tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post1835963730624068266..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen IsMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-56426179761697669452016-04-18T15:08:10.228-04:002016-04-18T15:08:10.228-04:00Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or n...<b>Amendment XIV<br /><br /> <br />Section 1.<br /><br />All persons born or naturalized <i>in</i> the United States, <i>and</i> subject to the <i>jurisdiction thereof</i>, <i>are citizens of the United States</i> and of the state wherein they reside.</b><br /><br /><i>(Note that the 14th Amendment quoted above does not specifically grant any kind of citizenship to those born OUTSIDE of the US. However it does clearly deny birth citizenship to those born OUTSIDE of the US regardless of American parentage. The Constitution of 1787 only references one form of birth citizenship, Natural Born. All other forms of citizenship (except the now moot Revolutionary Generation citizenship) are classified as Naturalized in the 1787 and still current US Constitution. The 14th Amendment of 1868 follows the two 1787 Constitutional divisions, Birth citizenship and Naturalized Citizenship. <br /><br />Canada granted Ted Canadian citizenship at the time of his birth in Canada. At that point Ted violated the Jurisdiction phrase of the 14th Amendment and thus did not have Birth or Naturalized US Citizenship. The 1873 Slaughterhouses case discusses the legality of foreign nations to claim all persons born on their soil as citizens. The 1873 Supreme Court concluded that the US had no power to change the internal citizenship law of a foreign nation.<br /><br />Ted's Canadian citizenship was proven when he had to renounce it 2 to 4 years ago. In other words Ted had Canadian citizenship until he was about 40 years of age. His US citizenship started about 2 to 4 years ago. Clearly it is <i>impossible</i> for Ted to have had US Birth citizenship.<br /><br />He was required to renounce his Canadian citizenship because of the Jurisdiction phrase of the 14th Amendment. <br /><br />References to "Original Intent" of Natural Born in 1787 became moot once the 14th Amendment's clear definition was passed in 1868. Our common legal opinions of Original Intent of Natural Born are irrelevant if they conflict with the 14th Amendment. The definition of birth citizenship is now in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, which is the highest law in the US, by definition in the Constitution also.<br /><br />The 14th Amendment was written to solve a couple of problems. The 13th Amendment while it freed the slaves it did not give them US Citizenship. The 14th was passed to correct that problem AND also to give a clear definition of US Citizenship. The Supreme Court Justices in the Slaughterhouses case specifically said the 14th was also written to solve the controversy of US Citizenship which had raged in the press, law and US politics since 1790.<br /><br />The very controversy we engage here was settled in 1868.<br /><br />I have read many recent articles from legal experts from several different sources and the vast majority never mention the 14th Amendment. Remember all Federal Law is subject to the Constitution and so is 1787 Original Intent. <br /><br />The highest US Law on US Citizenship is the 14th Amendment. Yet it is almost universally overlooked in today's legal articles. <br /><br />The "invisibility" of the 14th Amendment on Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio is a reflection of a general trend to ignore the Constitution on many other issues. The most prominent being Presidential Executive Orders or Presidential Directives or Executive Directives. <br /><br />If you search the Constitution and Amendments you will find absolutely no mention of Presidential Directives, Executive Orders or any other combination of similar words. Nothing in the Constitution gives the President the power to override Federal Laws or Federal Regulations. Legislation, it's repeal or modification is strictly a Constitutional power of Congress. <br /><br />Federal Regulations derive their authority from Federal Legislation and permission of Congress. When our legislators become lazy they permit unelected bureaucrats to write detailed instructions that implement the spirit of certain parts of Legislation.<br /><br />Congress has the power to remove or modify Regulation without cause or permission from any Federal Regulatory body. The President specifically lacks this power according to the Constitution.)</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00205036955854267484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-44497334775462795662016-03-03T00:48:05.126-05:002016-03-03T00:48:05.126-05:00Here is a search I just did for a bio on Emmerich ...Here is a search I just did for a bio on Emmerich De Vattel and it came back with lots of links. :<br /><br />https://www.google.com/#q=emmerich+de+vattel+biography<br /><br /><br />And here is a link to the Encyclopedia Brittanica bio:<br /><br />http://www.britannica.com/biography/Emmerich-de-Vattel<br />Emmerich de Vattel <br />Swiss jurist<br />Emmerich de Vattel, (born April 25, 1714, Couvet, Neuchâtel, Switz.—died Dec. 28, 1767, Neuchâtel), Swiss jurist who, in Le Droit des gens (1758; “The Law of Nations”), applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His treatise was especially influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence. In particular, his defense of neutrality and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the U.S.<br />Vattel’s work was, as he acknowledged, a popularization of Jus gentium (1749; “The Law of Nations”), by the German philosopher Christian Wolff. Vattel, however, rejected Wolff’s conception of a regulatory world state, substituting national rights and duties proceeding from his own view of the law of nature. <br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-589/Emerich-de-Vattel-1714-1767.aspx<br />A founding father of modern international law. Extracting what he could from Justinian's Institutes specifically, and Roman law generally, he put together a treatise on the law of nations which was widely read, translated and shaped this then-developing area of the law.<br />Born in Couvert, Switzerland on April 25, 1714, Emerich de Vattel was first a law student but then began and ended his career as a bureaucrat and diplomat.<br /><br />He died in 1767.Known to some as Emer Vattel, he has had his first name spelled with two m's as in Emmerich.<br /><br />Vattel had read and was greatly influenced by a work on early international law written in Latin by Christian Wolff (1679-1754) called Jus Gentium (the law of people). Some cynics say that his great work was mostly just a translation of Wolff's earlier work but it was much more. In any event, Vattel gave extensive credit to Wolff, but also distinguished himself from it where necessary.<br /><br />For example, Wolff had maintained that it would be consistent with natural law for poison to be used in war. Vattel Vehemently disagreed with this.<br />RTM9999https://www.blogger.com/profile/12081849232503977816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-82839478982881267122014-12-03T12:50:00.687-05:002014-12-03T12:50:00.687-05:00There aren't enough comments about Vattel'...There aren't enough comments about Vattel's influence on the constitution. Also not even a bioghraphy of Vattel. I can't find info about him.dmy felsefehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01884953607491642856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-56254386926064691432011-08-25T17:16:11.288-04:002011-08-25T17:16:11.288-04:00Obama’s Own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Adm...Obama’s Own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Admits America’s Founders and our Constitution were Inspired by the Ideas and Values of Emer de Vattel<br /><a href="http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/obamas-own-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-admits-americas-founders-and-our-constitution-were-inspired-by-the-ideas-and-values-of-emer-de-vattel-birtherreport-com/" rel="nofollow">http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/obamas-own-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-admits-americas-founders-and-our-constitution-were-inspired-by-the-ideas-and-values-of-emer-de-vattel-birtherreport-com/</a><br /><br />CDR Kerchner (Ret)<br /><a href="http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">ProtectOurLiberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59390111217100352272011-05-25T02:07:46.933-04:002011-05-25T02:07:46.933-04:00Jermoe,
You are heavy on rhetoric but very, very...Jermoe, <br /><br />You are heavy on rhetoric but very, very light on evidence. I have cited U.S. Supreme Court cases that cite and quote Vattel's definition of a "natural born Citizen." You have just talked a big game but have come up empty handed. <br /><br />All your talk has proved absolutely nothing.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-15819791561815365212011-05-25T01:55:44.960-04:002011-05-25T01:55:44.960-04:00No US Supreme Court case involving citizenship men...No US Supreme Court case involving citizenship mentions the law of nations. Particular wordage of part of a ruling being similar to part of the translated text of The Law of Nations does not prove your argument. The Law of Nations, was, and never has been, the common or actual law of the United States. Since you disagree (to an extent), please prove otherwise, because by no one’s opinion, rather objective, legal standard, you haven’t proven this.<br /><br /><br />For the last time, this blog fails to prove your argument, as at most you've proven the coincidence of a translated phrase being similarly worded to a clause in the Constitution. There are many interpretations and opinions of officials and authorities citing that a natural born citizen is, indeed, one merely born within the United States, all of which can be found within a 2 minute cursory reading of a single court’s decision (or encyclopedic reference), or meta-search request on the internet. Imagine what would be found in 2 weeks of dedicated research. This is not my definition, or my opinion.<br /><br /><br />Now read carefully, because the next sentence is my actual opinion. No court would hear this case because it would be an utter waste of their time and my money. I take it back; I'm glad they did not hear you, and I’m glad that other courts dismissed similar cases (one while referring to the Wong Kim Ark case, actually). I have no doubt that had this been heard by even the People's Court; it would have been unanimously ruled against.<br /><br />All you do is repeat the point, occasionally citing quotations, some of which do not add to the argument as they are out of context, do not mean what you imply (or claim) they do, or are entirely irrelevant.Jermoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04860145588499999488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85524291433892097032011-05-25T01:54:13.306-04:002011-05-25T01:54:13.306-04:00What am I mixing up? Please, be specific.
I neve...What am I mixing up? Please, be specific.<br /><br />I never made any statement you've implied or said I made. Are you reading what I'm writing? The only opinion of mine that you could have possibly ascertained through this communication is that you haven’t proven what you set out to prove (though that may not be “opinion”), and that I think that this case is, “very interesting!”<br /><br />"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."<br /><br />-United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 <br /><br />The explicit words are "natural born," and “continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” This does not purport or imply the "profound difference" you claim. Two lower court cases before the Wong case ruled that a natural born citizen is one born on US soil, as that was the common law precedent. <br /><br />Citizen is a superset of "natural born citizen." There are 2 types of citizens, natural born, and naturalized. Every "natural born" citizen, is a citizen. A supreme court case involving an individual's citizenship, that actually mentions the phrase “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject,” (arguably equating them) while citing precedent of English Common Law is (amongst other things) meaningless to what you need to prove. After reading most of the ruling (and commentary on it), it baffles me that you even cited the Wong case.<br /><br /><br />Your argument hinges on (or just is) the natural born citizen clause being undeniably, irrefutably based on the definition (or rather, definitions) put forth in The Law of Nations... beyond any reasonable doubt... even though that definition is/was not that of "all civilized nations..." at any time, and is not by any standard, be it: US court decision, implication, or plain written record/text, what any part of the US constitution references or is synonymous with. There is no proof that the excerpt from Article I. Sec. 8 is a reference... there is no proof that they even took anything at all, ever, from the document and incorporated it into the Constitution. The book was about philosophical natural law, and the founders either disagreed with, or disregarded much of it... at least according to what’s in the Constitution (specifically the bill of rights). Also, the literal translation of the clause in The Law of Nations is not “natural born citizen,” and the English translation you reference (which I’m not even sure is the same) was not available until 1798. Furthermore, the concept of a “natural born citizen” certainly did not originate from Vattel, The Law of Nations, or 18th century Europe. And as I’ve implied, that document was not the only reference of governance and law to exist in the 18th century. The belief that, "The Framers did not define an Article II 'natural born Citizen' because... It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-know by civilized nations..." is laughable and preposterous, as far as a legitimate argument is concerned. <br /><br />Cont...Jermoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04860145588499999488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-75362870238280259342011-05-22T19:29:58.434-04:002011-05-22T19:29:58.434-04:00Jermoe,
You do mix up many things and wind your ...Jermoe, <br /><br />You do mix up many things and wind your way around but I'm not sure where you get to. <br /><br />You do not have one U.S. Supreme Court case which support your statement that a "natural born Citizen" is one simply born on U.S. soil without reference to the citizenship of the parents. <br /><br />And do not not try to convince me that a "citizen of the United States" is the same thing as a "natural born Citizen." A simple reading of Article I and Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 shows that they are, indeed, not the same thing. <br /><br />And do not take the word of some case or authority that says someone is a "citizen" and tell me that it means "natural born Citizen." <br /><br />On McCain, a simple reading of Vattel at Section 217 shows that he is a "natural born Citizen." Nothing to be sad about.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46193821701358160802011-05-22T05:07:04.001-04:002011-05-22T05:07:04.001-04:00I see.
I read the entirety of the Madison addres...I see.<br /><br /><br />I read the entirety of the Madison address. Even though he doesn't say the words "natural born citizen," he does say, "Place is the most important criterion," for that of allegiance... which sounds like English common law, which does not make a distinction between natural born and ordinary citizen, as you've pointed out. I mean... take it for what you will... but it doesn't help your argument because he's making a case for Smith's citizenship, that's for sure. <br /><br />Anyway, you said, <br /><br />"The Court gives the Vattel definition of a "natural born Citizen" and not the definition of a "natural born subject" under English common law. That should be sufficient proof for you that the Founders and Framers looked to the law of nations and not the English common law for that definition. There is also a great amount of historical evidence that they would have looked to the law of nations and not the English common law to define that term."<br /><br />Wrong, and that is why I'm posting on this blog.<br /><br />John McCain is indeed a natural born citizen? Hmm... I do not agree, and do not see how you can contend this, particularly when using the standard of The Law of Nations. Are you reading the section referenced?<br /><br />I did read that section, which is why I asked about it. The literal/actual definition effectually states citizenship is passed down by a person's father, regardless of any other happenstance... even though Vattel first states that natives must both be born to 2 citizens, and born on the native land/soil. So to be consistent, you can't have it both ways, or rather, you must fulfil both requirements... or conclude (and prove) that the founders meant that "natural born" meant your father was a citizen before you, and lineage/allegiance/citizenship is passed down solely by the bloodline (or father). <br /><br />Of course, legally there is no precedent for, connection to, or definition of, the law of nations and the US constituion more so than (for instance) John Locke and his "Two Treatises of Government." <br /><br /><br />Again, there is no legitimate, legal proof that The Law of Nations is (or would be) the law of the US, nor the precise/direct concept/meaning of the natural born citizen clause of the US Constitution. One Supreme Court decision references "doubts" to a native being a native merely because they were born on that soil... while the other actually affirms the definition of English Common Law and natural born subjectivity/citizenship (which you conveniently left out). Furthermore, the "doubts" referenced earlier came from opinions of the interpretations of lawmakers, attornies general, justices... and founders... on what a natural born citizen (or rather, citizen, as they occasionally equated them) is. This means the English Common Law use place of birth was the interpretation. I'm sure you know there are quotations and citations giving these opinions, and I'm sure there more a myraid of them that aren't on wikipedia or e-how.com.<br /><br />On a more subjective and god awful note; the Supreme Court cases don't necessarily mean anything, either. Look at the 2000 election's case and ruling. Bush was literally appointed president, and the case can not apply to any other... ever.<br /><br />Quoting 2 founders, one Supreme Court's ruling (as the other is more or less irrelevant to the actual argument), and repeating the point does not prove, and has not proven... the point. <br /><br /><br />Anyway, I was going to ask more about your specific case... but I assume you cannot comment on specifics... i.e. if you're hoping to bring it forth again?<br /><br /><br /><br />I very much believed you believed in this until you contended John McCain is indeed a "natural born" citizen. Very sad.Jermoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04860145588499999488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-30573445740007494602011-05-21T21:31:47.564-04:002011-05-21T21:31:47.564-04:00Jermoe,
The Madison quote may be found at
htt...Jermoe, <br /><br />The Madison quote may be found at <br /> <br />http://books.google.com/books?id=InEDAAAAQAAJ&dq=It%20is%20an%20established%20maxim%20that%20birth%20is%20a%20criterion%20of%20allegiance.%20Birth%20however%20derives%20its%20force%20sometimes%20from%20place%20and%20sometimes%20from%20parentage&client=firefox-a&pg=RA1-PA33&ci=38%2C201%2C790%2C196&source=bookclip#v=onepage&q&f=false . <br /><br />Again, Madison made the statement for the purpose of establishing that Smith was a "Citizen of the United States" and therefore eligible to be a Representative. That is a differnt standard than being an Article II "natural born Citizen" to be eligible to be President after the adoption of the Constitution. <br /><br />Regarding the Founders and Framers specifically using the law of nations to define a "natural born Citizen," please see the U.S. Supreme Court cases that I cite. The Court gives the Vattel definition of a "natural born Citizen" and not the definition of a "natural born subject" under English common law. That should be sufficient proof for you that the Founders and Framers looked to the law of nations and not the English common law for that definition. There is also a great amount of historical evidence that they would have looked to the law of nations and not the English common law to define that term. <br /><br />I contend that McCain is a "natural born Citizen." See Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 217. <br /><br />Senate Resolution 511 definitely applies to persons like McCain born overseas to U.S. citizen parents, not necessarily also to person born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-79668681866688345262011-05-21T19:09:30.073-04:002011-05-21T19:09:30.073-04:00"It is an established maxim, that birth is a ..."It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States"<br /><br />- James Madison<br /><br />Do you have a citation to the actual setting of this quote, or rather, for your claim about the context of his address? I cannot find it for the life of me, as this abridgement is 800 pages long.<br /><br />Yes, you have gone on at length, but you haven't (necessarily) proven anything. Words like, "part of" and "looked to" do not equate to what you're claiming, speicfically, "that the law of nations became the national law of the United States..." particularly because the context of that sentence, (or even paragraph) does not refer solely to the natural born citizen clause. The founders used and referenced many works in their... works. They had political, philosphical, and occaisonally spirtual influences of various ilks when creating the entirety of the constitutional republic that would be called the United States. I won't go into the few, random discrepencies, contradictions, and possible flaws with your citations I found in the original post, suffice to say it is a sound argument, but may not hold up under considerable scrutiny. <br /><br />If taken from the literal/direct translation you've cited, shouldn't only the citizenship of a person's father be what determines the country of which you are indeed a natural born citizen? This then brings other questions, e.g. father is unknown, has dual citizenship, rape, etc. Also, again, "elsewhere" and "common law" are not tantamount to natural law nor the law of nations. Natural law is not tantamount to the law of nations either. You have not proven (to me at least) that the law of nations is, again, 'the national law of the United States,' in any regard, let alone the Supreme Court cases cited, nor the actual natural born citizen clause... although the argument is very compelling. Basically, it's a stretch, but a logical, well presented one.<br /><br />I'm merely a 23 year old recent college graduate, with absolutely no experience in political science or law (constitional or otherwise), who just stumbled upon this blog after watching a Donald Trump interview... so again... I have not researched this as much as I'm sure you have, and only now just realized that you were the attorney posed to present this case to the US Supreme Court! Wow... that's amazing, and I sincerely thank you for taking your time to answer questions and discuss the matter with any and all who want to discuss it.<br /><br />Dismissed because of standing? What exactly does that mean for the case, if not another wanting to bring forth a similar case?<br /><br />As another aside, if John McCain had been elected, would you represent the same client, if he had hired you, with the same case with (virtually) the same argument you've made? Would the Senate resolution that confirmed his "natural born" citizenship have any influence over (or anything to do with) the case against Barack Obama? <br /><br />I really do wish the Supreme (if not any, haha) court would actually rule on this. It's very interesting!Jermoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04860145588499999488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-25229575420256822192011-05-21T01:29:05.358-04:002011-05-21T01:29:05.358-04:00Jermoe,
Article II, Section 1, for births occurr...Jermoe, <br /><br />Article II, Section 1, for births occurring after the adoption of the Constitution, requires that one be a "natural born Citizen," not just a "citizen of the United States." Under Article I, for Senators and Representatives, they can be "citizens of the United States." <br /><br />Madison was speaking in 1789 about being a "citizen of the United States" which was the status needed for eligibility to be a Congressman. We know that such a citizen is not necessarily a "natural born Citizen." The only issue that the Congress debated and decided was whether Smith had been a citizen of the United States for 7 years which is the requirement of Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 for anyone wanting to be a Representative. The debate was not whether Smith was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” At that time, no adult in being of the Founding generation was a "natural born Citizen." <br /><br />Second, I have written at length on this blog that the Founders and Framers looked to natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law for their definition of a "natural born Citizen." <br /><br />The Founders and Framers relied upon allegiance as the means to not only create the new constitutional republic but also to preserve it for posterity. I have written at length on this blog that two U.S. parents at the time of birth in the U.S. are needed in order to have the child born without any foreign allegiance which is what a "natural born Citizen" is. <br /><br />The courts refused to hear the Kerchner case because of standing.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14543819621789088962011-05-20T23:59:48.144-04:002011-05-20T23:59:48.144-04:00It's not my definition, it's English Commo...It's not my definition, it's English Common Law's... and James Madison's. I never even suggested my own opinion, let alone definition, in my question/comment, except to guess why no courts have actually heard the case against Barack Obama.<br /><br />Anyway, I'll be more specific. Quoting a particular founder, or rather, two of the signers of the Declaration Of Independence (for example), is negated by a different quote of 3 different founders. Basically, I was asking you to prove how the standard of The Law of Nations, which (I think) you (and others on this blog) have cut down (seemingly according to both legal precedent and basic logic) to the right of soil and blood (particularly blood) being so, as you say in this blog, "obvious..." when it isn't necessarily obvious, at least in respect to the founders' intention of "natural born citizen." <br /><br />Again, I haven't researched this for years on end, yet I think there are others, on record even, who would argue that it isn't "obvious."<br /><br />The Supreme Court cases you've cited make the distinction between natural born and citizen, which irrefutably adds to the argument you're putting forth, I agree.<br /> <br /><br />As an aside, I'll ask your opinion again: as you seem to have a pretty salient and legitimate argument here... why hasn't this been heard by any US court? Do you think the ruling would effectually make no distinction? Do you think the judgement would be in favor of merely one parent being a citizen as long as the birth was on US soil, or do you think you would have to fulfil all requirements outlined specifically in The Law of Nations, even though that document is, by no legal standard, 'obviously' the (to paraphrase) actual basis for: this clause, the laws and stipulations (or even overall structure) of the US Constitution; and is merely referred to as much as other great ideas, thinkers, and documents of that time period?Jermoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04860145588499999488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-65783582338154088712011-05-20T10:04:23.541-04:002011-05-20T10:04:23.541-04:00Jermoe,
You asked:
"I haven't read a...Jermoe, <br /><br />You asked: <br /><br />"I haven't read all of these posts, nor researched for years on end... but can you actually prove this through: quotations from that of every signer of the declaration of indpenedence, every US court case pertaining to citizenship, and every constitutional scholar?"<br /><br />This is not the legal standard needed to be met when arguing that a certain clause in the Constituiton has a certain meaning. <br /><br />To prove that you are correct in arguing that an Article II "natural born Citizen" is simply a child born on U.S. soil regardless of the citizenship of his/her parents, you could not meet the same standard that you ask that I meet to prove my definition. <br /><br />As far as legal (including U.S. Supreme Court cases) and historical support for my argument that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen father and mother, you will find it in my essays on this blog. <br /><br />On the contrary, you have no U.S. Supreme Court case that supports your definition of a "natural born Citizen."Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-89617341441683170482011-05-20T04:33:39.031-04:002011-05-20T04:33:39.031-04:00"The historical record and case law from our ..."The historical record and case law from our U.S. Supreme Court show that an Article II 'natural born Citizen' is a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents (both father and mother under the doctrine that the wife's allegiance and citizenship merged into that of the husband upon marriage which prevailed during the Founding). This is the only American common law definition that we have ever had of the clause and it has never changed, not by any case law, Congressional Act, or by the 14th Amendment."<br /><br />I haven't read all of these posts, nor researched for years on end... but can you actually prove this through: quotations from that of every signer of the declaration of indpenedence, every US court case pertaining to citizenship, and every constitutional scholar? <br /><br /><br />Regardless, some of what I've found on this subject claims you you simply need to be born in the US (or anywhere) to be a natural born citizen, or rather, you inherit allegiance through origin, not (necessarily) through blood. Furthermore, that you don't inherit an allegiance of your father's, for instance, simply by being born of your father.<br /><br />This is actually a very interesting case, and I would love to see a Supreme Court ruling on whether or not someone like Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. I presume that the reason every court has refused it (on whatever grounds) is because they ultimately assume the "right of soil" supercedes? <br /><br />I don't know...Jermoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04860145588499999488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-41842700247004389732011-05-10T11:21:55.684-04:002011-05-10T11:21:55.684-04:00Stanger,
The historical record and case law from...Stanger, <br /><br />The historical record and case law from our U.S. Supreme Court show that an Article II "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents (both father and mother under the doctrine that the wife's allegiance and citizenship merged into that of the husband upon marriage which prevailed during the Founding). This is the only American common law definition that we have ever had of the clause and it has never changed, not by any case law, Congressional Act, or by the 14th Amendment. <br /><br />Obama's long-form birth certificate shows that his father was Barack Obama Sr. and his mother was Stanley Ann Dunham. His father, being a British citizen, never became a U.S. citizen. His mother was a U.S. citizen. Hence, when Obama was born he was born to an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother. <br /><br />The Obama-Dunham marriage has been publicly accepted. U.S. Immigration has acknowledge it as happening. There is even a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction dissolving that marriage. There is a strong public policy that the marriage is valid. The marriage is valid unless a court of competent jurisdiction voids it. <br /><br />In any event, even if the marriage is void for whatever reason (e.g. because it was a bigamous marriage), Obama who was born to that "marriage" is still a legitimate child. Hence, his citizenship status for purposes of determining if he is an Article II "natural born Citizen" under natural law, the law of nations, and American common law is inherited from both his parents. Since Obama inherited at birth a foreign allegiance and citizenship from his British citizen father, he cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen." <br /><br />For these reasons, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47607232945659445912011-05-10T06:22:42.566-04:002011-05-10T06:22:42.566-04:00The reelection of Barack Obama hinges on several s...The reelection of Barack Obama hinges on several separate but related issues. Is he a natural born citizen? Can his citizenship status be resolvable without proof of the nature of the relationship between his parents? Is the unproven location of his birth relevant? These questions have answers that are either unknown, or unresolved. <br /> The primary problem is that the Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen but that phrase is undefined and remains only a description, not a legal definition. It describes 99.99% of US citizens who are born in America to citizen parents. But it fails to account for the .01% who don't fit that description 100% because there either is no father or the father is not a legal parent to the child.<br /> Here's some examples: 1. The child is conceived by artificial insemination 2. is the result of rape by a person of unknown origin 3. is the result of a fling or a relationship with a foreign man with whom the mother has no marital nor live-in relationship 4. The child's father is dead. 5. The child's father marries but divorces the mother before the child is born.<br /> In these instances there is no father in the picture in a legal sense. So if the child is born in the US to a US citizen who is unencumbered by any legal connection to its foreign father, then, although the child-mother situation is the .01% exception to the norm, there is no legal ruling that the child is NOT a natural born citizen. So if this were to pass legal review by the Supreme Court, then the question becomes; "Were Barack Obama's parents actually married?" If the answer is "No", then he would be a natural born citizen by the common law description (if he was born in the US). But if they were married, as recounted in his "Dreams of My Father" then his foreign father would have denied him natural born citizenship status.<br />There is no proof that his parents were ever married. The proof would exist in the archives, along with a divorce, but such documents haven't been sought -or found, or haven't been made public. So without that evidence, there is no proof that a foreign father had any place in the mother's & child's lives aside from the accepted "fact" of his role in conception. Thus he would be eligible for the Presidency.Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11517496850974993060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-12260497625981382392011-05-10T06:18:44.331-04:002011-05-10T06:18:44.331-04:00New info about the letter "M" in P.M. I...New info about the letter "M" in P.M. It made no sense but it turns out that the same thing is seen in the Nordyke twins birth certificates. So that means that the form creator decided to "spare" the typist from having to type the letter "M" which is present in both AM and PM. So "P" is typed but M is printed. by straight-shooterStrangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11517496850974993060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-20996340982866430362011-05-09T06:47:17.809-04:002011-05-09T06:47:17.809-04:00I found a new smoking gun that is even stronger ev...I found a new smoking gun that is even stronger evidence of manipulation of Obama's "birth certificate, evidence that is impossible to blame on any copying software. <br />But first, in review:<br />Assuming the released "Certificate" is a fake, then the template was likely a copy of the Nordyke twins originals. On their forms, the box for "Twins" had an X in it (not in the Single box) and in the order-of-Birth block if any box was checked, it would have to be "unchecked". To remove those "X"s, blank boxes would have to replace them, and that is what it appears has been done. The "TWINS" check-box is an identical match (clone-copy) to the "Yes" <br />check-box in block 7g. Examine them up close by zooming in 1600% in Adobe Reader. In block 4, the first two order-of-birth boxes are identical also, both blank, but one could be a copy of the other since the one with a check in it would need to be replaced with one without the "X".<br /><br /> My new findings indicate that they could be identical not due to any manipulation but because of several other insignificant examples of perfect copies. <br /><br />The first "E" in CERTIFICATE matches the E in "LIVE", The first "T" in CERTIFICATE matches the T in BIRTH, ALL "T"s in DEPARTMENT <br />and HEALTH match, the 2nd "E" in DEPARTMENT matches the E in HEALTH. These are in addition to the numbers "1" in 151 matching.<br />The fact that the copying software copied these form entries identically would suggest that they were originally printed identically. But the boxes, it has been said, were not made from any printer stamp-mold but were each individually hand-drawn on the original master form, so they could not be identical, nor produce identical digital versions.<br /><br /> Now here's the new smoking gun. The "M" in PM in the time-of-birth block is a copy of the M in M.D. in the Attendant block. It has multiple differences with the P, since the M is a copied jpg image, is too small, along with the period, and is totally out of horizontal alignment (way below the P), <br />it is on a separate layer than the rest of the figures, and was not made by a typewriter but was copied from the text of the form. <br /> <br />Also, the last "1" in the document number is an over-enlarge pixelated multi-density jpg image on another layer, indicting replacement of the original number. <br /> Open the BC in Adobe Reader, zoom-in and see the evidence.<br />http://h2ooflife.wordpress.comStrangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11517496850974993060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-75353093054252104552010-05-11T14:47:27.640-04:002010-05-11T14:47:27.640-04:00Indeed, Natural Law and The Law of Nations was the...Indeed, Natural Law and The Law of Nations was the guiding legal work of that era for the founders of our nation to unify the newly freed sovereign states.<br /><br />The 13 original colonies were free and independent sovereign states. The only set of guidance which could unite free and independent sovereign states were the Laws of Nature which are universal truths and as codified in the legal treatise by Emer de Vattel in his legal book, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. The founders looked to Natural Law and the Law of Nations to unify the 13 free and independent states, not to English Common Law which they just threw off. It's silly that people think our U.S. Constitution was based on English Common Law. How could the common law of one nation, a nation the colonies just rejected, be used to unite 13 newly freed and independent states, each with their own constitutions and laws of citizenship. No to accomplish that, the founders and framers looked to universal law to unite the colony states and form a new more perfect union in the U.S. Constitution. The framers and founders where quite well versed in the Law of Nations and that is what they used to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA.<br /><br />Here are just a few examples of some key founders and framers who depended on Vattel's "The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law" to guide them in setting up a new form of federal government the likes of which the world had never seen before, and which became a beacon to the rest of the world for centuries. <br /><br />Benjamin Franklin used Vattel's Law of Nations:<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html</a><br /><br />George Washington used Vattel's Law of Nations:<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/george-washington-consulted-legal.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/george-washington-consulted-legal.html</a><br /><br />And of course, Thomas Jefferson used Vattel's Law of Nations:<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/thomas-jefferson-founder-of-our-nation.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/thomas-jefferson-founder-of-our-nation.html</a><br /><br />The truth and real facts and the universal truth of our U.S. Constitution will win the day in the end. Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards because his father was not a U.S. Citizen and thus Obama was born with dual citizenship. That is not what the framers intended and what Vattel wrote about who is a "natural born Citizen". Obama will be removed as being a Usurper.<br /><br />CDR Kerchner<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-83648344496646066022010-04-19T13:17:31.142-04:002010-04-19T13:17:31.142-04:00What the newly sworn in President George Washingto...What the newly sworn in President George Washington was doing with the legal treatise and reference book "Law of Nations" in New York in 1789. An account from the times.<br /><br />There was a news account recently that President George Washington 'borrowed' the legal reference book "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" and never returned it to the library in New York and now owes a huge past due fine on that book. This new current events story ties into the importance of that book to George Washington and the other founders. Attached is an image and an the account what the new President was doing with the book in 1789 in New York. The new President was found consulting that book by visitors to his office on his first day in office after the inauguration of him in New York in 1789.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-nations-book-1st-day-in-office.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/pres-george-washington-consulted-law-of-nations-book-1st-day-in-office.jpg</a><br /><br />New York was then the capital of the USA. See attached highlighted section of the history book, This Was New York, The Nation's Capital in 1789, by Monaghan & Lowenthal, published by Books for Libraries Press of Freeport NY. I have a copy of this rare book. But it can also be viewed online at Google's book site.<br /><br />The Law of Nations by Vattel is a very important legal treatise and was very important to the founding of our nation. It was first published in 1758. The Law of Nations is mentioned in our Constitution. The "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" which is its full name was the preeminent legal treatise of the last half of the 1700s and was depended on heavily by the Revolutionary Patriots in the founding of our nation. Benjamin Franklin cited that it was being heavily used during the Constitutional Conventions when he received three new copies of the newest circa 1775 edition from the editor Dumas in Europe. And John Jay the 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court cited it often. This legal book was cited many times by the various U.S. Supreme Courts in the 1800s and much of it became the common law of our land via Supreme Court decisions citing the wisdom conveyed in this book. And it is this legal treatise by Vattel which defines who the "naturel" citizens are, i.e., the "natural born Citizens" of a country, i.e., a person born in the country to two citizen parents of that country. This was the law of nature and Vattel codified it in his book Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. This book was the source of the wisdom which prompted John Jay to write to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, and request that the requirement of "natural born Citizenship" be put into the new Constitution as an eligibility standard for the office of the President and commander of the military, for future holders of that office after the original generation past, to minimize any chances of foreign influences on that singular most powerful office in our new nation. The founders and framers in their wisdom anticipated the day would come when a citizen of the world funded by foreign money would attempt to take over America. That day has come. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA. He was born a subject of Great Britain. He is not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military for exactly the reasons John Jay stated to George Washington in the summer of 1787. Obama is a Usurper in the Oval Office.<br /><br />CDR Charles Kerchner<br />Pennsylvania<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">www.protectourliberty.org</a><br />####cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-15764207991523462882010-03-12T16:12:36.142-05:002010-03-12T16:12:36.142-05:00The concept of a written Constitution, the whole b...The concept of a written Constitution, the whole basis and fundamental law of our nation, does not come from English Common Law. England did not have a written Constitution. Thus even the idea of writing a written Constitution, not just what is contained in it, proves that the founders and framers looked elsewhere other than English Common Law for their sources when creating a new form of government, said new form of government and Constitution said by historians to be a revolutionary new type of government and which has become a beacon and example to the rest of the world. The founders and framers did not find the enlightenment for this new form of government and representative Republic form of government with a written constitution in English Common Law.<br /><br />Emer D. Vattel was indeed one of the key sources and in fact was the major source with his scholarly work, "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law". In that great legal treatise work of his in 1758 he proposes a new form of government, one in which the People are the sovereigns, and a more perfect form of government, and which has a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. This United States of America was a new form of national government the world had not seen before and it did not come from English Common Law. See Vattel's, Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1, Chapter III, 'Of the Constitution of a State, and the Duties and Rights of a Nation in that Respect'.<br /><br />CDR Kerchner<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-67958964786005065432009-10-12T15:49:17.942-04:002009-10-12T15:49:17.942-04:00The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the C...The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/federal-courts-are-committing-treason.html" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/federal-courts-are-committing-treason.html</a><br /><br />The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.<br /><br />It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):<br /><br /><i>"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."</i><br /><br />Link to the treason quote in case context:<br /><a href="http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg</a><br /><br /><br />Link to Case Summary:<br /><a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0" rel="nofollow">http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0</a><br /><br />Link to Full Case:<br /><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264" rel="nofollow">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264</a><br /><br />The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.<br /><br />Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.<br />CDR USNR (Ret)<br />Lead Plaintiff<br />Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al<br /><a href="http://puzo1.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://puzo1.blogspot.com/</a><br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-69751743703116854612009-09-07T16:02:19.824-04:002009-09-07T16:02:19.824-04:00Alan:
Lucas Smith stated that in Kenya at the tim...Alan:<br /><br />Lucas Smith stated that in Kenya at the time BOTH date formats were used.jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-60421713880091531642009-09-04T15:30:59.819-04:002009-09-04T15:30:59.819-04:00Coming in rather late on this :
23, 2009 2:54 PM ...Coming in rather late on this :<br /><br />23, 2009 2:54 PM <br />Bob said...<br /><br /> Some things on the L. Smith Kenyan BC are factual --<br /><br />- - - - - - - - -<br /><br />http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/kenya-hospital-bc1-744x1024.jpg<br /><br />Has anybody else noticed that the dates by the signatures are written AMERICAN style <b>m/d/y</b> and not BRITISH style <b>d/m/y</b>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13786527713544503356noreply@blogger.com