the US, was the sovereign of the Panama Canal Zone, and this included the land used by the US for military bases. The US paid Panama an annual rent for the Canal Zone, which we would not do if we were the sovereign.”

    Furthermore, children born to Panamanian citizens in the Panama Canal Zone did not get US citizenship at birth. If the US were sovereign (which we were not), then these children would be dual citizens at birth – US by place of birth, and Panamanian by citizenship of the parents.

    ReplyDelete
  37. MichaelIsGreatApril 14, 2012 at 5:44 PM

    Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

    Thanks to do this initiative. It should be done in every single state!!

    At least once, we should find a judge that is not corrupt and that is ready to apply the law and verify with full discovery what Obama has been up to!!

    When is this usurper Barack Obama be fully discovered for what he is, a liar of the vilest kind?

    ReplyDelete