tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post2679369438564913620..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Obama is an Unconstitutional Illegal Putative President - 21 & 14 Dec 2009 Issues of Washington Times National Weekly Edition. Obama was Born BritishMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger134125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-44779509310561846382010-01-20T17:34:11.110-05:002010-01-20T17:34:11.110-05:00medical:
And if you really want to hear some unin...medical:<br /><br />And if you really want to hear some uninformed (and spite-filled) "coprolalia", just check into Keeth Onagerman's "congrats" speech to Scott Brown.<br /><br />This TV type wasn't even entertaining as a sportscaster and is even less so as some sort of self-aggrandizing "commentator". He even makes Rachel Madcow look intelligent - and that's some stretch!<br /><br />Just for fun you migh check these two short videos:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsX5DzZHkIU Three Little Words<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNGG8tIJNMY Merry Christmas OmeriKa!!jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58008912805784839702010-01-20T01:47:54.148-05:002010-01-20T01:47:54.148-05:00Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts shows that ...Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts shows that "the usurper's" endorsement of Martha Coakley was as helpful to her campaign as tying her to a ship's anchor, then dropping her off the deep end of a long pier at high tide. A conservative candidate from ultra-liberal Massachusetts winning a Senate seat proves beyond all doubt "the worm has turned". The obvious, rude, nasty, illegal, evil, and now publicly well known "DOJ Blog Squad" has not, as they had foolishly planned and imagined, helped "the usurper" and his extreme far left Marxist/socialist fellow travelers, it has backfired and helped to destroy them. Many of the "backlash" voters are very upset that "the usurper" is still concealing all his background records, has broken every last one of his campaign promises, absolutely refuses to produce his "long form" birth certificate and claims "it's no longer available" (does he REALLY believe the voters are THAT ignorant?), and he is wasting millions of dollars worth of the government's attorneys' time (OUR MONEY) to protect him from being forced into a court of law to face up to the facts. AFTER ONLY ONE INNING OF WHAT WAS SCHEDULED TO BE A FOUR INNING GAME, "THE USURPER" and HIS TEAM ARE ALREADY TOO FAR BEHIND TO EVER CATCH UP! (Think "coprolalia". Tonight, there's a massive outbreak of it rapidly spreading through Washington.)Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254885881347846017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-72134265870914621782010-01-19T21:37:29.324-05:002010-01-19T21:37:29.324-05:00Scott Brown wins in MA! 52-47%. Coakley has conced...Scott Brown wins in MA! 52-47%. Coakley has conceded per AP. <br /><br />Charlescfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-3912704752320080642010-01-19T08:50:26.037-05:002010-01-19T08:50:26.037-05:00January 19, 2010, is an important date for many re...January 19, 2010, is an important date for many reasons!<br /><br />It is also the date the Appeals Court briefs were due. Can we have an update on the progress of the case? Will the brief be posted for us to read?<br /><br />Thanks again, Mr. Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner, for all of your hard work!Sallyvenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09907616488562792531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-7319782447374495132010-01-19T03:26:54.869-05:002010-01-19T03:26:54.869-05:00that is to say
we know that NBC is not a statutory...that is to say<br />we know that NBC is not a statutory citizen per Article II<br />we know what born citizens can be per 14th<br />we know all possible permutations of a citizen per logic<br />we know only one permutation is omitted from statutory definitions of citizen<br />so obviously NBC must be that remaining one, which is born in-country to 2 US citizen parents<br /><br />indeed any other "born citizen" definition bots try to assign to being NBC, just proves even more that Obama is only a statutory citizen and thus CANNOT be NBCIncreduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-55983048322836746422010-01-19T03:23:30.181-05:002010-01-19T03:23:30.181-05:00Thank you for the background/evolution of the incl...Thank you for the background/evolution of the inclusions for "citizen". <br /><br /><br />As the constitution says that <br />--NBC is not a citizen<br />--and the 14th/US Code 1401 says a born citizen is jus soli and/or one US citizen parent (it never lists 2 US citizen parents)<br />--and NBC is nowhere in the 14th (supported by Minor)<br />then the only omitted possible born-citizen permutation is born in-country to 2 US citizen parents<br /><br />So isn't this irrefutable logic?Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-3347856663506189202010-01-18T21:25:03.139-05:002010-01-18T21:25:03.139-05:00It is interesting to note that when I bought the d...It is interesting to note that when I bought the domain name birther.com, my hosting provider godaddy.com parked it on one of their advertising pages. The very first ad that showed up at the top of the parked site was "barackobama.com." This was before I added any Obama content to it whatsoever. Funny how Obama's people claim there is nothing to the birther issues, but yet they still feel compelled to buy up advertising space for the keyword birther.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00506386638130850542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-2822790251802644512010-01-18T14:49:07.376-05:002010-01-18T14:49:07.376-05:00II of II
Over the course of our history, our cour...II of II<br /><br />Over the course of our history, our courts have opened up plain citizenship to more people. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169U. S. 649 (1898), constitutionalized the notion that a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents who are domiciled here is a "citizen of the United States." Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1874) had stated that, while there was no doubt as to who was a “natural-born citizen,” defining such a person consistently with (1) Samuel von Puffendorf, (2) Emer de Vattel, (3) Thomas Jefferson, one of our most important Founders, and (4) the then-existing Congressional naturalization laws, as anyone born in the country to parents who were citizens, it was doubtful whether children born in the United States of alien parents were “citizens” and left this question unanswered. Justice Gray in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), had explained that the persons declared to be citizens under the 14th Amendment are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." He emphasized that these last words meant that at birth the person owed “no allegiance to any alien power. . . The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized. . .” Id. <br />But then 14 years later Justice Gray, who was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur whose father was not a United States citizen when Chester Arthur was born, in Wong, by contradicting what he said in the Elk decision and by reverting back to the outdated, outmoded, and irrelevant feudal English common law that prevailed in the colonies, gave a very loose definition to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” By doing so, the decision allowed children born on U.S. soil to alien parents who were domiciled here to be members of American civil society and therefore “citizens of the United States.” The Wong decision only addressed the question of whether Wong could be a member of American civil society or a plain "citizen of the United States" as that phrase is written in the 14th Amendment and did not change the original definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen." On the contrary, the decision confirmed the definition of a “natural born Citizen” by citing the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1874) with approval. Given existing United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cited Vattel and referred to the law of nations and gave Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (which cited Vattel and his The Law of Nations and also took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively; Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (gave the same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (gave the same definition and cited Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (gave the same definition and cited Vattel), it would have been just too much for Justice Gray to justify declaring Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />With no constitutional amendment and no U.S. Supreme Court case ever changing the original definition of a "natural born Citizen," it still prevails today and rightfully so. That office is too unique and powerful to have any lesser of a standard.<br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-53425988325605336662010-01-18T14:44:17.552-05:002010-01-18T14:44:17.552-05:00cajapie,
I of II
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 ...cajapie, <br /><br />I of II<br /><br />In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the ancient notion that slaves were property and that both slaves and their descendents were not members of the civil society and therefore not eligible for citizenship. The slaves were in part emancipated by President Lincoln using his powers as the Commander in Chief of the Military and issuing thereunder executive orders of 1862 and 1863. The 13th Amendment outlawing slavery was passed in 1865. But given the Dred Scott decision, there still remained the question of whether the former slaves and their descendents could be citizens of the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed to abrogate that decision to the constitutional degree that it could. This Act in effect codified the natural law/law of nations/American federal common law definition of a "natural born Citizen." So that there could not be any constitutional challenge to the law and so that no subsequent Congress could so easily change that law, the 14th Amendment (which included the citizenship clause) was passed in 1868 to constitutionalize the 1866 act. The reason both the 1866 Act and the 14th Amendment were needed was to take race out of the definition which never existed in the law of nature definition of a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” but because of the slave experience in which the colonists/Founders lived was included by them as a barrier to membership in the civil society (to become a “citizen”) and consequently created a situation wherein people of a different race or color not being citizens could never procreate a “natural born Citizen.” Again, both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (born on U.S. soil and “not subject to any foreign power”) and the 14th Amendment (born on U.S. soil or naturalized there and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) were only designed to establish the rules to be applied for initial membership into American civil society and to constitutionally confirm that born citizens (who through the years have come to be called native citizens) and naturalized citizens are equal under the law. They were neither intended nor designed to amend the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which applied for determining eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The 14th Amendment also made clear that either a born citizen or a naturalized citizen could procreate “natural born Citizens.” <br /><br />In most cases, only if a child is born in the country to a mother and father who are both citizens will that child be born "not subject to any foreign power" or "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]." If for some chance one or both of the foreign parents were stateless or if the nation of one or both of the foreign parents did not recognize jus sanguinis, a child born on United States soil could be born to a foreign parent and not acquire any foreign citizenship and allegiance. But these latter cases will most likely be rare, for most people are not stateless and a large number of countries also recognize citizenship through jus sanguinis. <br /><br />But the Article II "natural born Citizen" clause goes further than just not wanting the child's parents to be foreigners. The clause affirmatively requires that the child's parents be U.S. citizens. The reason for this is that when the child meets the definition of a "natural born Citizen," the child will be reared by citizens of the United States, thereby assuring to a greater degree that the child will be instilled with American values and loyalty. <br /><br />Continued . . .Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-73871658833758688072010-01-18T02:08:43.061-05:002010-01-18T02:08:43.061-05:00Perhaps if a person is born of a non-citizen paren...Perhaps if a person is born of a non-citizen parent in-country, they are then subject to a foreign power SOMETIMES. Maybe some countries only consider jus soli births for their citizenship? Is that why CRA 1866 does not say NBC? Just probing.Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-82546903097294623512010-01-18T01:42:09.965-05:002010-01-18T01:42:09.965-05:00Karl Marx is alive and well at 1600 Pennsylvania A...Karl Marx is alive and well at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254885881347846017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-74861649448998027562010-01-18T01:40:25.394-05:002010-01-18T01:40:25.394-05:00The ever increasing numbers of non-attorneys who a...The ever increasing numbers of non-attorneys who are creating blogs and calling themselves "recognized legal experts" ("recognized" by WHOM?!) and posting constantly changing massive walls of text, which overflow with erroneous and intentionally confusing "irrefutable legal proof" stating that the usurper is "unquestionably" a "n.b.C.", is simply amazing. "Jail house lawyers" have more credibility! The childishly written blogs, which are nothing more than attempts at misleading and confusing the public, also come complete with their own "ad hominem attack teams", which have been trained to harass and upset emotional "naysayers" into wasting precious time arguing. The Obama "n.b.C." support blogs are the most obvious paid political scams I've ever witnessed in my entire life. Where do they find most of those below no class people? Are they the same people who used to operate the con-games for traveling carnivals? I KNOW FOR A FACT that one of the blog owners is employed by a Russian intelligence agency that is pushing the U.S.A. closer and closer toward becoming a Marxist nation. He's easy to spot, just look for the angry faced old Goober who has a gray "devil beard" and wears a straw hat that belongs on a farm tractor operator.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254885881347846017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-16654938100133390532010-01-18T00:16:43.457-05:002010-01-18T00:16:43.457-05:00cajapie said...Why didn't CRA1866 say NBCs vs....cajapie said...Why didn't CRA1866 say NBCs vs. "Citizens"?<br />"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"<br />________________________<br /><br />cajapie,<br /><br />congress was only invested with the power to make laws regarding immigration & naturalization & by the laws of nature, a natural born citizen needs no law to prove their citizenship. However, congress did define what the phrase meant & Mario & Charles have hit it many times. Do a text search on the site here for Bingham or the 39th Congress and it wll bring up many articles for you to read on the subject.<br /><br />use the google search button midway down on the right side of the main page.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-72053857640337643682010-01-17T19:12:14.264-05:002010-01-17T19:12:14.264-05:00What happened between the CRA of 1866 and the 14th...What happened between the CRA of 1866 and the 14th amendment of 1868 and when did statutes follow that defined "Citizen"?<br />Why didn't CRA1866 say NBCs vs. "Citizens"?<br />"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-27425097482547070502010-01-17T18:21:32.197-05:002010-01-17T18:21:32.197-05:00Marie & Charles:
I hope and pray that you hav...Marie & Charles:<br /><br />I hope and pray that you have both thjorouchly digested BOTH parts I & II of "constitutionallyspeaking"'s blog that she linked in her above comments.<br /><br />She absolutely nails it and (especially) Part II shows the intellectual dishonesty put forth by the opponents such as the "Constitutional expert" Laurence Tribe - he of the HR511 "justification" AND he of the hoped for SCOTUS nomination since he was BHO' "teacher" at Harvard and one of his early "pushers".<br /><br />The stunts of these guys cannot be overestimated as her Par II explanation of the mixing and matching of different portions of the Constitution to mis-define what it means.<br /><br />Would they lie??? MOST ASSUREDLY - and frequently.jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-73650795929296576932010-01-17T13:37:12.531-05:002010-01-17T13:37:12.531-05:00Charles,
Thank you so much. I will go try it righ...Charles,<br /><br />Thank you so much. I will go try it right away. :)<br /><br />Regards, LindaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85973307027278241312010-01-17T13:30:17.451-05:002010-01-17T13:30:17.451-05:00Hello again Constitutionallyspeaking,
I just now ...Hello again Constitutionallyspeaking,<br /><br />I just now added a new "Google Search This Blog" gadget/widget to the features in the right frame/column. Scroll down a little bit on the right side and you should spot it. Hope this does what you want.<br /><br />Charlescfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59891944161075264582010-01-17T13:12:11.157-05:002010-01-17T13:12:11.157-05:00Charles,
I have. It only searches the titles, not...Charles,<br /><br />I have. It only searches the titles, not the constent of the text.<br /><br />Regards, LindaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-63502320131562083102010-01-17T13:06:27.755-05:002010-01-17T13:06:27.755-05:00Constitutionallyspeaking,
There is a small search...Constitutionallyspeaking,<br /><br />There is a small search field box in the upper left corner of the blog. It has a spy glass symbol next to it. This is provided by BlogSpot. Have you tried that?<br /><br />Charlescfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-56412989576435689792010-01-16T23:33:11.329-05:002010-01-16T23:33:11.329-05:00The stonewalling will continue by the internationa...The stonewalling will continue by the international corporate federal employees until the dissolution of this erstwhile great nation as we are under Lex Fori : http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/1996/Sep96.html Barry's latest EO establishes a Council of Governors for ten regions in the USA in preparation for Martial Law,and this is biblical for the New World Order plan : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1drMBgtok&feature=PlayList&p=6E89E7EB31811CF0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9 The cases in DC on Corp US are in Default but are being stalled by ignring the APA Act and FRCP and Styles Manual and ignoring the motion for Clarification of language.http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tcJimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01552547196152511043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77968198910019343972010-01-16T22:02:31.832-05:002010-01-16T22:02:31.832-05:00Mario & Charles,
I wish you had a search butt...Mario & Charles,<br /><br />I wish you had a search button for us to use to locate specific information in all your wonderful & educational articles.<br /><br />Any chance?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-68641177075922967992010-01-16T15:44:14.637-05:002010-01-16T15:44:14.637-05:00Mario & Charles,
I have read the Marriage Act...Mario & Charles,<br /><br />I have read the Marriage Act(Cable Act) of 1922 and the 2 reviosion to it in 1936 & 1940. No where in these acts does Congress change the longstanding law of decent and now allows "married" women to confer citizenship on the child. Have you looked into this further?<br /><br />Also, I expanded may last artice, as was my original intention to put right back in the faces of the koolaide drinkers, how deceitfully they twist the words of the early scholars to somehow justify thier argument. Part I was a teaser, here is the complete rebutle.<br /><br />Part II, there may be some additional information here you can pull for your case.<br /><br />http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/did-common-law-really-grant-automatic-us-citizenship-upon-birth-regardless-of-parentage-part-ii/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-30086850278946672022010-01-15T22:12:42.666-05:002010-01-15T22:12:42.666-05:00Do you think Beck, O'Reilly etc., are complici...Do you think Beck, O'Reilly etc., are complicit or threatened? Do you think they're convinced that removing pp is so devastating it's better to pretend he's eligible? <br />What the hell is going on? <br /><br />By not addressing the core issue and yet critiquing all the peripherals, they LEGITIMIZE him.Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-9268023475796471892010-01-15T16:38:11.196-05:002010-01-15T16:38:11.196-05:00constitutionallyspeaking,
You are correct. I ha...constitutionallyspeaking, <br /><br />You are correct. I have argued that in our history (prior to Wong Kim Ark) the children of aliens born in the U.S. were neither plain citizens nor natural born citizens, but rather had to naturalize. The obots laughed at me. It is nice to have someone like you agree with me on this aspect of the Obama eligiblity issue.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-29318898963716486392010-01-15T14:12:33.298-05:002010-01-15T14:12:33.298-05:00SEND O TO GITMO
http://www.thepostemail.com/petiti...<b>SEND O TO GITMO</b><br />http://www.thepostemail.com/petition-hawaii-govt/<br /><br /><b>Article III, Section 3 – Treason against the United States, shall consist only …in adhering to their Enemies</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com