tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post1904507257287673806..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Tisdale v. Obama and the “Natural Born Citizen” ClauseMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-72638498813142492772012-03-04T10:20:22.475-05:002012-03-04T10:20:22.475-05:00I strongly encourage every birther who buys this b...I strongly encourage every birther who buys this book to leave a positive review. The Obots are already starting to destroy this book.<br />http://www.amazon.com/Question-Eligibility-Enforcement-Investigation-ebook/dp/B007FWO19W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1330874122&sr=8-1Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51636893451244818182012-03-03T22:40:11.640-05:002012-03-03T22:40:11.640-05:00The joke sent by the judge was inappropriate. Howe...The joke sent by the judge was inappropriate. However, what is much more upsetting is the hypocrisy of those requesting his resignation or removal. <br /><br />They are fully aware that Mr. Obama is not eligible to be President (insert a voluminous list of other offenses here), yet they utter nary a word.<br /><br />What's worse: a poor sense of humor or treason against the Constitution and the People these elected officials are sworn to protect and represent? <br /><br />The political opportunists rushing to the store to buy rope need to be sure to get a little extra for themselves.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865649369112264344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-5606093188853077932012-03-03T14:13:46.596-05:002012-03-03T14:13:46.596-05:00Federal judge files complaint over his own e-mail ...Federal judge files complaint over his own e-mail message, accessed at <br />http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202544149076Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-48546441065337354262012-03-03T13:46:48.700-05:002012-03-03T13:46:48.700-05:00MichaelIsGreat has left a new comment:
(Part 2)
...MichaelIsGreat has left a new comment: <br /><br />(Part 2)<br /><br />Hello Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />I would like to share with you interesting comments made by Attorney Van Irion on the challenges of getting fair and honest justice when you are at the "wrong side of a case"!!<br /><br />...<br />...<br /><br />(Part 2)<br /><br />“The Georgia Secretary of State has, to date, refused to forward the record of the case to the Superior Court, despite Georgia law absolutely requiring this action and requiring that it be done as soon as possible.<br /><br />“The Superior Court does nothing to require the Secretary of State to forward the record of the case.<br /><br />“Only 90 minutes after our plaintiff files an opposition himself (because LLF was denied the ability to file it for him), the Chief Judge issues a three-page opinion granting Obama’s motion to dismiss our appeal. It seems obvious that the Court’s opinion was written before they asked us to file an opposition. Also, the dismissal was granted while the Court had not even received the record of the hearing held by the lower court. In other words, it ruled without even reviewing the record or reading our plaintiff’s opposition.<br /><br />“Our system of government is based upon an assumption that the people placed in high office are honorable. This is an absolute requirement for the survival of our nation. The Founding Fathers understood that when dishonorable people begin to take high office, the system of government they set into motion would begin to fail. Unfortunately America’s judicial system is proving this principle.<br /><br />“These are just the incidents associated with our Georgia case and we are not discussing the substance of the breathtakingly absurd rulings from any of these courts. Without needing to discuss judicial rulings, the incidents cited here demonstrate [editor’s deletion ] of our courts. This bias effectively prevents those on one side of an issue to have basic access to the courts. In other words, the courts are now barring specific viewpoints from entering the front doors of the court. When we do get through we are [editor’s deletion] by means of the timing of orders and one-sided enforcement of procedural requirements.<br /><br />“Georgia is an example of what is happening across our country. Laws are being blatantly ignored by those in high office, while other laws are being used to punish their political opponents. This type of [editor’s deletion] reflects the practices historically found in third world nations, dictatorships, and communist tyrannies. Freedom cannot survive where such practices go unpunished.<br /><br />“Yet it is practically impossible to punish individuals holding high office. This is why such individuals must have honor, allowing them to resist their own selfish temptations. Unfortunately America’s high offices are now populated by [editor’s deletion]. Our Founding Fathers are being proven correct, once again.<br /><br />“Our opponents are trying to frustrate and exhaust us to the point that we will give up. They don’t want their [editor’s deletion] to be seen in the light of day. [editor’s deletion]. This tells us that we are having an effect. Even when we don’t win a legal battle, our efforts shine the light of truth on their [editor’s deletion]. That [editor’s deletion] is responding by lashing out at us.”<br />---------------------- <br />March 3, 2012 4:25 AMMario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-84240899028001123582012-03-03T13:35:01.595-05:002012-03-03T13:35:01.595-05:00MichaelIsGreat says:
(Part 1)
Hello Mr. Apuzzo,...MichaelIsGreat says: <br /><br />(Part 1)<br />Hello Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />I would like to share with you interesting comments made by Attorney Van Irion on the challenges of getting fair and honest justice when you are at the "wrong side of a case"!!<br />----------------------<br />Attorney Van Irion realised, what I’ve been saying for 4 years: we live in a fascist banana republic [editor’s deletion]. (www.orlytaitzesq.com)<br /><br />—From “Attorney Van Irion has realised | Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire” at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=32580 <br /><br />Attorney Van Irion has realised<br />Posted on | March 2, 2012 | No Comments<br /><br />Attorney Van Irion realised, what I’ve been saying for 4 years: we live in a fascist banana republic [editor’s deletion].<br /><br />Terence Brennan<br />aequitas@mail.triconia.com<br />68.243.158.177<br />Submitted on 2012/03/02 at 6:03pm<br /><br />Orly,<br /><br />You may not want to post this — but I leave that to your choice. Here goes.<br /><br />The following is an email from Attorney Van Irion. He is now tasting [editor’s deletion] that you have been dealing with for years. He is stunned by the lack of [editor’s delition] in the courts, who should be the nation’s final defenders of justice.<br /><br />—-Attorney Van Irion’s experience in Georgia—<br /><br />“So much has happened recently demonstrating the lack of [editor’s deletion] in our judicial system that I’m now forced to review these incidents in bullet point format:<br />“The President’s attorney dishonors the Georgia Administrative Court by sending a letter directly to the Secretary of State requesting the executive branch of Georgia to take a lawsuit away from the judicial branch.<br /><br />“The President and his attorney dishonor the Georgia Administrative court again by violating that court’s order to appear.<br /><br />“The Georgia Administrative Court refuses to forward Liberty Legal Foundation’s motion for contempt to the Georgia Supreme Court, despite Georgia law leaving the Administrative court no discretion on this matter.<br />“The Georgia Administrative court refuses to even respond to correspondence regarding our motion for contempt.<br /><br />“The Georgia Superior Court fails to comment on the motion for contempt or require the Administrative court to forward records, as required by law.<br /><br />“The Georgia Superior Court Clerk initially refuses to file LLF’s appeal document, then backs down after being instructed on the law.<br /><br />“The Georgia Superior Court Clerk refuses to file LLF’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction because $1 was not included with our filing. Then, when LLF hand delivers $1 to the clerk, the clerk sits on the motion for 10 days and mails it back to LLF claiming that the correct staffer didn’t get the $1. Our plaintiff gave the case number, name of the motion, and name of the staffer, who was literally pointed at in the room. Yet the clerk’s office still claims that that staffer didn’t get the $1. The motion had to be completely re-filed and was then delayed another two days before finally being filed.<br /><br />“The Chief Judge of the Superior Court was made aware of all of the incidents occurring in her Clerk’s office, yet she did nothing to correct the situation.<br /><br />“The President’s motion to dismiss was filed on his first attempt. After three days the Court notified LLF that the Court had shortened the time to file an opposition to that motion, giving us less than a day to file.<br /><br />“Late that same day the Chief Judge signs an order denying LLF’s motion to have Van Irion admitted as a visiting attorney in this case, preventing LLF from filing the opposition that the Court had ordered us to file 6 hours earlier. (Note that I’ve been admitted as a visiting attorney in 5 states and at every level of court, both state and federal. I’ve never been denied admission before. Further, my local attorney sponsor was a sitting member of the state’s legislature, making this denial even more shocking.) Even more outrageous is the timing of the denial, made just hours before a Court-set deadline, after the Court sat on our motion for more than two weeks.<br /><br />(See second posting: Part 2) <br /><br />March 3, 2012 4:24 AMMario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-75105480365477667302012-03-03T08:56:23.823-05:002012-03-03T08:56:23.823-05:00I see Mario. You should investigate how you might...I see Mario. You should investigate how you might be able to get past jurisdictional barrier for a general election compliant if possible.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-68631602914345838932012-03-02T22:29:14.266-05:002012-03-02T22:29:14.266-05:00James,
The court did not dismiss for lack of sta...James, <br /><br />The court did not dismiss for lack of standing. It dismissed for what it said was lack of jurisdiction.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-39809041674356714252012-03-02T21:13:55.157-05:002012-03-02T21:13:55.157-05:00Charles,
You may not have to give up yet. Obama ...Charles,<br /><br />You may not have to give up yet. Obama still has to be nominated, so you might actually have standing to keep him off the General Election Ballot. You will have to investigate. And as much as it might pain you, Phil Berg might also be able to help since he is a registered Democrat in PA and might have better standing to keep him off the ballot. In light of Sheriff Arpaio's Report, you might not have to argue the NBC argument since his birth certificate is clearly a forgery and Phil Berg certainly supports that.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-221875276204951532012-03-02T16:56:27.538-05:002012-03-02T16:56:27.538-05:00All:
Below is a link to a post conference intervi...All:<br /><br />Below is a link to a post conference interview of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of AZ and the full length video report of the investigation in high quality video and sound is found at this link in my latest blog post.<br /><br /><a href="http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/sheriff-joe-discusses-his-cold-case-posse-report-and-the-press-conference-he-gave-in-az/" rel="nofollow">http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/sheriff-joe-discusses-his-cold-case-posse-report-and-the-press-conference-he-gave-in-az/</a><br /><br />I also wish to state my sincere thanks and appreciation for Atty Apuzzo's help in the hearing in PA yesterday, all provided pro bono. While the court turned a deaf ear once again, we again got into the legal record book of history the complicity of the Obama campaign and the court system in PA in the cover up of Obama's citizenship and identity fraud. The truth and constitution one day will expose these to all. Again thank you Atty Apuzzo. You are a true patriot.<br /><br />CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)<br />Lead Objector/Plaintiff<br />Kerchner & Laudenslager v Obama<br />Commonwealth Court of PA<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">www.ProtectOurLiberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-78945667908054907822012-03-02T16:24:20.006-05:002012-03-02T16:24:20.006-05:00It is very, very clear that Obama is not a "n...It is very, very clear that Obama is not a "natural born citizen". With recent revelations both by the Arizona sheriff's discoveries but also others, it seems unlikely that Obama is even a United States citizen. However, he does have very powerful allies in the corporate world including the media. And I have noticed that rebuttals both to what scholarly attorneys and historians have turned up as well as to research on his birth documents, etc. are almost always sarcastic ad hominem in nature. Sometimes they are so wild and irrational and so filled with invective that one can not even follow what is being said. Given the amount of money spent in this country for education this is a sad outcome. How many students burdened now by huge university debt can not even manage to grasp these very short and excellent presentations provided by Puzo. They should give Kant's philosophy a try! <br />But all this is a barometer of America's civil society which is in a bad way at this time. Obama seems to be proving why the Founders had the qualification of natural born citizen. Unfortunately even much of the Internet alternative media is filled with irrational responses to the recent revelations of the Sheriff Arpaio. And of course we see those responses here to Puzo. This tells us that people are getting the message and that it is frightening them. This is a real attack on what they believe is liberalism.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14172746979982936171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-73130127764446987952012-03-02T15:02:15.351-05:002012-03-02T15:02:15.351-05:00Hello Mr. Apuzzo,
It is official: Sheriff Arpaio ...Hello Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />It is official: Sheriff Arpaio has proven by facts that Obama's long form birth certificate is nothing less than a forgery. Same for Obama's Selective Service Registration Card!!<br /><br />What is hard to believe that mainstream media is nearly silent concerning Sheriff Arpaio's proofs. Articles appear mainly on pro-Republican sites.<br /><br />Despite the proofs provided by Sheriff Arpaio, we are not yet better off with any prospect that a full discovery will be attempted legally!!!<br />It is quite disgusting and extremely annoying to see how Justice is one-sided in this country and favors the Democrats systematically and unfairly in the USA!<br /><br />When on earth JUSTICE will be fully served by full discovery not only on Obama's long form birth certificate but on all Obama's past documents that must be fully scrutinized? WHEN?!!!<br /><br />Check the video links of the proofs provided by Sheriff Arpaio at "Arpaio: Congressional probe good next step" at http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/arpaio-says-congressional-investigation-good-next-step/MichaelIsGreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12020964848057963778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31913632162925160462012-03-02T02:43:43.039-05:002012-03-02T02:43:43.039-05:00Time to lift the media blackout on this fraud Obam...Time to lift the media blackout on this fraud Obama.<br /><br />Sheriff Joe Arpaio's shows the evidence and meets the those in media who show interest.<br /><br />Pt 1<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QOqkFar5QMI<br /><br />Pt 2<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blh0lmX9jo4&feature=youtu.be<br /><br />Pt 3<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu3XpWh4HRM&feature=youtu.be<br /><br />Pt 4<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-5_AWIYJUs&feature=youtu.be<br /><br />Pt 5<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diYEOBERyZg&feature=youtu.be<br /><br />Pt 6<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_EGEIqY6S0&feature=youtu.be<br /><br /><br />http://nation.foxnews.com/sheriff-joe-arpaio/2012/03/01/sheriff-joe-arpaio-obama-birth-certificate-forgeryMichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37693247611543980662012-03-01T14:47:07.570-05:002012-03-01T14:47:07.570-05:00Thanks Stan - I'm sure you perceived my questi...Thanks Stan - I'm sure you perceived my question was at least partly rhetorical - and definitely meant to promote comment. I get so tired of people trying to pound square pegs into round holes. Trying to make an answer conform to a pre-conditioned result.<br /><br />"Is there anyway we can parse the words, twist the logic, or scan through historical documents to justify the result we want."<br /><br />I have found that the best way to get Correct Answers is to remove all emotional content or desired outcomes, and stand back, and rise above, and take a considered view of the situation.<br /><br />In this case, you need do no more than consider the English language, common notions of law and justice in the 18th century, and the PURPOSE of this RESTRICTION. It is positively silly to seek to water down this restriction or take it only half way.<br /><br />200+ years on perhaps it is time to revisit and even revise this constitutional language, but to run roughshod over it is disingenuous and frankly underhanded.Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-40509258503337692882012-03-01T03:25:49.575-05:002012-03-01T03:25:49.575-05:00John Woodman, the "master debater" and c...John Woodman, the "master debater" and champion for the pro liar-usurper side, runs and hides when asked some simple questions.<br /><br />Here is what John was asked.....<br /><br /> ".....the WKA court ran with the notion that “citizen” and “subject” were to considered analogous, and therefore, based on Lord Coke’s version of English common law, a child born in England to a father who is not a “subject” [NOUN], can not be a “natural born subject”.<br /><br />Similarly, and based on the very same WKA court’s notion of “citizen” being analogous to “subject”, then it follows that a child born in US to a father who is not a “citizen”, can not be a “natural born Citizen”.<br /><br />If the Minor court was referring to the English common law and if the English common law held that native birth was sufficient to make a “natural born”, then .....<br /><br />.....how did the Minor court come to the conclusion that a child born in the US, to citizen parents, was undoubtedly a “natural born citizen”, but it was doubtful that a child born in the US, to alien parents, was even a citizen, let alone a NBC?"<br /><br />http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/mario-time-to-putz-up-or-shut-up/#comment-937MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-23154847881462179302012-03-01T00:30:14.315-05:002012-03-01T00:30:14.315-05:00An interesting video "The American People WAK...An interesting video "The American People WAKE UP after Congressional Records prove Obama NOT to be a US" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9dbtOoX3exkMichaelIsGreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12020964848057963778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-66570788488084389822012-02-29T13:20:01.631-05:002012-02-29T13:20:01.631-05:00Further proof of the Framers' natural law fram...Further proof of the Framers' natural law frame of reference<br /><br />Madison, in the House of Representatives, June 8, 1789, speaking of proposed Amendments that "may be called a bill of rights"<br /><br />In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.<br /><br />Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 454 <br />http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwaclink.htmlRayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04798180198665083783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-65641919489188644662012-02-28T18:13:16.583-05:002012-02-28T18:13:16.583-05:00Carlyle said:
"I don't see how the meani...Carlyle said:<br /><br />"I don't see how the meaning and intent of the words in the constitution are even remotely debatable."<br /><br />It is because the liberals have established through usage - and therefore precedent - that there are purportedly two legitimately competing ways to look at the Constitution (or law in general), ie, from a 'broad construction' or 'strict construction' sense; or 'original intent' versus 'contemporary standards'. And those chickens are now coming home to roost. Even to undercutting the very evident meaning of the term NBC at the time of its inclusion in the Constitution. Which should be considered as a contract - wherein words have very clear meanings; or at least are supposed to - but isn't. <br /><br />All of which is not meant to distract from this extremely important point. When the putative president used the term 'native born' during the election period to refer to himself, thus trying to mislead the American public as to the law, he committed an impeachable offense; showed his true colors: that he was not to be trusted. <br /><br />The avenues of recourse now? The ballot challenges, with claimants having standing in the eyes of the law, is a good one; and to overwhelm the system with them. But an equally good one would be to have leaders in this movement organize fundraising for ads in the mainstream papers, bringing the arguments to a wider audience than just the choir. And after that, if still need be: a march on Washington of the People, Assembled, booting - nonviolently - the Usurper from the office, and dissolving Congress for being an accessory to the fact. <br /><br />Details to follow, if it needs to come to this. First things first. Giving the power structure every opportunity to respond in a mea culpa way. Before The People, as a last resort, in an act of civil disobedience, taking their country back from its hijackers.<br /><br />For the American system of government IS government of, by, and for The People. But only for as long as The People keep awake and alert to that fact, and their responsibility in and to its endurance. <br /><br />Let's not let the vision down, in our generation. The vision, for the world, of people living their lives by self-governance. Not Church or Royalty or Oligarchy lording it over them. But free-willed Citizens, showing the way into a better day, in life on Earth. <br /><br />Our mission, to perform. The incarnated souls here, now. Rising to the occasion. And boy, is it ever one of those.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13685583498340286004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-79485821056540173012012-02-28T17:48:26.900-05:002012-02-28T17:48:26.900-05:00If only you get the services and legal talents of ...If only you get the services and legal talents of Dr. Herb Titus. Dr. Herb Titus is one of the country's top constitutional scholars and attorneys. His credentials are impeccable. He supports the correct definition of NBC. If only he could testify as an expert witness at the Kerchner Hearing.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-38380893593485023652012-02-28T17:32:26.555-05:002012-02-28T17:32:26.555-05:00Mario,
I saw your submitted brief. http://www.sc...Mario,<br /><br />I saw your submitted brief. http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012<br /><br />That's a hell of a brief! Be beware of ANKENY. You know it is going to be mentioned in the hearing.<br /><br />The next challenge is getting the hearing to proceed and not having it dismissed. It appears Obama is fighting back but his motions have been denied.<br /><br />Charles is in great and wonderful hands to have dual counsel for this hearing.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-72414682359862676142012-02-28T12:50:45.897-05:002012-02-28T12:50:45.897-05:00Yes, Mario Doc is a master manipulator on words. ...Yes, Mario Doc is a master manipulator on words. Thanks for helping out Charles Kerchner in his case. You are good man. I wish the best of luck on Thursday. Just remember - Most likely Thursday in the Hearing, you will have to deal with 2 fundamental challenges that I can see. First, they will try to dismiss the case stating that don't have some type of standing. Since this is ballot state challenge, it should be easier to establish standing. Next, be prepared for ANKENY if you get to the NBC issue. Be ready to destroy ANKENY and then argue you side of the argument. Good Luck Mario.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-81185745129706161762012-02-28T10:57:45.856-05:002012-02-28T10:57:45.856-05:00Dr. Conspiracy is using Alexander Hamilton's p...Dr. Conspiracy is using Alexander Hamilton's proposal for presidential qualification to argue that just being born a citizen is sufficient to be a "natural born Citizen." Here is Hamilton's proposed language: <br /><br />"§. I. No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."<br /><br />The problem that Dr. Consiracy has is that the Constitution says "natural born Citizen," not "born a citizen." <br /><br />So, I guess for Dr. Conspiracy it is real easy to just amend the constitution to suit one's political wishes.<br /><br />February 28, 2012 7:55 AMMario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46508553290098959112012-02-27T18:52:26.507-05:002012-02-27T18:52:26.507-05:00Bravo, Mr. Apuzzo!
Please have someone record the...Bravo, Mr. Apuzzo!<br /><br />Please have someone record the audio of the hearing, it is so much better than transcripts.<br /><br />break a leg.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12343959316501286996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-43241130488327406202012-02-27T11:49:32.620-05:002012-02-27T11:49:32.620-05:00Why is this so complicated? Why all the legal hai...Why is this so complicated? Why all the legal hair splitting and logic chopping? Isn't it pretty obvious what the Founders were trying to do and what they meant?<br /><br />Whether their restriction is too old and quaint, or whether it should be changed, are different issues and perhaps a reasonable point of debate.<br /><br />I don't see how the meaning and intent of the words in the constitution are even remotely debatable. And this is so strong and so obvious that I don't see how any legal precedent, dicta, or ruling could overrule that.<br /><br />This is worse than arguing "what the meaning of 'is' is".Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-71318840624889067382012-02-26T14:03:35.603-05:002012-02-26T14:03:35.603-05:00Mario,
I am sure you are aware of Charles Kerchner...Mario,<br />I am sure you are aware of Charles Kerchner's new suit against Obama to keep him off the PA Ballot. Charles Kerchner has retained a lawyer for this suit and a hearing is set for Thursday, March 1, 2012. I don't speak for Charles but as an avid supporter of both you and Charles, I encourage you to contact Charles to see what help you can provide at the hearing. Perhaps you can work with Charles's new lawyer and Charles then he will have double counsel to assist him. You live in New Jersey. In any event, a trip to PA on Thursday would only be a couple of hours drive. Regardless, of what role you may or may not play in Charles's suit, I encourage you to attend the hearing. As a lawyer, you are probably the most well versed lawyer on the NBC issue to date. Charles's lawyer appears to new in this issue. While I don't doubt her ability to represent Charles, your legal expertise and scholarly understanding of NBC would be an invaluable tool for Charles's suit. I wish you good luck Mario.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-21368432756733364142012-02-26T13:37:15.804-05:002012-02-26T13:37:15.804-05:00The Obots' argument that the Founders and Fram...The Obots' argument that the Founders and Framers gave to an Article II “natural born Citizen” the same meaning as the English gave to an English “natural born subject” under the English common law is twofold: (1) That the English common law once prevailed in the colonies and it continued to prevail in the states and the United States after the American Revolution; (2) That the Founders and Framers, using “natural born Citizen,” utilized an English common law term. Let us briefly examine why both of these arguments have no merit. <br /><br />Concerning No. (1): <br /><br />The historical record shows that the Founders and Framers did not adopt the English common law on the national level. Rather, the English common law only continued to have application and effect in the states to whatever degree it was adopted and not abrogated by state statutes and new court decisions. As far as what law the Founders and Framers did adopt on the national level, that law was the Constitution, treaties, Acts of Congress, and the law of nations. The English common law did not make the list. <br /><br />Concerning No. (2): <br /><br />“Natural born Citizen” is not an English common law term. The word “citizen” has no origins in English society, neither in its politics nor in its language. <br /><br />First, it did not exist in the English political society. The English political society called its people “subjects,” who through the feudal concept of the divine right of kings were beholden to the king for life. These “subjects” did not have the unalienable natural right to expatriate from the perpetual allegiance that they owed to the King from the moment of being born within his dominion, regardless of whether that birth was through design, accident, or consent of the English political society. <br /><br />Second, the clause did not exist in the language of the English common law. The language of the English common law used “natural born subject,” not “natural born Citizen.” “Natural born Citizen” is a word of art, an idiom, which has its origins in natural law and the law of nations. The law of nations defines the clause as a child born in the country to citizen parents. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). While Vattel was initially translated from the French to the English to say “indigenes” rather than “natural-born citizen,” ( see pre-1797 English translations of The Law of Nations and The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289(1814), wherein Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, given the then-existing English translations of Vattel, understandably cited and quoted Vattel thus: “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”), the anonymous English translator of the 1797 English edition of The Law of Nations replaced “natives or indigenes” with “natives or natural-born citizens,” as did all other subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68(1875) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898). <br /><br />As we can see, all these U.S. Supreme Court decisions said that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents and they all expressly or implicitly cited Vattel for that definition. So clearly, the international and U.S. judicial national consensus has for centuries been that Vattel in English said “natural-born citizen.” The Founders and Framers reading his then-existing editions of his 1758 French treatise in both French and English (Vattel’s 1758 French edition was followed with various other French editions and was first translated into English in 1759, followed with various other English translations) came to the same conclusion and so used the clause “natural born Citizen” and Vattel's meaning of that clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com