tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post4529872893561788876..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British CitizenMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-34758105033257872912009-10-12T15:48:57.964-04:002009-10-12T15:48:57.964-04:00The 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-30635679335826132762009-09-13T01:00:16.362-04:002009-09-13T01:00:16.362-04:00No, I couldn't find hard evidence. I think th...No, I couldn't find hard evidence. I think the best evidence is how BNA 1981 was implemented (which is to deny British passport applications to former CUKCs) and the lack of any objection from British parliament implying that the implementation was what they intended.<br /><br />BNA 1981 is pretty clear that the acquisition of BOC status is dependent on one having CUKC before the commencement of BNA 1981 (which took place on Jan 1 1983). Obama lost his CUKC due to the original (pre-repeal) KIA, and that is the version that needs to be relied on because of the clear language in BNA 1981 referring to one's status prior to the commencement of BNA 981. In this sense, the pre-repeal version of KIA is still important because that determines one's status prior to BNA 1981, which in turn decides whether one gets any of the new categories of British nationality.<br /><br />This is actually quite typical of British Nationality Law. In spite of the repeals, the laws are normally written in such a way that you have to end up consulting the pre-repeal versions to decide whether you qualify for a particular category of British nationality. This is even true say for someone born in the UK between 1948 and 1981. He/she would have been a CUKC at birth. Even though BNA 1948 which granted him/her this status has now been repealed by BNA 1981, one still needs to consult it to figure out his/her status prior to BNA 1981 to conclude that he/she qualifies for the new category of "British Citizenship". <br /><br />Your point on birthright citizenship is a great deal more complex. Unlike the United States, Britain did not have a notion of citizenship until BNA 1948. Prior to that everyone, including people from independent or self-governing countries like Canada, shared a common status of "British subject", which was renamed "Commonwealth Citizen" by BNA 1981. The UK also does not have a constitution, so it is very hard to make a case about whether British nationality is an inalienable right or not. The independence laws passed by the UK have almost always stripped people of their CUKC status. That might sound like it goes against some constitution principle from an American perspective, but unfortunately there is no constitution to rely on. This does mean British Parliament does have some quite extraordinary powers. This is a side topic, but Tony Blair's government made huge changes to the House of Lords that would have in almost all other countries required major constitutional amendments. But because the UK does not have a constitution, it was sufficient for Parliament under the leadership of Tony Blair to pass laws effecting the changes he desired. So the answer to your question in all likelihood is yes, the Home Secretary or Parliament does have the authority to deny someone citizenship, although I wouldn't technically call it "constitutional authority" because of the lack of a constitution.<br /><br />(As yet another side note - I am not as familiar about this topic as British Nationality Law, but I believe that when the Philippines became independent, the US did pass laws to withdraw US citizenship from people connected to the Philippines. So the UK independence laws are probably not as unusual as they might initially seem.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404362573905589340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-71542613617336641882009-09-12T16:41:50.889-04:002009-09-12T16:41:50.889-04:00John,
I guess you were not able to find any hard...John, <br /><br />I guess you were not able to find any hard evidence of Parliament's intent for repeaing Sec. 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. <br /><br />Also, you state: "Furthermore, BNA 1981 abolishes CUKC - it is hard to imagine that Parliament's intent in the same Act was to both revive and abolish CUKC."<br /><br />You misstate my position on the intent of BNA 1981. I never said that Parliament through the BNA 1981 also meant to revive CUKC. On the other hand, what BNA 1981 did do is replace CUKC with 3 separate citizenships, one of which is British Overseas Citizenship (BOC). Hence, there is no problem with Obama simply claiming that because Sec. 2 and 3of the KIA 1963 have been repealed, there exists no law denying him his birthright CUKC status which BNA 1981 converted to BOC. <br /><br />Another interesting issue to explore is this. Obama was born a British subject (a natural born subject) under the English common law and as such he acquired natural and perpetual allegiance to the Crown at the time of birth. He is what Sir Edward Coke would call a postnati (born a "natural born subject" by descent from his father after the British colonial conquest of Kenya and prior to its independence). Let us assume that his birthright British citizenship therefore has a basis in the English Constitution. Let us also assume that Obama applies to the British Home Secretary to regain his BOC. Under these circumstances, does the Home Secretary and/or Parliament have the constitutional authority to deny him his birthright British citizenship? I would like to have your thoughts on this very interesting issue. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-48315278058745313722009-09-11T19:12:52.871-04:002009-09-11T19:12:52.871-04:00I just took a closer look at the original (pre-rep...I just took a closer look at the original (pre-repeal) version of the Kenya Independence Act. Section 2 (the section that includes the provision for loss of CUKC), starts off "On and after the appointed day, the British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if ..."<br />I don't know what the consequences would have been if this section was not repealed - there would have been a reference to a defunct Act. Also, most of the clauses in Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA (the repealed sections) are about the retention of CUKC. These clauses would all have been contradictory (and not complementary) to BNA 1981, which abolished CUKC. I suppose they could have repealed all the contradictory clauses and left in the one or two clauses that talked about the loss of CUKC - but I can't imagine how that would have worked with a preamble referring to a defunct BNA 1948.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404362573905589340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-65430296344904815172009-09-11T18:49:13.568-04:002009-09-11T18:49:13.568-04:00"I respect your reasoning. But still, is that..."I respect your reasoning. But still, is that what Parliament intended? What evidence exists regarding their intent? Once they killed CUKC with BNA 1981, was it really necessary to also kill Sec. 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963, especially when killing Sec. 2 and 3 is only adding to the specter of reviving CUKC?"<br /><br />Based on how BNA 1981 has been implemented, I would conclude that the intention was not to revive CUKC. I posted a link earlier to the standard form letter the UK government uses to deny British passport applications made by such former CUKCs. Enough time has passed since BNA 1981 for us to conclude that if the implementation was not what parliament intended, then parliament would have passed some sort of clarification/amendment by now. Also the trend in British Nationality Law since 1948 has been to reduce Britain's obligation to those who might claim to be its nationals. Furthermore, BNA 1981 abolishes CUKC - it is hard to imagine that Parliament's intent in the same Act was to both revive and abolish CUKC. I know none of this is hard evidence, but this is probably the only way I can think of to deduce Parliament's intent. <br /><br />"Following the logic of your argument, can you just imagine if Congress intending to repeal a certain law had to scour the all the books to find and repeal every clause in every other statute that may exist simply because that clause made some type of reference to the law now being repealed, even if the clause was not in any way contradictory to Congress's current purpose in repealing the subject statute and even complimentary to it."<br /><br />True. I don't know what the British legal conventions are, and what the consequences would have been if KIA had not been repealed and there are all these references to defunct citizenships left in the law. My guess is that there isn't a legal requirement to go through the whole body of law and find every bit that needs to be changed, but that they were just trying to be as complete as possible. For example, the British lawmakers could have just said in BNA 1981 something like "the provisions of this Act overrides previous acts" and not bother to repeal anything, including BNA 1948. But clearly that was not their approach.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404362573905589340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85138610557378742542009-09-11T18:33:03.226-04:002009-09-11T18:33:03.226-04:00John,
On the restoration of British Overseas Cit...John, <br /><br />On the restoration of British Overseas Citzenship (BOC), it is a close political call and much too close for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-60652438249844737992009-09-11T18:25:38.574-04:002009-09-11T18:25:38.574-04:00John,
I respect your reasoning. But still, is t...John, <br /><br />I respect your reasoning. But still, is that what Parliament intended? What evidence exists regarding their intent? Once they killed CUKC with BNA 1981, was it really necessary to also kill Sec. 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963, especially when killing Sec. 2 and 3 is only adding to the specter of reviving CUKC? <br /><br />Following the logic of your argument, can you just imagine if Congress intending to repeal a certain law had to scour the all the books to find and repeal every clause in every other statute that may exist simply because that clause made some type of reference to the law now being repealed, even if the clause was not in any way contradictory to Congress's current purpose in repealing the subject statute and even complimentary to it. <br /><br />Also, do you think that Obama could apply with any chance of success to the British Home Office to have his British citzenship restored?<br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58229056447742521522009-09-11T18:15:56.097-04:002009-09-11T18:15:56.097-04:00"I have written that even if one does not tec..."I have written that even if one does not technically have British citizenship, one can apply to the British Home Secretary to be allowed to resume it arguing that the circumstances warrant it. Does Obama qualify for this application?"<br /><br />Not for the following reasons:<br /><br />(1) This provision does not apply if you have lost CUKC through independence. (The UK doesn't want an immigration problem - imagining everyone in a former colony trying to apply for resumption of citizenship). It refers to those who have renounced British Citizenship (usually to take up citizenship in a country that prohibits dual citizenship).<br /><br />(2) Resumption of British nationality is only available to British Citizens. Obama would at best be a British Overseas Citizen and that category is not entitled to resumption.<br /><br />In any case, you are not considered a British Citizen until your application for resumption has been approved (it is subject to background checks and is not automatically approved). So Obama would still not be British now.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404362573905589340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-2489602175667738632009-09-11T17:27:56.492-04:002009-09-11T17:27:56.492-04:00If they repealed BNA 1948 but not KIA (and all the...If they repealed BNA 1948 but not KIA (and all the other independence acts), you will have legislation in KIA referring to a form of nationality (CUKC) that does not exist anymore. The parts of KIA that refer to CUKC only make sense if BNA 1948 is still in effect. <br /><br />CUKC was introduced by BNA 1948. Prior to that, the UK, its colonies, independent dominions like Canada, Australia, etc, shared a common "British subject" status. (As a side note, BNA 1981 redefined "British subject" so this means something else today - see below).<br /><br />It doesn't help that British Nationality Law is so horrendously complex. As far as I can tell, there are six current classes of British nationality (BC, BOTC, BOC, BS, BPP, BN(O)), two defunct classes (CUKC, BDTC), two associated classes (Commonwealth and EU citizenship). To make it worse, classes were renamed by BNA 1981 in confusing ways. For example, "British subject" prior to BNA 1981 is now "Commonwealth citizen", and "British subject without citizenship" prior to BNA 1981 is now "British subject".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404362573905589340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-82654006038461074422009-09-11T17:24:46.349-04:002009-09-11T17:24:46.349-04:00John,
I have written that even if one does not t...John, <br /><br />I have written that even if one does not technically have British citizenship, one can apply to the British Home Secretary to be allowed to resume it arguing that the circumstances warrant it. Does Obama qualify for this application?Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46390251172042329652009-09-11T17:07:02.909-04:002009-09-11T17:07:02.909-04:00John,
I follow your logic quite well. But your ...John, <br /><br />I follow your logic quite well. But your reasoning still does not answer the question of why did Parliament through the BNA 1981 repeal both the BNA 1948 (producing a negative) and Sec. 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963 (producing a positive). Why the double kill with contradictory results? It would be great if anyone could find some legislative history which could shed some light on this question. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59883852807218656412009-09-11T17:01:54.008-04:002009-09-11T17:01:54.008-04:00Here is a links from the UK parliamentary debates:...Here is a links from the UK parliamentary debates:<br /><br />http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1984/dec/05/business-of-the-house#S6CV0069P0_19841205_HOC_520 This debate concerns the creation of yet another category of British nationality for Hong Kong, but BNA 1981 is brought up and you can see that parliament if anything wanted to reduce its obligations to former citizens of the empire and limit/reduce the numbers nationals entitled to travel on British passports and receive British consular protection (even if they have no right to live or work in the UK).<br /><br />http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1981/oct/06/british-nationality-bill#S5LV0424P0_19811006_HOL_313 This concerns the inconvenience faced by non UK-born CUKCs living in the UK who lost their status because of independence of their homeland - note there is no mention of restoring their CUKCs automatically - merely a request to make the paperwork required to retain UK citizenship easier and less costly.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404362573905589340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90444402984020136042009-09-11T16:17:19.341-04:002009-09-11T16:17:19.341-04:00"The question is does the BNA 1981's repe..."The question is does the BNA 1981's repeal of Sec. 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963 have any effect on Obama's former British citizenship status? Does the repeal of Sec. 2 and 3 restore his old CUKC status?"<br /><br />I agree that BNA 1981's repeal of the citizenship parts of KIA is not clear about this point. However, since BNA 1981 also abolishes CUKC status for everybody [BNA 1981, Schedule 9 abolishes BNA 1948 which created CUKC in the first place], it does not matter. At most, Obama's CUKC status was restored by BNA 1981 and simultaneously abolished.<br /><br />The repeal of the citizenship provisions of the KIA is part of BNA 1981 [BNA 1981, Schedule 9]. Therefore, even if Obama's CUKC status was restored, it would not have been before the commencement of BNA 1981 and so Obama would not be entitled to any of the new forms of British Nationality created by BNA 1981. [BNA 1981, Articles 11, 13 and 26].<br /><br />As to the intent of parliament, I think that is pretty clear (although perhaps not in any explicit written form). The UK certainly has no desire to grant British nationality to all citizens of independent countries that were formerly part of the Britsh Empire. BNA 1981 repeals the citizenship provisions of almost every independence act (not just for Kenya), but that is because those provisions refer the defunct CUKC category. If you look at citizens of former colonies of Britain born before the implementation of BNA 1981, you certainly don't see them carrying British passports. In fact if you look at the following link - http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/independence?view=Binary - you will find a form letter the UK government uses when former CUKCs who have lost that status through independence try to apply for a British passport.<br /><br />By the way, I am not making any comment about the argument about Obama's CUKC at birth affecting his "natural born citizen" status of the US. That is a separate thing. I am just pointing out the Obama does not qualify for any form of British nationality now.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404362573905589340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-17624813802477995482009-09-11T15:37:38.141-04:002009-09-11T15:37:38.141-04:00PART II OF II
The British Nationality Act 1981 (B...PART II OF II<br /><br />The British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981) repealed the BNA 1948 and Sec. 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. The BNA 1981 grants to those who held CUKC status "immediately" before "commencement" of the act, among other forms of citizenship, British Overseas Citizenship (BOC). The question is does the BNA 1981's repeal of Sec. 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963 have any effect on Obama's former British citizenship status? Does the repeal of Sec. 2 and 3 restore his old CUKC status? There is an argument that the repeal would not have restored Obama’s CUKC status because Obama did not have CUKC status "immediately" before commencement, for he had presumably lost that CUKC in 1963. But there is no automatic answer to this question. To answer this question properly, we must at least know what the intent of Parliament was in repealing Sec. 2 and 3. We must know why did Parliament use the word "immediately" before commencement when referring to former CUKC status? Why did Parliament care to repeal Sec. 2 and 3 when it was at the same time repealing the BNA 1948? What would have happened if Parliament only repealed the BNA 1948 and not also Sec. 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963? What did Parliament want to achieve by the simultaneous repeals of BNA 1948 and Sec. 2 and 3 of KIA 1963? Does repeal of Sec. 2 and 3 "immediately" restore prior CUCK status? If it does, then Obama would have CUKC status "immediately" prior to commencement and would be eligible for BOC. <br /><br />I have not seen any postings by anyone providing this information. Have you found anything which shows what Parliament's intent in this regard was? If you have, kindly provide it for me and to those who are following this interesting issue so that we can all further examine the problem. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58429510499082600332009-09-11T15:36:56.766-04:002009-09-11T15:36:56.766-04:00John,
PART I OF II
First, I want to make it cle...John, <br /><br />PART I OF II<br /><br />First, I want to make it clear that we must look to Obama's citizenship status at the moment of birth to determine whether he is an Article II "natural born Citizen." The British Nationality Act 1948 granted to Obama's father Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) status when he was born in then-English colony, Kenya. That Act also granted to Obama the same CUKC status by way of descent from his father. Hence, when Obama was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and not a U.S. citizen and he himself was also born a British subject/citizen, regardless of whether Obama was born in the United States or any other country of the world. As such, he was born subject to a foreign power because his father was not a U.S. citizen and because he himself was a British subject/citizen. Being born under such birth circumstances, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen." <br /><br />The historical record shows that the Founding Fathers would not have allowed a foreigner to be the supreme leader of the military, the leader of the United States who is expected to make immediate life and death war decisions in the international arena. The historical record also shows that they would have perceived someone who is born subject to a foreign power to be such a foreigner. This is not even to mention the problems that can arise given the President's express and implied constitutional powers over international affairs (e.g. negotiating treaties, providing input and having influence over the proposal of the military budget and the development of military defense systems, appointing ambassadors, doling out international financial aid, and waging war on international terrorism, to name just a few) and the conflicts that can develop in these areas, whether real or imagined, if the President does not have sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States. <br /><br />Second, to fully appreciate the meaning of the "natural born Citizen" clause but not as a necessary component thereof, I believe that it is also important to examine Obama's current citizenship status. Hence, in April 2009 I published my article which raises the question of whether today Obama is still a British citizen. Kenya achieved independence from Great Britain in 1963. Sec. 2 and 3 of the Kenya Independence Act 1963 (KIA 1963), a British law, removed from those acquiring Kenyan citizenship under the new Kenyan Constitution of 1963 their CUKC status that they had acquired under the BNA 1948, unless they qualified to keep that British citizenship status under one of Act's retention provisions. Based on what is known publicly, it does not appear as though either his father or Obama qualified to keep his CUKC under any of the Act's retention provision and so they would have lost that status but Obama would have continued as a citizen of Kenya. Under the Kenyan Constitution of 1963, Obama would have kept his Kenyan citizenship until age 21. Under Chapter 170-Kenyan Citizenship Act, he was able to extend his hold of Kenyan citizenship until age 23, which means that he kept that citizenship until August 4, 1984. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-61394888198491052562009-09-11T07:12:13.381-04:002009-09-11T07:12:13.381-04:00Obama does not currently have any form of British ...Obama does not currently have any form of British nationality.<br /><br />When he was born, he was a citizen of the UK and colonies (CUKC) through descent from his father. When Kenya became independent in 1963, he lost this status. This is not due to Kenyan law of the Kenyan constitution (Mr Apuzzo is correct to say that Kenyan law has no business taking away Obama's CUKC staus). The place to look for this is the Kenya Independence Act (KIA) passed by the UK parliament, which withdraws CUKC status from most people who acquired Kenyan citizenship upon Kenyan independence.<br /><br />Now, the British Nationality Act of 1981 (BNA 1981) repeals the sections of the KIA having to do with CUKC. It would seem to some that this restores Obama's CUKC. However, this is not the case for the following reasons: <br /><br />(1) BNA 1981 abolishes the category of CUKC for everybody and replaces that by new categories of British Nationality (British Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, etc). <br /><br />(2) Whether one gets one of the new forms of British nationality introduced by BNA 1981 is dependent on one having CUKC status immediately before the commencement of BNA 1981. Therefore Obama would have one of the new forms of British Citizenship only if he held CUKC prior to BNA 1981's implementation and the repeal of the citizenship sections of KIA. This he did not have, because he lost CUKC based on the pre-repeal version of the KIA.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404362573905589340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-29054635334038038342009-08-06T18:22:12.877-04:002009-08-06T18:22:12.877-04:00Just to clarify that the statement was made by an ...Just to clarify that the statement was made by an Obot trying to say that Barack lost both Kenyan and British citizenship...<br />I don't agree with that, just wanted to clarify. Thanks for your response.<br />But it is good that they're worried enough about it to forumulate a good lie!<br />Michael Medved show he just said all 14th amendment citizens are natural born citizens and was very rude to a caller talking about this issue that you wrote about.<br /><br />Medved is another fraud.Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-87849677614456163552009-08-06T17:17:55.839-04:002009-08-06T17:17:55.839-04:00To cajapie,
You state:
"3) On Dec.12, 19...To cajapie, <br /><br />You state: <br /><br />"3) On Dec.12, 1963, Kenya became independent of the UK. Consequently, under Article 87 of the Kenyan Constitution, people who were UKC citizens ceased being UKC citizens and became Kenyan citizens. This meant that Obama now held American and Kenyan citizenship."<br /><br />One sovereign nation cannot take away from a person his or her citizenship that another sovereign nation granted to him or her. The laws of Kenya cannot take away English citizenship that was granted by the British Nationality Act of 1948. On the other hand, the Kenyan Independence Act 1963 at Sections 2 and 3 (a British law) did take away British citizenship from those gaining Kenyan citizenship and not qualifying for retention of British citizenship. Obama probably did not qualify for retention. But the British Nationality Act of 1981, at Section 9, repealed Section 2 and 3 of the Kenyan Independence Act 1963. Hence, Obama got his British citizenship back. <br /><br />Also, remember that under English common law, "once a British subject always a British subject." <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-73769723176846748972009-08-06T16:50:41.421-04:002009-08-06T16:50:41.421-04:00Mr.Apuzzo: You're making waves into the obot c...Mr.Apuzzo: You're making waves into the obot concern realm. Here, they've answered a question about Obama's British citizenship with an obfuscation. It's good they're worried and trying to lie to prevent damages, it's bad that they keep twisting the truth around and most of America does not know the difference between citizen and natural born citizen to save their life...<br /><br />1) Under the British Nationality Act (BNA) of 1948, Pres.Obama's father became a United Kingdom and Colonies (UKC) citizen because he was born in Kenya, a British colony.<br />2) When he was born on Aug.4, 1961, Pres.Obama became a UKC citizen through his father, as stated in the BNA. This meant he held dual citizenship; American and UKC.<br />3) On Dec.12, 1963, Kenya became independent of the UK. Consequently, under Article 87 of the Kenyan Constitution, people who were UKC citizens ceased being UKC citizens and became Kenyan citizens. This meant that Obama now held American and Kenyan citizenship.<br />4) According to Article 97 of the Kenyan Constitution, dual citizenship cannot continue after the age of 21. Consequently, at the age of 21, Obama would "cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya. made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament."<br />5) Since he didn't renounce his American citizenship, take the Kenyan oath of allegiance, and register his intentions for a Kenyan residence, Obama's Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1982.<br />6) On that date, Obama held only American citizenship.<br /><br />http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ano8NAWK1KRCOzhmKdpN8T_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090806103606AAnKF99<br /><br />http://kenya.rcbowen.com/constitution/chap6.html#87Increduloushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387112256966709689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-23128370587430000372009-08-04T19:03:21.728-04:002009-08-04T19:03:21.728-04:00Hello Everyone,
I was just over at Dr. Conspirac...Hello Everyone, <br /><br />I was just over at Dr. Conspiracy's site. I found the following there written by the good doctor: <br /><br />"When looking at Greshak, and Apuzzo, and Taitz and Berg, and P. A. Madison, and the rest of that crowd, I am reminded of this phrase from the Bible:<br /><br />(Mat 6:7b NRSV) “…for they think that they will be heard because of their many words."<br /><br />He then continues: <br /><br />"What is interesting is to compare Emerich de Vattel with Edward Lord Coke. Both derived concepts of citizenship from natural law, but arrived at different conclusions. De Vattel believed nature made allegiance something inherited from one’s father (as it was in Swiss society) where Coke (Calvin’s Case 1608) said that allegiance was created when one was born under the protection of one’s lord. De Vattel’s analysis formed the basis of Swiss common law, including the rule of the 13 Swiss colonies of Swiss North America. Coke’s analysis formed the basis of British common law for nearly 300 years, including the rule of the 13 British colonies of British North America."<br /><br />I responded to the good doctor as follows:<br /><br />"I see you have gotten religious lately. <br /><br />I also see that you are fond of Coke and I of Vattel. Could you provide me one case or more wherein the Court defines what a “natural born Citizen” (not just a “citizen”) is by referring to Coke and his definitions (or any other English common law authority). I do have several cases in which the Court does refer to and cites Vattel directly and his definition of what “natives” or “indigenes” or “natural born citizens” (all three distinguished from an ordinary “citizen”) are or just gives his definition thereof in defining those words. I have cited some of these cases in my opposition brief to Obamas’s and Congress’s motion to dismiss my complaint/petition. <br /><br />I do hope that you will take me up on my challenge. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq."<br /><br />I also offer anyone on this blog to help the good doctor find any such case. Let me know of your findings. Happy hunting. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-23332676669766044722009-08-04T17:33:02.376-04:002009-08-04T17:33:02.376-04:00What are the chances that Fukino's use of natu...What are the chances that Fukino's use of natural-born instead of "Natural Born" was just tricky word-play (and a major CYA) that she believes will allow her to say that she was just indicating that he was not delivered via C-section. People say and do the strangest things under stress. Oh, what a tangled web...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-3405196952900943102009-07-31T03:28:54.592-04:002009-07-31T03:28:54.592-04:00You see the problem with pelosi's statement &q...You see the problem with pelosi's statement "if you don't like the fact that we are ignoring you, vote us out of office" is that they may very well just be controlling the outcomes of these elections. Since they may just very well be controlling the outcomes of these elections through voter fraud and whatnot it is useless to try to vote them out of office as they are laughing at us through the "portal". Conclusion: they are a bunch of hardened criminals and that is just too bad as the country spirals merrily downwardroderickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16820962609186126127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-70463343963011247432009-07-31T02:26:49.437-04:002009-07-31T02:26:49.437-04:00Can we get the passport travel details of Stanley ...Can we get the passport travel details of Stanley Ann Dunham, BOH jr's mother. Wouldn't her travel port of entry details shed light as to Obama's birthplace, and as to when he returned to Hawaii? If her passport documentation places her in Kenya Aug.4, 1961, that would dispell Obama's birthdate further destroying the COLB authenticity.sjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629410082385082628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-66099595051682545342009-07-30T22:45:40.284-04:002009-07-30T22:45:40.284-04:00Check out Leo Donofrio's interpretation on Won...Check out Leo Donofrio's interpretation on Wong Kim Ark.<br /><br />Also interesting is <br /><br />Suborned in the U.S.A.<br />The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.<br /><br />By Andrew C. McCarthy<br /><br />Wikipedia: Andrew C. McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.Let us move forwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01549100708314458011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-57279335986970350952009-07-30T20:15:59.683-04:002009-07-30T20:15:59.683-04:00Mario,
"Under normal circumstances which hav...Mario,<br /><br />"Under normal circumstances which have prevailed with the so many other recent Presidents, we would most likely just accept the registration and that would be the end of the issue."<br /><br />Well said. It is very strange to hold out so long, indeed.<br /><br />I guess ultimately the question is, "Are we going to get to see it?"<br /><br />I just think that it's a shame that one can hide behind so many legalisms. The law is generally very good but it seems in America these days common sense has really fallen out of the equation --- whether it is a suit, costs, payments, punishments, or the president.<br /><br />I wish you the best of luck and will continue to support, but I fear the issue has reached a zenith. I think you guys are the last hope. Boy would I love discovery if nothing else than to just piss this guy off for all he has been trying to hide.<br /><br />I'll continue to follow.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />JMThe Stackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11741360853135194177noreply@blogger.com