Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

Eligibility Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the Jeff Rense Radio Show Tonight, Monday, January 30, 2012, at 8:00 p.m. Pacific/11:00 p.m. Eastern

2012-01-30T09:36:00.000-08:00

      Eligibility Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the Jeff Rense Radio Show Tonight, Monday, January 30,  2012,                                                      at 8:00 p.m. Pacific/11:00 p.m. Eastern

                                                               By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                    January 30, 2012

Join Jeff Rense and me tonight, January 30, 2012, at 8:00 p.m. Pacific/11:00 p.m. Eastern, on the Jeff Rense Radio show. We will be discussing the Founders’ and Framers’ meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and the states’ role in enforcing that constitutional provision.

You will be able to listen to Jeff Rense and me live on the radio show through this link: http://www.renseradio.com/listenlive.htm

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 30, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

The McClellan/Obama Citizenship Debate and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

2012-01-21T18:36:00.000-08:00

               The McClellan/Obama Citizenship Debate and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

                                                 By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                     January 21, 2012

George B. McClellan

Dr. Conspiracy likes to give the appearance of being an unbiased scholar in pursuit of the truth regarding whether putative President Barack Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” He has also created an internet persona of being a champion of civil rights. He has even gone as far as to take the unabashed position that most people who question Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status are racists. To date, he has made no apologies for his outlandish position.

At his blog, http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/mcclellans-citizenship/ , Dr. Conspiracy has posted a story published in The Boston Globe on November 9, 1903, entitled “McClellan’s Citizenship. Question of Eligibility for Presidency.” The story can be read at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/McClellan.pdf . The story is about whether George B. McClellan, then newly-elected Mayor of New York City, but who was born in Europe to U.S. citizen parents (his father was Civil War General McClellan), was a “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. By looking at his picture posted by Dr. Conspiracy, Colonel McClellan was surely white, but yet American citizens raised the question of whether he was a “natural born Citizen.” Note that Dr. Conspiracy does not tell us that even though McClellan was white (and so was John McCain and George Romney who were also challenged), he was challenged by presumably other whites on his eligibility to be President. So I guess that it is after all possible to challenge a political candidate on his eligibility for a particular office without being motivated by race.

One lawyer at the end of the article, Edmund A. Whitman of the law firm Elder & Whitman, even said that the issue of whether McClellan was a “natural born Citizen” was “too trivial to bother discussing.” I guess they also had Obots in 1903.

Also, Dr. Conspiracy touts the opinion of the Boston lawyers who in the article maintained that McClellan was a “natural born Citizen” and that there was no mention by them of the need for a “natural born Citizen” to be born to citizen parents.

First, McClellan was born to U.S. citizen parents. So I do not understand why Dr. Conspiracy would expect the citizenship of McClellan’s parents to be an issue.

Second, the issue was whether one has to be “native born” in order to be a “natural born Citizen.” The way the lawyers treated that issue, it meant whether being born in the United States was a necessary element of being a “natural born Citizen.” That someone satisfies a necessary element of a definition does not equate to having satisfied all necessary elements of the definition.

Third, most of the lawyers who concluded that McClellan was a “natural born Citizen” said he was so because under the Constitution there are only “natural born Citizens” and naturalized citizens, and since McClellan was not a naturalized citizen, he must necessarily be a “natural born Citizen.” Yet, Dr. Conspiracy makes no mention of the fact that none of those lawyers even cited and quote from let alone addressed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which clearly stated just five years earlier that, with citizenship not descending from parents but only given by statute to the children born out of the United States to citizen parents, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents are naturalized “at birth.” Additionally, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), both considered persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be naturalized “at birth.” The dissenting opinion of Justice Black in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 839-44 (1971), further elucidates the point of one being naturalized “at birth.” There he stated:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts." 169 U. S., at 702-703.

The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization when used in its constitutional sense is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court besides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra. Thus in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167 (1875), the Court said: "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. . . . [N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." And in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884), the Court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment "contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. . . . Persons not . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired." 112 U. S., at 101-102.

Moreover, this concept of naturalization is the only one permitted by this Court's consistent adoption of the view that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to supply a comprehensive definition of American citizenship. In an opinion written shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court stated that one of the primary purposes of the Citizenship Clause was "to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State." Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73 (1873). In his study, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Professor Flack similarly concluded that the Citizenship Clause "put beyond doubt and cavil in the original law, who were citizens of the United States." H. Flack, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 89 (1908). And in Afroyim both majority and dissenting Justices appear to have agreed on the basic proposition that the scope of the Citizenship Clause, whatever its effect, did reach all citizens. The opinion of the Court in Afroyim described the Citizenship Clause as "calculated completely to control the status of citizenship." 387 U. S., at 262. And the dissenting Justices agreed with this proposition to the extent of holding that the Citizenship Clause was a "declaration of the classes of individuals to whom citizenship initially attaches." Id., at 292.

Id. at 840-44.

So, according to Wong Kim Ark, McClellan would have been a naturalized citizen. It would then follow a fortiori from Wong Kim Ark that being a naturalized citizen, he could not be a “natural born Citizen.” But we do not see any mention of any of that by those lawyers or Dr. Conspiracy. I do not know any of the political affiliations of any of the Boston lawyers interviewed for the story nor do I have the desire to go looking it up. But I guess it must have been politics as usual also in 1903.

But the disqualifying effect of being naturalized “at birth” not only disqualified McClellan, but also disqualifies Obama. Because Obama was not born to citizen parents, assuming he was born in Hawaii, he has to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) to be a “citizen of the United States.” First, that amendment and statute do not provide anyone with the status of a “natural born Citizen,” which status is only obtained by satisfying the American “common-law” definition of the clause as confirmed by Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), which, after analyzing American citizenship at length, held:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural- born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

Id. at 168. As we see, only a child born “in a country of parents who were its citizens themselves” can be a “natural-born citizen.” So like Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case (1608), who naturalized Calvin “at birth” to be an English “natural born subject,” Wong Kim Ark in effect naturalized Wong “at birth” to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.”

Second, because Obama needs either the Fourteenth Amendment or statute to remove the alienage with which he was born by being born to a non-U.S. citizen father, he is in effect at best a naturalized citizen “at birth,” who automatically becomes a “citizen of the United States” and needs no further naturalization after birth. But the Founders and Framers, as they revealed through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, meant a “natural born Citizen” to be a child whose first breath of life was as a person in allegiance and citizenship only to the United States and to no other country. In other words, to be a “natural born Citizen” it was not sufficient that one was a citizen of the United States “at birth.” Rather, what was needed was that “at birth” one was only a “citizen of the United States” and of no other nation. Because of the possibility of jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from one’s parents) and jus soli (citizenship acquired from the territory on which one is born) providing allegiance and citizenship to a child at the moment of birth, they adopted the “natural born citizen" standard for future presidents which was a child born in the country to citizen parents. This means that a “natural born Citizen” is a child who is born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to a father and mother who are both either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”

Obama has conceded that his father was a citizen of Great Britain at the time Obama was born. Hence, even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he was not born to a father who was either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” He was not born as a child whose first breath of life was as a person in allegiance and citizenship only to the United States and to no other country. Obama may be a Fourteenth Amendment "naturalized born Citizen," but he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” As for McClellan, it does not matter for him any more, but there may be more like him who come in the future.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 21, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

How Obama’s Enablers Mislead the Public on the Meaning of an Article II “Natural Born” Citizen

2012-01-08T21:56:00.000-08:00

How Obama’s Enablers Mislead the Public on the Meaning of an Article II “Natural Born” Citizen

                                                   By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                       October 10, 2011
                                                   Reposted January 9, 2012

    You have got to love Obama’s enablers. They have a web site called, “A Place to Get the REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship,” accessed at http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/a-place-to-get-the-really-right-answers-about-natural-born-citizenship/. Clearly, the title of this web site refers this web site, “Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/, which I created in December 2008.

Before I start, I must advise you of two things: first, you will rarely find an Obama enabler who will ever admit that he or she is a lawyer (most of those who admit it have been outed by citizen researchers). The reason for that is that operating under the blanket of anonymity, they get free reign to say whatever they want without any legal or ethical accountability. And they have said some pretty bad things in the past until many of them were outed and so now they are “perfect gentlemen.” Hence, the first thing the owner of this blog tells us is that he or she is not a lawyer. Now it may be true that the owner of that blog is not a lawyer. But what about all the other enablers who feed at that blog under the cover of anonymity? So, we do need to ask ourselves whether these so-called “owners” are just straw owners who take on such tasks to provide cover for Obama’s enabler lawyers who operate in the background under the cloaking device of anonymity.

Second, before I started explaining that there is a difference between an Article II “natural born” Citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment or Statutory “born” Citizen, we hardly saw the clause “natural born” Citizen in the Obama enablers’ arguments. At that time, they were simply content with telling us that Obama was a “Citizen” of the United States or a “native-born citizen,” whether under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment, or any Congressional Act. Now, no matter what case or statute they are speaking about, for these enablers its all “natural born” Citizen. The only citizens they have spared from this label are citizens who are naturalized after birth. I guess they figured that the clause would lose whatever little meaning they have given to it if they pushed it that far.

Let us now examine what Obama’s enablers are peddling on this blog. They must and do attack the Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) decision on two fronts. First, they argue that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” given by the Court is dicta and therefore not binding precedent. But they are wrong. In Minor, the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether Virginia Minor, a woman, was a “citizen” in order to determine whether as a “citizen” she enjoyed a constitutional right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV. So the Court reasoned that once she was shown to be a “citizen,” it did not matter that she was a woman, unless Missouri could still disqualify a woman from voting because being a “citizen” did not guarantee any person the right to vote. It does not matter whether the Court chose to say that Minor was a “natural born Citizen” or just a “citizen.” Either way, Virginia Minor would advance to the next step in the analysis which was whether as a “citizen” she had the right to vote which Missouri could not abrogate. The Court chose the “natural-born citizen” path. It thoroughly analyzed and considered what a “natural-born citizen” was and after saying that it is a child born in the country to citizen parents, found that Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen” and therefore also a “citizen.” After the Court told us what a “natural-born citizen” was, it then made the comment about there being doubts as to whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Court said that it was not necessary for it to decide that question and it did not because Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen” which necessarily also made her a “citizen.” So the focus of the Court’s decision regarding citizenship was in defining who the “original citizens” and the “natural-born citizens” were. The Court did not and did not have to answer the question about who was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment which in the question that it raised involved deciding whether a child born in the jurisdiction of the United States but to alien parents was born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” We know that this latter question concerning who was a “citizen” under these circumstances was answered by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 which also confirmed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and analyzed whether such a child was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So as we can see, Minor’s analysis and discussion about citizenship was central to the Court’s answering the question of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” which it answered by telling us that she was a “natural-born citizen” which automatically made her a “citizen” also. Hence, Minor’s discussion and decision on what a “natural-born citizen” is was central to the Court’s holding regarding citizenship (as I explained the other holding concerned whether voting was a privilege and immunity originally guaranteed by the constitution’s privileges and immunities clause) and not dicta.

Virginia Minor was not a naturalized citizen. Hence, the Court thoroughly discussed the definition of a “natural-born citizen” which it was compelled to do to decide whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” and as such entitled to privileges and immunities under the Constitution one of which Mrs. Minor contended was the right to vote. The Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” was therefore essential to its holding that voting was not a privilege and immunity originally guaranteed by the Constitution and that Mrs. Minor, a woman, even though she was a “natural-born citizen,” did not have a constitutional right to vote. Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is therefore binding precedent which to this day has not been changed.

Second, Obama’s enablers attack the precedential definition of a “natural-born citizen” provided by Minor. To support their position, Obama’s enablers manipulate both the use of the word “born” and the meaning of the word “naturalized.” Regarding the word “born,” their definition of a “natural born” Citizen which is a child born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not include all the elements which should be included. When it comes to Obama, the element which they leave out is birth to citizen parents. They arrive at their truncated definition of a “natural born Citizen” by arguing that Minor v. Happersett did say that a child born in the United States of citizen parents was a “natural born citizen.” But they insist that there exists an ambiguity in the Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” because the Court did not say that a person not born in the United States of citizen parents was necessarily not a “natural born Citizen.” They add that the condition of being born in the United States of citizen parents was a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one. They add that the condition is not a definition even if Minor constitutes a precedent. They then conclude that persons born in the United States of citizen parents are “natural born citizens,” but that neither birth in the United States nor birth to citizen parents is required. They conclude that as long as one is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment or any Act of Congress, even if born in the United States to one or two alien parents or born outside the United States to one or two citizen parents, one is a “natural born citizen. The fallacy of this argument lies in denying the well-established definition of a “natural born Citizen” and arguing that it is not a definition and then putting forth their own definition which is broader than the correct definition so that they can meet the broader definition (not requiring birth to citizen parents in the case of Obama).

The question is whether Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is ambiguous. The enablers’ argument that it is ambiguous and that it permits for other birth circumstances which do not exist in that definition is meritless. A definition is not ambiguous merely because it does not expressly rule out every possible other factual scenario which someone claims also fits under that definition. De Leon-Ochoa v. Att’y Gen., 622 F.3d at 353 (reviewing 8 U.S.C. § 1254a). The enablers do not tell us that not one U.S. Supreme Court case or Congressional Act in the history of our nation defines a “natural born Citizen” the way they do (i.e., as being any child born a citizen regardless of place of birth or citizenship of the parents) and that on the contrary, these sources (expect for the Naturalization Act of 1790 which is not relevant to Obama, did not support their position, and which was repealed in 1795) have always defined a “natural born Citizen” as being a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Hence, there is no ambiguity in this time-honored definition. On the contrary, the Minor U.S. Supreme Court has plainly spoken with affirmative language which comprises a definition on who is an Article II “natural born” Citizen. It has clearly set out by definition who is a “natural born” Citizen. Hence, anyone who does not meet that definition is necessarily excluded from that class of citizen.

Another approach that Obama’s enablers take to attacking Minor’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen is to say that we commit the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. This fallacy is described as:

If A, then X.
Not A.
Therefore, not X.
This reasoning is fallacious, unless A is a necessary condition which in such case, the logic would not be fallacious. In other words, if A is merely sufficient for X to exist, the fact that A does not exists does not necessarily rule out that X can come into existence by some other factors, e.g. B or C. So if A is a bi-conditional which is expressed as “if and only if,” the logical expression presented would not be fallacious. For example, if Joe has a lot of land, then Joe is rich. Joe does not have a lot of land. Therefore, Joe is not rich. This is fallacious logic, for Joe could be rich by having a lot of gold. But if we said if Joe is breathing, then he is alive. Joe is not breathing. Then he is not alive. We do not question the correct logic of this statement. And it is correct because breathing is not only sufficient but also necessary. So what we are really saying is: “If and only if” Joe is breathing, then he is alive.

Obama enablers argue that we deny the antecedent when we say that under Minor, since Obama was not born to two U.S.-citizen parents, he cannot be a “natural born” Citizen. They add that two U.S.-parent citizenship is only a sufficient condition, and not a necessary one. But the logical error that they make in putting forth this argument is in denying that Minor gave us a binding definition of the clause “natural-born citizen” which affirmatively declared what such a citizen is. Hence, being a definition, the elements expressed are necessary conditions and not sufficient ones. Would these same Obama enablers say while reasoning under the Fourteenth Amendment that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is only a sufficient condition and that it is wrong to conclude that if someone is born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ that that person could still be a “citizen of the United States” under that amendment? No, they would not make such an argument because they know that the Fourteenth Amendment provides an affirmative and declaratory definition of citizenship each element of which is a necessary condition to earning the right to have that national character. There is no difference with Minor’s affirmative definition of a “natural born” Citizen, but they deny that Minor put forth a definition, but accept that the Fourteenth Amendment does. There simply is no consistency or logic in how these enablers treat Minor in one fashion but then treat the Fourteenth Amendment in another.

Obama’s enablers then move on to Wong Kim Ark and say that it declared Wong a “natural born” Citizen and that since Obama meets the requirements of that case, he too is a “natural born” Citizen. But straightforward reading of the Wong Kim Ark case shows that it did not do any such thing. Here is the question presented as stated by Wong Kim Ark:

“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a ‘citizen of the United States’ by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution” (emphasis supplied).

And here is the specific holding of the case:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a ‘citizen of the United States.’ For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative” (emphasis supplied). Id. at 705.

We do not see anywhere in the question presented or the holding any reference to “natural born” Citizen. The Court could not have been clearer by telling us twice that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States.” We clearly see that the case only concerned itself with whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment (more on the Fourteenth Amendment below). After all, Wong only needed to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” to avoid being excluded from the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Acts which prohibited persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States. He did not need to be an Article II “natural born” Citizen which under our Constitution and Congressional Acts is relevant only to the question of whether one is eligible to be President or Vice-President.

The lack of any reference to “natural born” Citizen in Wong Kim Ark’s question presented and holding is critical given that in the opinion itself, the Court said that “[the child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” Hence, the Court held that Wong, a person born of aliens in the United States, was a “citizen,” since he was “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen." Indeed, the Court acknowledged that one type of national character is a “citizen,” who is born in the country to “an alien,” and the other type is a “natural born citizen,” who is born in the country to “a citizen.” Under the then-prevailing notion of merger of the wife’s citizenship into that of the husband, “an alien” and “a citizen” actually meant “aliens” and “citizens,” for no other interpretation would make sense. Without such a reading, the two birth circumstances would always give the same result, for if one is born to “an alien,” parent (just one parent), then one would also be born to “a citizen” parent (the other parent). Hence, what the Court said is that a child born in the United States to an alien can be a “citizen,” but by definition not a “natural born” Citizen because a “natural born” Citizen is born to citizen parents, not to alien parents. The Court knew that Wong could not be a “natural born” Citizen because he did not have citizen parents. So, the Court analyzed, relying upon English common law, whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. By so doing, the Court did what Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) said was not necessary for it to do, i.e., decide whether being born in the jurisdiction of the United States but to alien parents satisfied the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Again, the Court said “[t]he child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It did not say that that child born to aliens is as much a “natural-born citizen” as the natural-born child of a citizen. It said he or she was as much a “citizen.” Here, we see further proof that the Court distinguished between a “natural born” Citizen and a “citizen,” and that it found Wong to be a “citizen,” and not a “natural born” Citizen. So, the Court’s erroneous use of the old English common law applied only to how the Court defined a “Citizen” of the United States, not to how it defined an Article II “natural born” Citizen, the definition for which it cited and quoted Minor. In short, Wong Kim Ark distinguished between a “natural born” Citizen and a “Citizen” by way of definition and also in its question presented and holding.

It is also important to note that Wong Kim Ark did not revisit Minor’s American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which it said was a child born in the country to citizen parents. Clearly, the Court knew that Wong was not born to citizen parents. Hence, if it was going to declare Wong a “natural born” Citizen, it would have had to address Minor’s precedential definition. Such analysis would have necessarily included the Court examining the text of the “natural born” Citizen clause and commenting on the Founders’ and Framers’ intent for including the clause and all the historical evidence which in any way sheds light on the meaning of the clause. We can readily see from the Court’s decision that it did not engage in any such analysis. Since it was only concerned with determining whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is a different class of citizen than an Article II “natural born” Citizen, it was not necessary for the Court to re-examine Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” or to analyze what the original meaning of the clause was. Hence, we do not find in Wong Kim Ark any such discussion on the “natural born” Citizen clause.

Further evidence that Wong Kim Ark did not declare Wong an Article II “natural born” Citizen may be found in the case of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010) (which I will discuss below). The Indiana court acknowledged that Wong Kim Ark did not declare Wong an Article II “natural born” Citizen. But then it attempts to explain that such shortfall is “irrelevant.” Needless to say, its explanation makes very little sense in the context of trying to determine what an Article II “natural born” Citizen is. Here is what the court said in Footnote 14:

“We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”

In its attempt to explain away why Wong Kim Ark did not specifically hold that Wong was a “natural born” Citizen, Ankeny just said that there is no practical difference between a “natural born” Citizen and a naturalized citizen other than that only the former is eligible to be President. But what does that have to do with what Wong Kim Ark held? This explanation is simply not material to the question of what Wong Kim Ark actually held which Ankeny itself concedes--it “did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a ‘natural born Citizen.’” But to Ankeny, Wong Kim Ark’s choice of language is not important notwithstanding that the Founders and Framers when writing the Constitution chose their words carefully and with specific purpose of meaning and Article I and Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 treat a “natural born” Citizen and a “Citizen” of the United States as very distinct and separate classes of citizens when it comes to congressional and presidential office. So Ankeny wants it both ways. It tells us that Wong Kim Ark did not say that Wong was an Article II “natural born” Citizen but then it tells us that based on Wong Kim Ark any person who is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a “natural born” Citizen. It thus becomes quite clear that Ankeny’s attempt to convert Wong Kim Ark’s holding into one involving a “natural born” Citizen when it really only involved a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” must fail.

Desperate as Obama’s enablers are, they then further enlist the assistance of Ankeny in their attempt to show us that Wong Kim Ark declared Wong a “natural born Citizen.” I have already shown that Ankeny itself conceded that Wong Kim Ark “did not actually pronounce the plaintiff an Article II ‘natural born Citizen.’” Apart from what Ankeny said about Wong Kim Ark’s holding, a simple reading of Ankeny shows that, while the court may have been correct in finding that the Governor of Indiana had no legal duty to investigate whether Obama was a “natural born” Citizen, it erred when it went beyond those simple independent state grounds which were sufficient to dispose of the case and reached a constitutional issue when it declared what the definition of an Article II “natural born” Citizen is. It said that Minor left open the question of what a “natural born” Citizen was when in fact it left open the question of whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “Citizen” of the United States. Ankeny also said that Wong Kim Ark answered the question left open by Minor and declared Wong to be a “natural born” Citizen. While Wong Kim Ark did answer the question left open by Minor, i.e., whether Wong, who was born in the United States to domiciled alien parents, was a “Citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not declare Wong to be an Article II “natural born” Citizen. I have shown above how the question presented in Wong Kim Ark was whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States,” not whether he was a “natural born” Citizen, and that its holding was limited to Wong being a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born” Citizen. Additionally, Ankeny is only a state law case and surely does not overrule Minor which confirmed the American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born” Citizen” to be a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Again with further assistance from the state-law case of Ankeny, Obama’s enablers then look to the Fourteenth Amendment for help. They add that Ankeny also relied upon the Fourteenth Amendment to show that any person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents, is a “natural born” Citizen. But they do not explain how they go from the amendment’s text referring to a “citizen of the United States” to it saying according to them a “natural born” Citizen. They do not tell us that nowhere in the amendment will we find the words “natural born” Citizen and that nothing in its history or in its debates suggests that its framers included in the amendment “natural born” Citizen status or that they intended by the amendment to create or amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born” Citizen. On the contrary, the amendment was passed during Reconstruction to bestow initial membership in the United States upon freed slaves. This initial membership since the Founding, even confirmed in the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, has always been simply called “Citizen” of the United States. Hence, if the amendment were to be used by any other person to gain citizenship in the United States, he or she could only gain that same initial membership which we call “Citizen” of the United States. As proof of this purpose, the amendment only includes the words, “citizens” of the United States. Remember that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 also speaks of “natural born” Citizens and “Citizens” of the United States. Because the republic was new, the Framers grandfathered the initial members to be eligible to be President. This class included the Founders and Framers themselves who were born British “natural born subjects” and who were naturalized to be “Citizens” of the United States by the power of the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. But for births after the adoption of the Constitution, it allowed only a “natural born” Citizen to be eligible to be President. This latter class was comprised not of initial members of the United States (only “Citizens” and nothing more), but rather the children of such initial members (children of “Citizens”) or the children of later-generation members (children of “natural born” Citizens). Hence, simply being a born “Citizen” of the United States is not sufficient to be eligible to be President, for in such case, the person’s birth circumstance is missing citizen parents. Any common sense reading of the Fourteenth Amendment would show that its citizenship status is not sufficient for one to be eligible to be President. First, one must be a “natural born” Citizen and not only a “Citizen” of the United States which is the status provided by the amendment. Second, it is not sufficient to simply say that one is born a “Citizen” of the United States under the amendment and therefore a “natural born” Citizen. The Founders and Framers said “natural born,” not just “born.” In order to gain this special status of “natural born” Citizen, one must satisfy the American common law definition of a “natural born” Citizen handed down to us since the Founding and confirmed in both Minor and Wong Kim Ark. One cannot simply obtain the status of a “Citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, even if that status is gained from the moment of birth, for these positive laws neither by affirmative language nor by definition bestow upon anyone the status of a “natural born” Citizen. Moreover, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark said that the Fourteenth Amendment defines neither a “Citizen” of the United States (it does not define what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means) nor a “natural born” Citizen. That would mean by referring to neither a “natural born” Citizen nor to defining one. That is why Minor relied on American “common-law” to define a “natural born” Citizen and Wong Kim Ark relied upon English “common law” to define a “Citizen” of the United States.

So has Obama’s enablers’ position improved any by relying on the Fourteenth Amendment and Ankeny which got it like them plainly wrong? Again, the answer is a resounding “no.”

But Obama’s enablers do not stop there. They also provide lower federal court and state law cases that declared persons born in the United States to alien parents “Citizens” of the United States. First, they avoid mentioning that Minor v. Happersett in 1875 said that there were “some authorities” who said that a child born in the United States to alien parents were “citizens.” Minor rightfully said “there have been doubts” regarding whether these “authorities” were correct, given that Congress since 1790 required any child born to alien parents, regardless of the place of birth, to naturalized in the United States in order to become a “Citizen” of the United States. Second, these cases only defined a “Citizen” and not a “natural born” Citizen.

But Obama’s enablers do not end there either. They then attack Emer de Vattel, saying that nobody knew that “dead Swiss guy” who wrote “some book” on some citizenship “stuff.” Needless to say, the historical record and case law is replete with information which shows how influential Vattel was during the Founding in helping our leaders justify the American Revolution, write the Constitution, and constitute the new republic. See, for example, J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, 3 Am.J. Int’l L. 547 et. seq. passim (1909) (Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often pointed out that his theories served as the backbone for American independence); Lee A. Casey, David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Darin R. Bartram, Unlawful Belligerency and Its Implications Under International Law, http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/PubID.104/pub_detail.asp (concerning U.S. constitutional analysis, “Vattel is highly important. He was probably the international law expert most widely read among the Framers”). In fact, Vattel continued to be practically applied in our nation for well over 100 years after the birth of the republic. F.S. Ruddy, The Acceptance of Vattel, Grotian Society Papers (1972) (Vattel was mainstream political philosophy during the writing of the Constitution. The Law of Nations was significantly the most cited legal source in America jurisprudence between 1789 and 1820). But as we can see, the importance and practicality of Vattel lives on today.

Finally, and this is Obama’s enablers’ favorite ploy, they say for the Birthers to be right, all smart and consequential people in America would have to be part of some grand conspiracy. They paint the “Birthers” with the same brush and paint that they paint those who question the moon landing, the Kennedy assassination, the 9-11 attacks, and whether there is some plot to create a “One World Order.” But there is nothing conspiratorial about correctly defining an Article II “natural born” Citizen and applying that definition to Obama’s admitted birth circumstances. He has admitted and it is corroborated by documentation that he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. Hence, he cannot be a “natural born” Citizen. There is no conspiracy in that, my friend.

And so it goes on, for this is how Obama’s enablers must make a living.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
October 10, 2011
Reposted January 9, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Did Putative President, Barack Obama, At the Behest of Malcolm X, His Alleged Biological Father, Live with Then-Indonesian President Sukarno When He Was a Young Boy?

2011-12-18T20:58:00.000-08:00

Did Putative President, Barack Obama, At the Behest of Malcolm X, His Alleged Biological Father, Live with Then-Indonesian President Sukarno When He Was a Young Boy?

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 18, 2011

Martha Trowbridge has published another article on putative President, Barack Obama, whose real name she contends is Bâri′ M. Shabazz. This article is entitled, “Obama History” Mystery Buffs: Sniff Here,” and can be accessed at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/obama-history-mystery-buffs-sniff-here/.
Ms. Trowbridge maintains that in 1961, when Bâri′ was just two years old, Malcolm X, Obama’s biological father, decided that it was in the best interest of little Bâri′ that he be sent off to Indonesia to be raised by Indonesian President, Sukarno. She adds that while the decision was painful for her to make, Jo Ann Newman, Bâri′’s biological mother, agreed for the sake of honoring Malcolm X’s wish that becoming part of Sukarno’s family was the best thing for her son, Bâri′.

She cites and quotes “Obama” saying that he moved to Southeast Asia at age two. She contends that in an AP interview entitled, Harvard Student Tackles Racism At Core, published May 3, 1990, “Obama” stated that he moved to Southeast Asia “[a]t age 2.”

Ms. Trowbridge explains why Malcolm X would have picked Sukarno to be a surrogate father to his son. Malcolm X idolized Sukarno, having a deep respect and admiration for the first President of Indonesia, a socialist revolutionary who rid Indonesia of its white Dutch oppressors. He could also offer Bâri′ things that he would not get back home living in East Elmhurst, NY with his mother, Jo Ann Newman. Some of those benefits included gaining a stand-in father, living in a presidential palace, good education, Moslem religious instruction, learning the local language and leadership skills, and living in a nation free from the racism of America. Sending little Bâri′ off to Indonesia also served Malcolm’s need to hide from the world that he, a black Moslem minister who preached hatred for whites, fathered a child with a white woman.

She lays out what Sukarno’s political, social, and economic policies were and concludes that Obama’s are not that much different today. These policies included, among other things, “guided democracy,” nationalization of major industries, and constituting a civilian army for the nation.

Ms. Trowbridge explains how Sukarno started losing power in October 1965 and that Army Major General Suharto eventually replaced him on March 12, 1967, becoming the new president. Bâri′ was 6 years old in 1965.

The question then is what happened to Bâri′? How and when did he make his way back to the United States? Where did he go? Did he really arrive in Hawaii? When did he arrive? With whom did he live? Why has Obama told us that he lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10 when it looks like it was probably age 2 to 6? I hope that Ms. Trowbridge will provide answers to these and other questions in her future articles.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 18, 2011
Amended December 19, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Emer de Vattel, Adolf Hitler, America’s Youth, and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

2011-12-11T15:04:00.000-08:00

                  Emer de Vattel, Adolf Hitler, America’s Youth, and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

                                                            Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                            December 11, 2011

I read with interest the story published on December 10, 2011 at WND entitled, “4th-graders brainwashed with Occupy 'propaganda'-Student's dad complains to Scholastic News publisher." The 4th grade child’s father, who I will call “father Edward,” complained to Scholastic because in his view the publisher only provided one side of the “Occupy Wall Street” debate, only putting forth the view that those who are protesting are innocent victims of American society’s oppression but not reporting the conduct of those protesters and who is politically behind those protesters. Read more: 4th-graders brainwashed with Occupy 'propaganda' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=376177#ixzz1gFmocVmk. One probably would then say why would I write about that and how does the title to his article really all stay together. Well, let us take a look at how such events are really part of a much bigger picture and why I used the title that I did.

Emer de Vattel, gave us a time-honored definition of a “natural born Citizen” which the Founders and Framers used when drafting the Constitution. That definition is a child “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212-231 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Accepting natural law and the law of nations of which Vattel wrote and reported, the Founders and Framers gave the critical task of being President and Commander in Chief only to future “natural born Citizens.” These were to be the children born in the United States to parents who were born or naturalized Citizens of the United States.

This natural law and law of nations definition has been adopted as part of American common law as confirmed by the following decision of our United States Supreme Court and lower courts:

(1) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814): Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens and said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”

(2) Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830): The majority cited Vattel on the right of election to change one’s allegiance and thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after revolution. The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father. On the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same time period a citizen of the State of New York, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. Id. 136 and 164. This case shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of merger of the wife’s citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born.

(3) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830): same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, stated: “If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.”

(4) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): Justice Daniels concurring cites Vattel and The Law of Nations and provides his definition of natural born citizens and takes out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, stated: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .”

(5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875): Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the American “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it laid down the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as follows:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., at 167-68.

(6) Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879): same Vattelian definition and cites Vattel, said: “[T]he offspring of free persons…follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. 1 Bouv. Inst., 198, § 502; 31 Barb. 486; 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 147; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 242. This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen -- as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law… No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486, the court says: ‘The universal maxim of the common law being partus sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother.’ The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: ‘As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.’ Again, on page 102, Vattel says: ‘By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.’ This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.”

(7) Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1883): In this case, it appeared that Richard L. Ludlam, a citizen of the United States domiciled in New York, went at the age of eighteen to Peru for business purposes, but took no steps toward naturalization in Peru, or toward a permanent change of domicil. He remained in Peru fourteen years and when in Peru married a Peruvian woman, who also was a native of that country. A child was born to him in Peru. This child was held by the Court of Appeals to be a citizen of the United States, domiciled in New York. From the opinion of the court which was delivered by Selden, J., we learn the following:

"It seems to me to result of necessity from these principles, that the children of English parents, though born abroad, are nevertheless regarded by the common law as natural born citizens of England. The decision upon the plea in Calvin's case, which was merely repeating what was decided in Cobbledike's case, as early as the reign of Edw. I, see Calvin's case, p. 9 b., necessarily implies that a child may owe allegiance to the king (i.e., not merely local or temporary, but natural and permanent allegiance), although born out of the king's dominions; and also that this was a broad general rule, not confined to a few exceptional cases, because if this was an exception the plea could not have been held bad on demurrer, as it was in both Cobbledike's and Calvin s cases; but the exception must have been pleaded.

Now, upon what ground can allegiances in such cases be claimed ? If natural allegiance or allegiance by birth, does not depend upon boundaries or place, as Calvin's case asserts, upon what does it depend? There can be but one answer to the question. It is impossible to suggest any other ground for the obligation than that of parentage. It must, I apprehend, be transmitted from the parents to the child, or it could not exist. This being then the nature of permanent allegiance, it follows that the king of England may properly claim allegiance from the children of his subjects, wherever born. If then the child of English parents, though born abroad, is subditus natus a born subject of the king, he must also be a born citizen of the kingdom. Allegiance and citizenship are as we have seen, correlative terms, the one being the consideration of the other. So long therefore as the parents continue to owe allegiance to the crown of England, so long will their children, by the rules of the common law, whether born within or without the kingdom, owe similar allegiance, and be entitled to the corresponding rights of citizenship.

* * * *

I suppose the doctrine that children, if legitimate, follow in regard to their political rights and duties, the condition of their fathers, to be found in natural law, and to be substantially the same in most, if not all, civilized countries. Vattel says: " Society not being able to subsist and perpetuate itself, but by the children of its citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights." B. 1, ch. 19, § 212. In a subsequent action the same author says: " It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens, the laws have decided this question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations. By the. law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him. I say of itself, for the civil law, or politics, may order otherwise from particular views. Id., § 215.

It is shown by Vice Chancellor Sandford, in Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583, 675, that the law of France, Spain, and Portugal is in accordance with this doctrine, by express enactment it is true, as it is now in England and in this country. But the uniformity goes to show that it is founded upon a law of nature, and of course prevails in every country, unless, as Vattel says, it is changed from the municipal law from particular views.”

(8) Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884): “This section [Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' 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, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

(9) United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same Vattelian definition and cites Vattel): “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

(10) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898): It distinguished between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States.” It relied on the English common law and Calvin’s Case (1608) to hold that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. But concerning a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen,” it cited Minor and quoted its American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

Minor, clearly stating what the firmly established American common law rule (not the British common law rule) was by which the Founders and Framers were guided, had no doubts about who a "natural-born citizen" was, defining one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. Minor said that under that same American common law rule there were doubts as to whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is even a "citizen." Wong Kim Ark resolved those doubts and held that Wong, who was born in the United States to domiciled alien parents, was a Fourteenth Amendment "born . . . citizen of the United States." But in so doing, it did not alter or amend the original and long-standing American common law rule of what a “natural born Citizen” was and therefore did not hold that Wong was an Article II "natural born Citizen." There is no other U.S. Supreme Court case following Wong Kim Ark which changed the Minor original American common law definition of a "natural-born citizen."

We have seen that Vattel informed us what a “natural born Citizen” is and, as our U.S. Supreme Court and some lower courts have confirmed throughout the span of American history, our Founders and Framers, when drafting the presidential eligibility requirements included in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, adopted that definition. But there is another important message in what Vattel wrote which is really the basis for the Founders and Framers choosing Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Vattel also warned us that we cannot preserve our society but through the children of its citizens. Vattel said in Section 212 The Law of Nations that a society cannot fundamentally preserve itself other than through the children of its citizens who he calls the “natives, or natural-born citizens.” Vattel told us that it is the youth of any society that will eventually, upon reaching the age of majority (then it was 21 and today it is 18), assume the power to administer and preserve that society. Vattel was perfectly correct in what he said and Adolf Hitler knew it also.

Hitler, who was not born in Germany and was therefore not a "natural born citizen" of that nation, made his plans for the youth of Germany publicly known when he said: “He alone who owns the youth, gains the future.” -- Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935. "One of the most important functions of the Hitler Jugend was to prepare the youth for membership in the Party and its formations. Hitler said at the Reichsparteitag, 1935:

'He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future! Practical consequences of this doctrine: The boy will enter the Jungvolk (boy 10-14) and the Pmpf (members of the Jungvolk) will come to the Hitler Youth, and the boy of the Hitler Youth will join the SA, the SS and the other formations, and the SA man and the SS man will one day join the Labor Service, and from there he will go to the Armed Forces, and the soldiers of the people will return again to the organization of Movement, the Party, the SA, the SS, and never again will our people be so depraved as they were at one time.' (2656-PS; 2401-PS). "
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-0… Almost the same words were said by Vladmir Lenin, when he said: “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”

Hitler knew that it was not going to be easy for him to win the hearts of all Germans. “He realized that he would never be able to convert all Germans to National Socialism. He converted many, but many others saw through the official propaganda. The younger generation was a different matter. They came to the Hitler Youth as more of a clean slate which were much more vulnerable to ideological manipulation. He was skeptical about the schools, especially the schools he inherited in 1933. The Hitler Youth was a program that the NAZIs could completely control. Not only did the Hitler Youth provide the vehicle which the future generation of Germans could be shaped, but the youth could be used in many other ways by Hitler and the NAZIs.” http://histclo.com/youth/youth/org/nat/hitler/hitler.htm.

From what Vattel teaches, we can see that allegiances and values are nurtured in the family. And Hitler knew that, too. He also knew that “Youth is easily deceived, because it is quick to hope.”—Aristotle. The First Hitler Youth Law proclaimed: "The future of the German people depends on its youth. Therefore, all of the German youth must be prepared for its future duties." Two subsequent Hitler Youth Laws were designed mostly to prevent families from evading the requirement to enroll their children in the HJ. http://histclo.com/youth/youth/org/nat/hitler/hitler.htm. In studying the Hitler Youth, we find that “[f]amily attitudes are especially interesting because part of the purpose of the HJ [Hitler Jugend] was to break down family allegiances and cement loyalty to the Party and Führer.” “The boys were encouraged to question or even reject some authority figures, such as parents or church leaders, which appealed to many boys. They were required, however, to accept NAZI principles without question.” http://histclo.com/youth/youth/org/nat/hitler/hitler.htm.

It also does not take much time to fundamentally transform a nation’s youth. NAZI youth organization began in 1922. The NAZIs seized power in 1933. Independent youth groups were absorbed into the Hitler Youth or abolished. The NAZIs by 1935 had enrolled 60 percent of Germany's youth into their youth movement. http://histclo.com/youth/youth/org/nat/hitler/hitler.htm. The Hitler Youth consisted of two sections, the Deutsche Jugend for the younger (10-14) boys and the Hitler Jugend proper for the older (15-18) boys. “The Hitler Youth grew from a group with a handful of boys to one of the most important uniformed youth group in Europe. No group so thoroughly succeeded in their stated purpose. Had the NAZIs succeeded, the elite of Europe would have been raised and trained through the Hitler Youth. Membership increased from about 1,000 boys in 1923 to nearly 8 million in 1939 when Hitler launched World War II.” http://histclo.com/youth/youth/org/nat/hitler/hitler.htm.

Arthur Axmann, a Hitler Youth Leader, presented Hitler with a newly formed division--the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend--on his birthday in April 1944. The Division was composed of HJ youth born in 1926, making them 17-18 years old. The senior NCOs and officers were mostly SS veterans from the Eastern Front. This Division played a prominent role in the Normandy fighting.

How does any of this relate to America? The message that we should learn is that we should not take so lightly the Occupy Wall Street, text messaging, text+, iPhones, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Droid, etc. movements and networks, especially if someone attempts to use those channels of education and communication to influence and manipulate American youth the way Hitler did German youth. While Scholastic states on its web site that it is committed to publishing all information for the sake of preserving a free society (see the WND article) and it has perceived that there is an important need to “educate” our children about the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, I have not seen one word in its publications about the ongoing national debate about whether President Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Omission of the “natural born Citizen” issue from its publications, but inclusion therein of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, should surely raise grave suspicions on the part of any sound thinking concerned American.

What our nation’s youth learns through any medium is, indeed, vital to the survival of our nation as we known it. Therefore, let us be, as father Edward is, forever vigilant about what someone is trying to teach our children, no matter what that subject or the professed motivation for teaching that subject might be.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 11, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Is Putative President Barack Obama’s Mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Really Jo Ann Newman?

2011-11-15T11:59:00.000-08:00

              Is Putative President Barack Obama’s Mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Really Jo Ann Newman?

                                                             By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                             November 15, 2011

Martha Trowbridge reports that she has uncovered the true identity of Stanley Ann Dunham, putative President Barack Obama’s mother. She writes in her latest article, Stan The Sham, and True Love, posted at her blog, Terrible Truth, on November 15, 2011, at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/stan-the-sham-and-true-love/  that Dunham’s real name is Jo Ann Newman.

Why would Obama tell us that his mother’s name is Stanley Ann Dunham when it is really Jo Ann Newman, a white teenage girl from the Bronx, New York, who according to Ms. Trowbridge was Malcolm X’s teenage lover and devotee?

Is Obama telling us a lie about his mother’s true name because he wants to hide his own real identity?

Is he telling us that lie because he wanted to make himself more electable to the average American?

What would knowing that Obama’s mother’s real name is Jo Ann Newman tell us about Obama’s true identity?

And why would Obama want to hide his true identity?

I have already reported at this blog in numerous posts and comments that various experts have concluded that Obama’s long-form birth certificate which he posted on the internet in April 2011, is a forgery.

I have also reported that Obama is using a questionable social security number issued from Connecticut and that evidence shows that he forged his Selective Service Registration application.

I have already reported at this blog that Ms. Trowbridge maintains that most of the pictures of Obama and his mother that the American public has been fed by Obama and his campaign have been photo shopped so as to conceal the real face of Obama’s mother. These pictures were done, among other reasons, to give Stanley Ann Dunham the appearance of having long hair when in fact she had short hair. Other facial features were also digitally changed in these photographs. So now we discover that not only has this person’s hair and face been altered but also her name. Many of Obama’s other publicly-released photographs also reveal signs of tampering and forgery.

Ms. Trowbridge also contends that Obama’s real name is Bâri′ M. Shabazz, born in New York City, on October 28, 1959, who was assigned social security number 084-54-5926, issued in New York, in 1974. See my article entitled, Is Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City? , at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-barack-hussein-obama-ii-really-bari.html.

I also reported at this blog that the Bari Shabazz, who had an auto accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982, could be the same Bâri′ M. Shabazz and Barack Obama. See my article entitled, Is Putative President Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bari Shabazz, Fugitive from Justice For 21 Years Following An Auto Accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982? , at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-putative-president-barack-hussein.html.

What we now add to our puzzle is Stanley Ann Dunham’s real identity which Ms. Trowbridge says is Jo Ann Newman.

I also reported that Ms. Trowbridge contends that Malcolm X, also known as Malcolm X Shabazz, is the biological father of Barack Obama whose real name is Bâri′ M. Shabazz.

So, who is Jo Ann Newman? Did she and her family and friends know Malcolm X?

The big question now is how we reconcile the name of Jo Ann Newman with the Stanley Ann Dunham life story that we have been provided. As we know, this alleged fabricated life story consists of, among many life events, a birth in Kansas; youthful years and schooling in Washington; schooling in Hawaii; a hasty marriage to and divorce from Barack Obama Sr.; a marriage to and divorce from Lolo Soetoro; a move to Indonesia; and the birth of Maya Soetoro in Indonesia.

The American public has been informed through numerous publicly-released documents and from Obama himself that Obama’s legal father is Barack Obama Sr. Hence, in the case of Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F.Supp.2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009), which I filed on January 20, 2009, before Obama was sworn into office, we maintained that Obama, does not meet the original and still-prevailing American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen’ which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. I cited and quoted, among many other sources, Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The native, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens;); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167-68 (1875) (“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”). We showed that because Obama was born to the marriage of Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham, and that Barack Obama Sr. was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, regardless of where that may be, he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore he is not eligible to be President. We also maintained that Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii or any other place in the United States and for that reason also he has not shown himself to be a “natural born Citizen.” We also sued Congress for breaching its constitutional duty under the Twentieth Amendment, despite the many petitions to do so, to properly vet Obama under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 before confirming him as President.

The New Jersey Federal District Court concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing, i.e., that they did not show that they were personally injured in any way that is different from how all Americans would be injured living under an illegitimate and usurper President and Commander in Chief of the Military, and so it dismissed the case. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the plaintiffs did not show that they suffered any personal injury that was different from that of all other Americans, and even issued an order ordering me to show cause why I should not have to pay for the government’s costs in defending Obama in his eligibility law suit. Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010). The Court quickly discharged it order when I responded that in all the cases filed against Obama and others, Obama not once produced as evidence in court a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate. I argued that I was therefore entitled to see Obama’s long-form birth certificate to prove that the government did not mitigate its defense costs by simply producing the document to a court or Congress and thereby proving or disproving that he was a “natural born Citizen.” Our United States Supreme Court, not giving any reason for its decision, refused to hear the appeal and so the Kerchner case came to an end in the courts of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010). But as we can see from this court activity, the courts did not rule on the merits of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” or whether he was born in Hawaii.

Regardless of whether Obama’s biological father is Malcolm X (a “citizen of the United States”), Obama’s legal father is Barack Obama Sr. and it will stay that way regardless of what Obama might attempt to do to change that. Obama is therefore not a “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President.

But let us stay tuned for more to come from Martha Trowbridge.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 15, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Is Putative President Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bari Shabazz, Fugitive from Justice For 21 Years Following An Auto Accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982?

2011-11-07T22:07:00.000-08:00

Is Putative President Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bari Shabazz, Fugitive from Justice For 21 Years Following An Auto Accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982?

By Mario Apuzzo
November 7, 2011

On November 2, 2011, I published an article entitled and asking the question, “Is Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City? ”, accessed at
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-barack-hussein-obama-ii-really-bari.html. The basis of the question that I asked came from a November 2, 2011 breaking story published by Martha Trowbridge entitled, “Bâri′, Barry, Barack, accessed at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/bari%e2%80%b2-barry-barack/. In her article, Ms. Trowbridge’s contends that putative President Barack Hussein Obama II’s real name is Bâri′ M. Shabazz and that his date of birth is October 28, 1959, and his social security number is 084-54-5926. She says he was born in New York City. She adds that he was born with the name Bâri′ M. Shabazz. She also says that to be able to enter the political world, Bâri′ M. Shabazz had to change his birth identity and take on a new one which became Barack Hussein Obama II.

Ms. Trowbridge says: “We know this: Bâri′ M. Shabazz was assigned social security number 084-54-5926, issued in New York, in 1974.”

Ms. Trowbridge has found that the Social Security Death Index shows: “SHABAZZ, B M 28 Oct 1959 Aug 1994 (V) 34 (PE) (none specified) New York 084-54-5926.” From this, one would think that Bâri′ died in August 1994. But no, Ms. Trowbridge informs that only his identity was made “dead.” The real person continued to live and that person became “Barack Hussein Obama II.” Note how she explains that the “death” of Bâri′ was only reported by someone (“V” or “Verified”) and that the person did not present any valid death certificate (“P” or “Proof).

What’s more Ms. Trowbridge explains that “[o]nce in the federal system, the [death] record was flagged as ‘PE’, meaning that an inconsistency exists between what was reported and what was recorded in the government’s files.”

Finally, and the most shocking part of her report is that Ms. Trowbridge contends that Bâri′ M. Shabazz is the biological son of Malcolm X. Hence, if Barack Hussein Obama II is the same person as Bâri′ M. Shabazz, that would make putative President Obama the biological son of Malcolm X.

On November 4, 2011, an anonymous source emailed me something very interesting. To substantiate the content of the email, the writer directed me to go to a web site of the Judiciary for the State of Hawaii and to do a search of cases that have been disposed of by that State’s traffic courts. The anonymous source had done just that and so the person provided me with the information which that traffic court shows on its web site.

I did go to the Hawaii traffic court’s web site which is called eCourt Kokua and I was eventually able to confirm the information that the anonymous source sent me. Access to the court’s web site may be gained by going to http://jimspss1.courts.state.hi.us:8080/eCourt/ECC/ECCDisclaimer.iface;jsessionid=FDFF513AA90109AC4375A7CBE7C8AF36. Once at the site, click “Agree” to the terms and conditions. Then click, “Search for case details by case ID or citation number.” Once there, enter at the prompt, Case ID or Citation Number(*): 1193041MO and hit Search.” The following report appears:

What do these reports say and what questions does they raise? The Case ID is 1193041 MO. The name of the case is State v. Bari Shabazz which was a non-jury case. The case is characterized as a “Traffic Crime,” with a “REPORT number W50100.” The offense occurred on March 12, 1982. The charging police officer is Duane Masayuki Espinueva. The event is characterized as an “Accident Major.” The charge was driving without a valid driver’s license. The case was first filed on Tuesday, March 16, 1982, in the First Circuit, located at Kane’Ohe Division. I checked and this court is located at

45-939 Pookela Street, Kaneohe, HI 96744

. The case was continued to April 5, 1982.

The record also shows that Bari Shabazz was supposed to be arraigned and enter a plea on April 5, 1982, at 8:30 a.m., in Kane’ohe Traffic Court, Courtroom B, at the Kane’ohe Division. The case was continued to May 5, 1982.

On May 5, 1982, at 8:00 a.m., Bari Shabazz was supposed to again be arraigned and enter his plea in the same court room. He apparently did not appear and so the court issued a bench warrant on May 5, 1982, bearing number “BWO 050582.” It appears as though the court set bail at $25.00. The record also shows the entry of “HONDA,” maybe meaning that Bari Shabazz was driving a Honda or that the prosecutor’s name was “HONDA.” The next entry is for May 5, 1982, at 8:30 a.m. The court ordered the “AP” (maybe meaning accused person) to show proof of “NEW YORK DRIVER’S LICENSE.”

The report then shows that the prosecutor on April 9, 2003, filed an ex parte motion to recall the bench warrant and announced on the record “nolle prosequi.” This is a Latin phrase which is formally entered into a court record which means that the prosecutor in a criminal case “will no further prosecute” the case. The motion was listed as “NP [nolle prosequi] 040903.” So, the charge was dismissed upon the prosecutor’s ex parte “Nolle Prosequi” motion made on April 9, 2003. “Ex parte” means that only one side made the application which in this case was the prosecutor.

The final entry was for October 30, 2005, at 8:00 a.m., when the court noted that a $-0- balance was owed, but said “Pls check.”

This information raises the following questions:

1. Is the Bari Shabazz named in this traffic court report the same person Ms. Trowbridge calls “Bâri′ M. Shabazz” in her report and who is listed as “B M Shabazz” in the Social Security Death Index? If it is the same person, then that puts New Yorker Bâri′ M. Shabazz in Honolulu County, Hawaii, on March 12, 1982. Using a date of birth of October 28, 1959, this would have made Bâri′ M. Shabazz 22 years old at the time that he had this major automobile accident in Honolulu County.

2. The accident is characterized as a major accident. Chances are that Bari Shabazz and/or any passenger was taken to a local hospital in Honolulu County due to his/their injuries. If Bari Shabazz suffered any major injuries or laceration, the physical signs of those injuries and/or lacerations could still be present somewhere on his body if he is still alive.

3. Bari Shabazz was charged with driving without a driver’s license. The court ordered him to show proof of his New York driver’s license. Hence, Bari Shabazz must have told the charging police officer or the court that he did have a driver’s license and that it was one issued by the State of New York. Hence, Bari Shabazz must have been a resident of the State of New York. Note that Ms. Trowbridge said that Bâri′ M. Shabazz was born in New York City. Also, what was Bari Shabazz doing driving in Hawaii with what should have been a New York driver’s license? Was he now living in Hawaii? Was he there on vacation? Was he there visiting family or friends? Was he going to school there?

4. On April 9, 2003, the prosecutor filed a motion to recall the bench warrant, to terminate prosecution, and close the case. Why would this case come to the attention of some local prosecutor 21 years following the initial violation of March 12, 1982? A local prosecutor does not just go looking for cases that are 21 years old and file motions to dismiss those cases. Someone must have asked that local prosecutor to dismiss the case so that the arrest warrant was cleared from the court’s and nation’s computer system.

5. Ms. Trowbridge shows that Bâri′ M. Shabazz, according to the Social Security Death Index, died in August 1994. If Bâri′ M. Shabazz is the same person as is listed in this Hawaii auto accident as Bari Shabazz, why would someone care to recall his arrest warrant on April 9, 2003 or almost 9 years after his death? Surely, it could not be Bâri′ M. Shabazz who was interested since he had been dead since 1994. On the other hand, if he was not dead he would be interested.

6. On October 30, 2005, or 23 years following the date of the accident of March 12, 1982, the court again re-visits the case of Bari Shabazz, noting that he did not owe the court any money but to “Pls. check.” Why would the court again concern itself with this case on that date, especially if Bari Shabazz was dead since 1994?

7. So, is the Bari Shabazz named in this Hawaii traffic court report the same person Ms. Trowbridge calls “Bâri′ M. Shabazz” in her report and who is listed as “B M Shabazz” in the Social Security Death Index? That question surely merits an investigation. If he is, then that puts the New-York-born Bâri′ M. Shabazz in Honolulu County, Hawaii, the alleged birth place and once place of residence of putative President, Barack Hussein Obama II. Given what Ms. Trowbridge has concluded in her report, that is a circumstantial piece of evidence that is surely worth investigating. What also supports Ms. Trowbridge’s position that Bâri′ M. Shabazz really did not die in August 1994 and that he is still alive as Barack Hussein Obama II is that the traffic court in Hawaii was still acting on the Bari Shabazz traffic case 9 and 11 years after the alleged death in August 1994 of Bâri′ M. Shabazz. What needs to be investigated is why the local prosecutor and court took those actions so many years after the traffic accident and at whose behest.

8. Finally, when there is an auto accident, the police do a detailed accident report. That report includes the name, addresses, date of birth, and social security number of the person involved in the accident who is charged for that accident. The driver’s license number is also included if that license is produced or otherwise verified. A physical description of the defendant is also included. The make of auto, including the year made and VIN number are also included, along with statements of witnesses. There could be a photograph of the defendant in the police record. A thorough investigation of this matter would surely include searching the police record in Honolulu County for this report so that this information may be examined and evaluated.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 7, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Is Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City?

2011-11-02T13:03:00.000-07:00

Is Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City?

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 2, 2011

Is Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barack Obama Jr., really Bâri′ M. Shabazz? See the breaking story, entitled, Bâri′, Barry, Barack, by Martha Trowbridge, at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/bari%e2%80%b2-barry-barack/.

In her article, Ms. Trowbridge contends that putative President Obama’s real name is Bâri′ M. Shabazz.

She also tells us that this past Friday, October 28, 2011, was Bâri′’s birthday.

She says that the person who presents himself as Barack Hussein Obama II was born on October 28, 1959, in New York City. She adds that he was born with the name Bâri′ M. Shabazz.

What is also really interesting is that according to Ms. Trowbridge, the names Bâri′, Malik, and Shabazz are “sacred to Malcolm X.” Go to Ms. Trowbridge’s story to see what these names mean.

Ms. Trowbridge says that Bâri′ discovered that he was the son of Malcolm X. He then wanted to complete what his father had started in the political world. But he realized that he could not do it if the world knew that he was the illegitimate son of Malcolm X, a Muslim revolutionary. Hence, he had to change his birth identity and take on a new one.

She also explains that “father” Barack Obama was Malcolm X’s Kenyan friend.

We have heard so much about social security numbers. Here is what Ms. Trowbridge says: “We know this: Bâri′ M. Shabazz was assigned social security number 084-54-5926, issued in New York, in 1974.”

Here is more amazing information: Ms. Trowbridge has found that the Social Security Death Index shows: “SHABAZZ, B M 28 Oct 1959 Aug 1994 (V) 34 (PE) (none specified) New York 084-54-5926.” From this, one would think that Bari died in August 1994. But no, Ms. Trowbridge informs that only his identity was made “dead.” The real person continued to live and that person became “Barack Hussein Obama II.” Note how she explains that the “death” of Bari was only reported by someone (“V” or “Verified”) and that the person did not present any valid death certificate (“P” or “Proof).

What’s more Ms. Trowbridge explains that “[o]nce in the federal system, the [death] record was flagged as ‘PE’, meaning that an inconsistency exists between what was reported and what was recorded in the government’s files.”

Finally, do note Ms. Trowbridge also shows how close Bâri′ and Malcolm X lived together in East Elmhurst, New York.

What Ms. Trowbridge has presented to the world is surely shocking (an understatement). What she says surely needs to be investigated as soon as possible. Hopefully our political, legal, and police institutions will be up to the task. So far, they have not been.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 5, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

How Obama’s Enablers Mislead the Public on the Meaning of an Article II “Natural Born” Citizen

2011-10-10T22:18:00.000-07:00

How Obama’s Enablers Mislead the Public on the Meaning of an Article II “Natural Born” Citizen

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
October 10, 2011

You have got to love Obama’s enablers. They have a web site called, “A Place to Get the REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship,” accessed at http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/a-place-to-get-the-really-right-answers-about-natural-born-citizenship/. Clearly, the title of this web site refers this web site, “Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ , which I created in December 2008.

Before I start, I must advise you of two things: first, you will rarely find an Obama enabler who will ever admit that he or she is a lawyer (most of those who admit it have been outed by citizen researchers). The reason for that is that operating under the blanket of anonymity, they get free reign to say whatever they want without any legal or ethical accountability. And they have said some pretty bad things in the past until many of them were outed and so now they are “perfect gentlemen.” Hence, the first thing the owner of this blog tells us is that he or she is not a lawyer. Now it may be true that the owner of that blog is not a lawyer. But what about all the other enablers who feed at that blog under the cover of anonymity? So, we do need to ask ourselves whether these so-called “owners” are just straw owners who take on such tasks to provide cover for Obama’s enabler lawyers who operate in the background under the cloaking device of anonymity.

Second, before I started explaining that there is a difference between an Article II “natural born” Citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment or Statutory “born” Citizen, we hardly saw the clause “natural born” Citizen in the Obama enablers’ arguments. At that time, they were simply content with telling us that Obama was a “Citizen” of the United States or a “native-born citizen,” whether under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment, or any Congressional Act. Now, no matter what case or statute they are speaking about, for these enablers its all “natural born” Citizen. The only citizens they have spared from this label are citizens who are naturalized after birth. I guess they figured that the clause would lose whatever little meaning they have given to it if they pushed it that far.

Let us now examine what Obama’s enablers are peddling on this blog. They must and do attack the Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) decision on two fronts. First, they argue that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” given by the Court is dicta and therefore not binding precedent. But they are wrong. In Minor, the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether Virginia Minor, a woman, was a “citizen” in order to determine whether as a “citizen” she enjoyed a constitutional right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV. So the Court reasoned that once she was shown to be a “citizen,” it did not matter that she was a woman, unless Missouri could still disqualify a woman from voting because being a “citizen” did not guarantee any person the right to vote. It does not matter whether the Court chose to say that Minor was a “natural born Citizen” or just a “citizen.” Either way, Virginia Minor would advance to the next step in the analysis which was whether as a “citizen” she had the right to vote which Missouri could not abrogate. The Court chose the “natural-born citizen” path. It thoroughly analyzed and considered what a “natural-born citizen” was and after saying that it is a child born in the country to citizen parents, found that Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen” and therefore also a “citizen.” After the Court told us what a “natural-born citizen” was, it then made the comment about there being doubts as to whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Court said that it was not necessary for it to decide that question and it did not because Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen” which necessarily also made her a “citizen.” So the focus of the Court’s decision regarding citizenship was in defining who the “original citizens” and the “natural-born citizens” were. The Court did not and did not have to answer the question about who was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment which in the question that it raised involved deciding whether a child born in the jurisdiction of the United States but to alien parents was born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” We know that this latter question concerning who was a “citizen” under these circumstances was answered by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 which also confirmed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and analyzed whether such a child was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So as we can see, Minor’s analysis and discussion about citizenship was central to the Court’s answering the question of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” which it answered by telling us that she was a “natural-born citizen” which automatically made her a “citizen” also. Hence, Minor’s discussion and decision on what a “natural-born citizen” is was central to the Court’s holding regarding citizenship (as I explained the other holding concerned whether voting was a privilege and immunity originally guaranteed by the constitution’s privileges and immunities clause) and not dicta.

Virginia Minor was not a naturalized citizen. Hence, the Court thoroughly discussed the definition of a “natural-born citizen” which it was compelled to do to decide whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” and as such entitled to privileges and immunities under the Constitution one of which Mrs. Minor contended was the right to vote. The Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” was therefore essential to its holding that voting was not a privilege and immunity originally guaranteed by the Constitution and that Mrs. Minor, a woman, even though she was a “natural-born citizen,” did not have a constitutional right to vote. Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is therefore binding precedent which to this day has not been changed.

Second, Obama’s enablers attack the precedential definition of a “natural-born citizen” provided by Minor. To support their position, Obama’s enablers manipulate both the use of the word “born” and the meaning of the word “naturalized.” Regarding the word “born,” their definition of a “natural born” Citizen which is a child born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not include all the elements which should be included. When it comes to Obama, the element which they leave out is birth to citizen parents. They arrive at their truncated definition of a “natural born Citizen” by arguing that Minor v. Happersett did say that a child born in the United States of citizen parents was a “natural born citizen.” But they insist that there exists an ambiguity in the Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” because the Court did not say that a person not born in the United States of citizen parents was necessarily not a “natural born Citizen.” They add that the condition of being born in the United States of citizen parents was a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one. They add that the condition is not a definition even if Minor constitutes a precedent. They then conclude that persons born in the United States of citizen parents are “natural born citizens,” but that neither birth in the United States nor birth to citizen parents is required. They conclude that as long as one is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment or any Act of Congress, even if born in the United States to one or two alien parents or born outside the United States to one or two citizen parents, one is a “natural born citizen. The fallacy of this argument lies in denying the well-established definition of a “natural born Citizen” and arguing that it is not a definition and then putting forth their own definition which is broader than the correct definition so that they can meet the broader definition (not requiring birth to citizen parents in the case of Obama).

The question is whether Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is ambiguous. The enablers’ argument that it is ambiguous and that it permits for other birth circumstances which do not exist in that definition is meritless. A definition is not ambiguous merely because it does not expressly rule out every possible other factual scenario which someone claims also fits under that definition. De Leon-Ochoa v. Att’y Gen., 622 F.3d at 353 (reviewing 8 U.S.C. § 1254a). The enablers do not tell us that not one U.S. Supreme Court case or Congressional Act in the history of our nation defines a “natural born Citizen” the way they do (i.e., as being any child born a citizen regardless of place of birth or citizenship of the parents) and that on the contrary, these sources (expect for the Naturalization Act of 1790 which is not relevant to Obama, did not support their position, and which was repealed in 1795) have always defined a “natural born Citizen” as being a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Hence, there is no ambiguity in this time-honored definition. On the contrary, the Minor U.S. Supreme Court has plainly spoken with affirmative language which comprises a definition on who is an Article II “natural born” Citizen. It has clearly set out by definition who is a “natural born” Citizen. Hence, anyone who does not meet that definition is necessarily excluded from that class of citizen.

Another approach that Obama’s enablers take to attacking Minor’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen is to say that we commit the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. This fallacy is described as:
If A, then X.
Not A.
Therefore, not X.
This reasoning is fallacious, unless A is a necessary condition which in such case, the logic would not be fallacious. In other words, if A is merely sufficient for X to exist, the fact that A does not exists does not necessarily rule out that X can come into existence by some other factors, e.g. B or C. So if A is a bi-conditional which is expressed as “if and only if,” the logical expression presented would not be fallacious. For example, if Joe has a lot of land, then Joe is rich. Joe does not have a lot of land. Therefore, Joe is not rich. This is fallacious logic, for Joe could be rich by having a lot of gold. But if we said if Joe is breathing, then he is alive. Joe is not breathing. Then he is not alive. We do not question the correct logic of this statement. And it is correct because breathing is not only sufficient but also necessary. So what we are really saying is: “If and only if” Joe is breathing, then he is alive.

Obama enablers argue that we deny the antecedent when we say that under Minor, since Obama was not born to two U.S.-citizen parents, he cannot be a “natural born” Citizen. They add that two U.S.-parent citizenship is only a sufficient condition, and not a necessary one. But the logical error that they make in putting forth this argument is in denying that Minor gave us a binding definition of the clause “natural-born citizen” which affirmatively declared what such a citizen is. Hence, being a definition, the elements expressed are necessary conditions and not sufficient ones. Would these same Obama enablers say while reasoning under the Fourteenth Amendment that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is only a sufficient condition and that it is wrong to conclude that if someone is born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ that that person could still be a “citizen of the United States” under that amendment? No, they would not make such an argument because they know that the Fourteenth Amendment provides an affirmative and declaratory definition of citizenship each element of which is a necessary condition to earning the right to have that national character. There is no difference with Minor’s affirmative definition of a “natural born” Citizen, but they deny that Minor put forth a definition, but accept that the Fourteenth Amendment does. There simply is no consistency or logic in how these enablers treat Minor in one fashion but then treat the Fourteenth Amendment in another.

Obama’s enablers then move on to Wong Kim Ark and say that it declared Wong a “natural born” Citizen and that since Obama meets the requirements of that case, he too is a “natural born” Citizen. But straightforward reading of the Wong Kim Ark case shows that it did not do any such thing. Here is the question presented as stated by Wong Kim Ark:

“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a ‘citizen of the United States’ by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution” (emphasis supplied).

And here is the specific holding of the case:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a ‘citizen of the United States.’ For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative” (emphasis supplied). Id. at 705.

We do not see anywhere in the question presented or the holding any reference to “natural born” Citizen. The Court could not have been clearer by telling us twice that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States.” We clearly see that the case only concerned itself with whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment (more on the Fourteenth Amendment below). After all, Wong only needed to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” to avoid being excluded from the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Acts which prohibited persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States. He did not need to be an Article II “natural born” Citizen which under our Constitution and Congressional Acts is relevant only to the question of whether one is eligible to be President or Vice-President.

The lack of any reference to “natural born” Citizen in Wong Kim Ark’s question presented and holding is critical given that in the opinion itself, the Court said that “[the child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” Hence, the Court held that Wong, a person born of aliens in the United States, was a “citizen,” since he was “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen." Indeed, the Court acknowledged that one type of national character is a “citizen,” who is born in the country to “an alien,” and the other type is a “natural born citizen,” who is born in the country to “a citizen.” Under the then-prevailing notion of merger of the wife’s citizenship into that of the husband, “an alien” and “a citizen” actually meant “aliens” and “citizens,” for no other interpretation would make sense. Without such a reading, the two birth circumstances would always give the same result, for if one is born to “an alien,” parent (just one parent), then one would also be born to “a citizen” parent (the other parent). Hence, what the Court said is that a child born in the United States to an alien can be a “citizen,” but by definition not a “natural born” Citizen because a “natural born” Citizen is born to citizen parents, not to alien parents. The Court knew that Wong could not be a “natural born” Citizen because he did not have citizen parents. So, the Court analyzed, relying upon English common law, whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. By so doing, the Court did what Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) said was not necessary for it to do, i.e., decide whether being born in the jurisdiction of the United States but to alien parents satisfied the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Again, the Court said “[t]he child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It did not say that that child born to aliens is as much a “natural-born citizen” as the natural-born child of a citizen. It said he or she was as much a “citizen.” Here, we see further proof that the Court distinguished between a “natural born” Citizen and a “citizen,” and that it found Wong to be a “citizen,” and not a “natural born” Citizen. So, the Court’s erroneous use of the old English common law applied only to how the Court defined a “Citizen” of the United States, not to how it defined an Article II “natural born” Citizen, the definition for which it cited and quoted Minor. In short, Wong Kim Ark distinguished between a “natural born” Citizen and a “Citizen” by way of definition and also in its question presented and holding.

It is also important to note that Wong Kim Ark did not revisit Minor’s American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which it said was a child born in the country to citizen parents. Clearly, the Court knew that Wong was not born to citizen parents. Hence, if it was going to declare Wong a “natural born” Citizen, it would have had to address Minor’s precedential definition. Such analysis would have necessarily included the Court examining the text of the “natural born” Citizen clause and commenting on the Founders’ and Framers’ intent for including the clause and all the historical evidence which in any way sheds light on the meaning of the clause. We can readily see from the Court’s decision that it did not engage in any such analysis. Since it was only concerned with determining whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is a different class of citizen than an Article II “natural born” Citizen, it was not necessary for the Court to re-examine Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” or to analyze what the original meaning of the clause was. Hence, we do not find in Wong Kim Ark any such discussion on the “natural born” Citizen clause.

Further evidence that Wong Kim Ark did not declare Wong an Article II “natural born” Citizen may be found in the case of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010) (which I will discuss below). The Indiana court acknowledged that Wong Kim Ark did not declare Wong an Article II “natural born” Citizen. But then it attempts to explain that such shortfall is “irrelevant.” Needless to say, its explanation makes very little sense in the context of trying to determine what an Article II “natural born” Citizen is. Here is what the court said in Footnote 14:

“We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”

In its attempt to explain away why Wong Kim Ark did not specifically hold that Wong was a “natural born” Citizen, Ankeny just said that there is no practical difference between a “natural born” Citizen and a naturalized citizen other than that only the former is eligible to be President. But what does that have to do with what Wong Kim Ark held? This explanation is simply not material to the question of what Wong Kim Ark actually held which Ankeny itself concedes--it “did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a ‘natural born Citizen.’” But to Ankeny, Wong Kim Ark’s choice of language is not important notwithstanding that the Founders and Framers when writing the Constitution chose their words carefully and with specific purpose of meaning and Article I and Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 treat a “natural born” Citizen and a “Citizen” of the United States as very distinct and separate classes of citizens when it comes to congressional and presidential office. So Ankeny wants it both ways. It tells us that Wong Kim Ark did not say that Wong was an Article II “natural born” Citizen but then it tells us that based on Wong Kim Ark any person who is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a “natural born” Citizen. It thus becomes quite clear that Ankeny’s attempt to convert Wong Kim Ark’s holding into one involving a “natural born” Citizen when it really only involved a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” must fail.

Desperate as Obama’s enablers are, they then further enlist the assistance of Ankeny in their attempt to show us that Wong Kim Ark declared Wong a “natural born Citizen.” I have already shown that Ankeny itself conceded that Wong Kim Ark “did not actually pronounce the plaintiff an Article II ‘natural born Citizen.’” Apart from what Ankeny said about Wong Kim Ark’s holding, a simple reading of Ankeny shows that, while the court may have been correct in finding that the Governor of Indiana had no legal duty to investigate whether Obama was a “natural born” Citizen, it erred when it went beyond those simple independent state grounds which were sufficient to dispose of the case and reached a constitutional issue when it declared what the definition of an Article II “natural born” Citizen is. It said that Minor left open the question of what a “natural born” Citizen was when in fact it left open the question of whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “Citizen” of the United States. Ankeny also said that Wong Kim Ark answered the question left open by Minor and declared Wong to be a “natural born” Citizen. While Wong Kim Ark did answer the question left open by Minor, i.e., whether Wong, who was born in the United States to domiciled alien parents, was a “Citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not declare Wong to be an Article II “natural born” Citizen. I have shown above how the question presented in Wong Kim Ark was whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States,” not whether he was a “natural born” Citizen, and that its holding was limited to Wong being a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born” Citizen. Additionally, Ankeny is only a state law case and surely does not overrule Minor which confirmed the American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born” Citizen” to be a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Again with further assistance from the state-law case of Ankeny, Obama’s enablers then look to the Fourteenth Amendment for help. They add that Ankeny also relied upon the Fourteenth Amendment to show that any person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents, is a “natural born” Citizen. But they do not explain how they go from the amendment’s text referring to a “citizen of the United States” to it saying according to them a “natural born” Citizen. They do not tell us that nowhere in the amendment will we find the words “natural born” Citizen and that nothing in its history or in its debates suggests that its framers included in the amendment “natural born” Citizen status or that they intended by the amendment to create or amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born” Citizen. On the contrary, the amendment was passed during Reconstruction to bestow initial membership in the United States upon freed slaves. This initial membership since the Founding, even confirmed in the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, has always been simply called “Citizen” of the United States. Hence, if the amendment were to be used by any other person to gain citizenship in the United States, he or she could only gain that same initial membership which we call “Citizen” of the United States. As proof of this purpose, the amendment only includes the words, “citizens” of the United States. Remember that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 also speaks of “natural born” Citizens and “Citizens” of the United States. Because the republic was new, the Framers grandfathered the initial members to be eligible to be President. This class included the Founders and Framers themselves who were born British “natural born subjects” and who were naturalized to be “Citizens” of the United States by the power of the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. But for births after the adoption of the Constitution, it allowed only a “natural born” Citizen to be eligible to be President. This latter class was comprised not of initial members of the United States (only “Citizens” and nothing more), but rather the children of such initial members (children of “Citizens”) or the children of later-generation members (children of “natural born” Citizens). Hence, simply being a born “Citizen” of the United States is not sufficient to be eligible to be President, for in such case, the person’s birth circumstance is missing citizen parents. Any common sense reading of the Fourteenth Amendment would show that its citizenship status is not sufficient for one to be eligible to be President. First, one must be a “natural born” Citizen and not only a “Citizen” of the United States which is the status provided by the amendment. Second, it is not sufficient to simply say that one is born a “Citizen” of the United States under the amendment and therefore a “natural born” Citizen. The Founders and Framers said “natural born,” not just “born.” In order to gain this special status of “natural born” Citizen, one must satisfy the American common law definition of a “natural born” Citizen handed down to us since the Founding and confirmed in both Minor and Wong Kim Ark. One cannot simply obtain the status of a “Citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, even if that status is gained from the moment of birth, for these positive laws neither by affirmative language nor by definition bestow upon anyone the status of a “natural born” Citizen. Moreover, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark said that the Fourteenth Amendment defines neither a “Citizen” of the United States (it does not define what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means) nor a “natural born” Citizen. That would mean by referring to neither a “natural born” Citizen nor to defining one. That is why Minor relied on American “common-law” to define a “natural born” Citizen and Wong Kim Ark relied upon English “common law” to define a “Citizen” of the United States.

So has Obama’s enablers’ position improved any by relying on the Fourteenth Amendment and Ankeny which got it like them plainly wrong? Again, the answer is a resounding “no.”

But Obama’s enablers do not stop there. They also provide lower federal court and state law cases that declared persons born in the United States to alien parents “Citizens” of the United States. First, they avoid mentioning that Minor v. Happersett in 1875 said that there were “some authorities” who said that a child born in the United States to alien parents were “citizens.” Minor rightfully said “there have been doubts” regarding whether these “authorities” were correct, given that Congress since 1790 required any child born to alien parents, regardless of the place of birth, to naturalized in the United States in order to become a “Citizen” of the United States. Second, these cases only defined a “Citizen” and not a “natural born” Citizen.

But Obama’s enablers do not end there either. They then attack Emer de Vattel, saying that nobody knew that “dead Swiss guy” who wrote “some book” on some citizenship “stuff.” Needless to say, the historical record and case law is replete with information which shows how influential Vattel was during the Founding in helping our leaders justify the American Revolution, write the Constitution, and constitute the new republic. See, for example, J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, 3 Am.J. Int’l L. 547 et. seq. passim (1909) (Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often pointed out that his theories served as the backbone for American independence); Lee A. Casey, David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Darin R. Bartram, Unlawful Belligerency and Its Implications Under International Law, http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/PubID.104/pub_detail.asp (concerning U.S. constitutional analysis, “Vattel is highly important. He was probably the international law expert most widely read among the Framers”). In fact, Vattel continued to be practically applied in our nation for well over 100 years after the birth of the republic. F.S. Ruddy, The Acceptance of Vattel, Grotian Society Papers (1972) (Vattel was mainstream political philosophy during the writing of the Constitution. The Law of Nations was significantly the most cited legal source in America jurisprudence between 1789 and 1820). But as we can see, the importance and practicality of Vattel lives on today.

Finally, and this is Obama’s enablers’ favorite ploy, they say for the Birthers to be right, all smart and consequential people in America would have to be part of some grand conspiracy. They paint the “Birthers” with the same brush and paint that they paint those who question the moon landing, the Kennedy assassination, the 9-11 attacks, and whether there is some plot to create a “One World Order.” But there is nothing conspiratorial about correctly defining an Article II “natural born” Citizen and applying that definition to Obama’s admitted birth circumstances. He has admitted and it is corroborated by documentation that he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. Hence, he cannot be a “natural born” Citizen. There is no conspiracy in that, my friend.

And so it goes on, for this is how Obama’s enablers must make a living.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
October 10, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

New Evidence Regarding Obama's Alleged Father: Is it Malcolm X?

2011-09-29T13:28:00.000-07:00

                                           New Evidence Regarding Obama’s Alleged Father: Is It Malcolm X?

                                                                By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                  September 29, 2011

Obama with Stanley
Ann Dunham-Was this
Photo Altered? If so,
Why?

See this new blog called, Terrible Truth. The owners of the new blog are writers and researchers, Martha Trowbridge and Erik Rush. They have just written an article entitled, Saps, Stool Pigeons And Stanley Ann’s Hair, accessed at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/.

The authors maintain, based on evidence of tampering with photographs of Obama’s mother, that "Obama’s Mother And Son photo was falsified to deceive us."

They state: “Truth is, mama Stanley Ann didn’t have long hair when Barack was young. Until, of course, with photoshop-type tampering, The Obama Campaign made sure we’d think that she did.”

One might ask why would Obama care to alter photos of his mother. The authors say this: “Here’s why: Obama was worried you’d find her in places, at key strategic times, with people he couldn’t let you know about. People like Malcolm X. Times like the early and mid-1960′s. Places like New York City.” Based on photo and film footage analysis, they specifically place who they say is Stanley Ann Dunham at the funeral of Malcom X.

They continue: “So it just may be that Barack Obama’s father isn’t Barack Obama “Sr”, after all.” The authors conclude that Stanley Ann Dunham had Obama with Malcolm X, her secret lover. Hence, Obama’s father is Malcolm X.

The authors ask why would Obama have hidden the truth about his origins. The authors say: “Because having a biological father like Malcolm X – a radical black nationalist – would have impeded Obama’s chance for election.”

Please review the photos, film footage, and other materials presented by Ms. Trowbridge and Mr. Rush.

Let us know what you think.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 29, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Having the Status of Birthright Citizenship Is Not Sufficient to Make One an Article II “Natural Born” Citizen

2011-09-20T13:08:00.000-07:00

Having the Status of Birthright Citizenship Is Not Sufficient to Make One an Article II “Natural Born”
                                                                      Citizen

                                                           By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                             September 20, 2011

Horace Gray, Associate Justice
of the U.S. Supreme Court

I just read an article regarding a debate going on in Liberia about Presidential and Vice-Presidential eligibility requirements. The issue is whether the residency has to be immediately before the election. The article may be read at http://allafrica.com/stories/201109200851.html.

The President or Vice-President eligibility requirements in Liberia are: (1) being a natural born citizen 35 years or more, (2) 10 years residence in Liberia 10 years prior to elections; (3) owner of unencumbered real property worth not less than 25,000; and (4) President and Vice-President must not come from the same county.

Note that the Liberian Constitution even considers those acquiring the status of "citizen" after birth as "natural born citizens."

What struck me as interesting is that they treat their "natural born citizens" like the Founders and Framers treated plain "Citizens" of the United States (distinguished from "natural born" Citizens of the United States). What is also interesting is that Liberia considers a person to be a "natural born citizen" even if that status was not acquired at birth. Indeed, they have created a contradiction and oxymoron right in their own Constitution.

I suspect that Liberia is treating a "natural born citizen" just like the British treated their "natural born subject." For the British, who followed the feudal and monarchial system of subjectship with allegiance to a sovereign King rather than a true republican system with voluntary membership and allegiance to the sovereign nation and its people through free choice made by a child’s parents who then pass that decision to their children, it did not matter if one was truly a "natural born subject" or even a naturalized subject, for they considered all their subjects to be "natural born subjects," which conveniently for the King carried with it allegiance to the King for life.

The Founders and Framers did not adopt the same oppressive system for the constitutional republic. They rejected that a person was born into the allegiance of a King or any nation for life. They also rejected that one could be born with allegiance to more than one nation or later in life maintain multiple allegiance at the same time. Throughout the Constitution, they were careful to distinguish between a "natural born" Citizen of the United States and a "Citizen" of the United States. In their eyes, a “natural born” Citizen was born with sole and absolute allegiance and jurisdiction to the United States and its people. They gave Congress the power to add additional members to the new republic through naturalization, which could be granted to a person only if he or she swore or affirmed to have the same sole and absolute allegiance to the United States which a “natural born” Citizen acquired by nature at birth. So for the Founders and Framers, all the “citizens” of the republic, either by birth or naturalization, had sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction to the United States. Through this process, people could make a decision based on free will whether they first and then through them their children wanted to become members of the republic.

The Constitution gave Congress the power to make uniform the naturalization laws. Congress first exercised that power in 1790. The act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, c. 3, provided for the naturalization of aliens and then provided that "the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States."

The third section of the act of January 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 414, 415, c. 20, provided "that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States," etc.

The fourth section of the act of April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153, 155, c. 28, carried into the Revised Statutes as section 2172, was: "That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States."

The provision that children born in the United States to alien parents was carried in all of the following naturalization acts, including that of 1804, 1855, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which required that the child be born in the United States and not be “subject to any foreign power.” Given the world-recognized doctrine of jus sanguinis (also utilized by our own Congress in 1790 to make children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “natural born citizens” and starting with 1795 “citizens of the United States”), the only way such a child could be born not subject to any foreign power was to be born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents or to parents who had long lost any foreign nationality who at that time were American slaves and their descendents.

As we can see, Congress, in all of these acts, did not make any exception for children born in the United States. It simply said that any child of any person who naturalized would fall under the act. This is broad language and included also children that were born in the United States. If Congress meant to exclude children born in the United States from having to naturalize it surely knew how to do so by using simple language. Hence, Congress considered children born on U.S. soil to alien parents to be themselves aliens.

From a reading of the text of these acts, we can see that only non-naturalized persons, i.e., person not acquiring citizenship under these Congressional Acts could be "natural born" Citizens. From this legislative history, we can see that the only persons not needing naturalization, i.e., not needing any positive law to acquire U.S. citizenship, were the children born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. This is confirmed by, among others, the following historical and judicial sources:

(1) Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758):

"§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

(2) David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) . He said that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizens. He defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born to citizen parents. Concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, he said that birthright “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He continued that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7; Finally, he said that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

(3) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814). Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cited Vattel and provided his definition of natural born citizens, and said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’” Id. at 289.

(4) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Justice Daniels concurring cited Vattel and The Law of Nations and provided his definition of “natural born citizen” and removed Vattel’s references to “fathers” and “father” and replaced them with “parents” and “person.” He stated: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .”

(5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it held:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”
Id. at 167-68.

Minor did not cite Vattel but as can be seen the Court’s precedential definitions of a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen” are taken directly out of Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Section 212. Hence, when Minor said “common-law,” it was not referring to the English common law but rather to American common law which had its basis in citizenship matters in natural law and the law of nations. Minor also distinguished between “natural-born citizens” and “citizens.” When Minor spoke of the “common-law,” it referred to the “citizens” and the “natives or natural-born citizens,” explaining that there never had been any doubts that the children born in the country to “citizens” were the “natives or natural-born citizens.” So Minor concluded that any person who was a “natural-born citizen” was necessarily also a “citizen.” The Court, was not, however, willing to say that a child born in the country to parents who were not U.S. citizens was even a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment, let alone a “natural-born citizen” under Article II. The Court added that “there have been doubts” as to whether that child was even a “citizen.” Having decided that such a child was not a “natural-born citizen,” it left the question of whether such a child was a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to another day.

It is important to understand that if the English common law prevailed in the United States to define national citizenship, the Court would not have stated that “there have been doubts” whether children born in the country to alien parents were citizens. Under English common law, there was no doubt that such children would have been “natural born subjects,” for under that law the citizenship of the parents was not a factor in determining subjectship when the child was born in the dominion of the King.

So as we can see from this case law, and especially from the precedential definition confirmed by Minor, a “natural born Citizen” was well-defined. All other persons not falling under the well-established American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen,” who wanted to be "citizens" needed a Congressional Act (positive law) to gain membership in the United States which we call naturalization. And these latter persons became so naturalized either at birth or after birth only by Congress.

(6) All this continued unchanged until the U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice Horace Gray--who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur whom history has recently shown was not a “natural born” Citizen (see the legal research of Attorney Leo Donofrio at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/ )--decided the famous case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The question that Minor did not answer was answered by Wong Kim Ark, in which the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen” of the United States either under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the Fourteenth Amendment which had been adopted in 1868. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to domiciled alien parents to be a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wong Kim Ark applied the Fourteenth Amendment and colonial-era English common law to determine whether a person born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a “citizen” of the United States under that Amendment. With the Wong Kim Ark decision, even the judicial branch of government, like Lord Coke did in Calvin’s Case (1608), naturalized a person at birth. By doing so, it went beyond what as we have seen above Congress had always expressed in its naturalization statutes was a born “citizen” of the United States and expanded that "citizen" class. Indeed, Wong Kim Ark did not change the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it created another class of born "citizens," those born in the United States to one or two alien parents. Congress had never considered these children to be born “citizens” of the United States. Rather, Congress had always required that these children naturalize, either derivatively when their parents became citizens if done before the child’s age of majority or on their own if done thereafter. These born “citizens” do not meet the definition of a "natural born" Citizen but because of the Wong Kim Ark decision are nevertheless granted a birthright citizenship through naturalization at birth. By naturalizing Wong at birth, the Wong Kim Ark decision, like Congressional Acts which also naturalize children at birth, also created the anomaly that these children are born with allegiance and jurisdiction to the United States and to the nations of their alien parents (through jus sanguinis citizenship), but are not despite our citizenship history required to give an oath of sole allegiance to the United States.

Hence, we now have three birthright citizenships, (1) one under Article II which gives the national status of "natural born Citizen" of the United States, (2) another under the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) which gives the national status of born "citizen" of the United States to person born in the United States to one or two domiciled alien parents and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and (3) another under Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401et seq.) which also gives the status of born “citizen” of the United States to children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents. But because the Founders and Framers distinguished in Article II’s grandfather clause between “natural born” Citizens of the United States and “Citizens” of the United States (prior to the adoption of the Constitution, one could be a “Citizen” of the United States and be eligible to be President but for those born after its adoption, one had to be a “natural born” Citizen”), only a person who has Article II "natural born" Citizen status is eligible to be President. This means that only a person who was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents is eligible to be President.

This all brings us to putative President, Barack Obama. If Obama was born in Hawaii (a fact that he has yet to conclusively prove) and if his parents are Barack Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham (it is reported that these are his parents), he can be a Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) born “citizen” of the United States, but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States which is the constitutional standard that he must meet to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a “citizen” of the United States at the time of Obama’s birth. But his father, being born in 1934 or 1936 in what was then the British colony of Kenya, was under the British Nationality Act of 1948, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (“CUKC”). Obama himself by right of decent from his father under the same Act was also born a CUKC. Hence, because Obama was not born in the United States to United States citizen parents, he was not born under the sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Obama was not born with sole citizenship in the United States. Consequently, he was not born with unity of allegiance to and citizenship in the United States. Obama, therefore, cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, just as much as if he had not been at least 35 years of age or 14 years a resident of the United States.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 20, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the Terry Lakin Action Fund Radio Hour

2011-09-10T21:03:00.000-07:00

                         Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the Terry Lakin Action Fund Radio Hour

                                                         By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                           September 11, 2011

Please listen to David Moxley’s interview of Attorney Mario Apuzzo. Mr. Moxley’s interview was done for TLAF (Terry Lakin Action Fund) Radio Hour and pre-recorded on Friday, September 9, 2011. Attorney Apuzzo discusses Obama’s Article II eligibility, the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and the state of the political and legal battles to bring the issue of Obama’s eligibility to justice.

In the interview, Attorney Apuzzo also discusses the injustice suffered by LTC Terry Lakin, who most recently served as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the Pentagon's DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic. He was also the lead Flight Surgeon responsible for caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey's pilots and air crew. LTC Lakin was also selected for promotion to Colonel. As a commissioned officer, LTC Lakin took an officer’s oath which provides:

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331, Oath of Office.

Note that the oath refers to “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” If a sitting President is not legitimately holding the power of his office, he can be considered a “domestic” enemy. The officer’s oath is also different from an enlisted person’s oath. While enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, an officer’s oath does not include any provision to obey orders. Officers are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. Hence, the officer’s oath calls for loyalty to the Constitution and the Constitutional Republic and not to the President. Another way to look at the oath is that it calls for allegiance to a political philosophy (republican government) and not to the President or Commander in Chief.

Consequently, LTC Lakin was faced with an ethical dilemma for which there is no precedent because it concerns on one side the question of whether the President and Commander in Chief is legitimately holding the power of that office and on the other side the legal requirement that an officer obey all legal orders and follow The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Ch.47. Pursuant to his oath, LTC Lakin attempted to make sure that Obama meets the Article II eligibility requirements of the Constitution and that he is therefore not a “domestic” enemy, a matter that for LTC Lakin could have been easily resolved by Obama himself. Instead of getting the truth, he was court-martialed without being given any right to meaningful discovery, was found guilty of disobeying orders, was sentenced to 6 months in federal prison (he served 5 of those months and then got released), was caused to forfeit all pay and allowances, and was dismissed from the Military.

The show will air Monday, September 12, 2011, at 3:00PM on http://www.americaswebradio.com/. The following is the link to the podcast which will be posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011: http://www.radiosandysprings.com/showpages/TLAF.php.

Please note that the Terry Lakin Action Fund Show is changing its name to Officer’s Oath. Dr. Terry Lakin and friends will be hosting the new show.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 11, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

A Common Sense Definition of a "Citizen" and a "Natural Born Citizen"

2011-09-01T18:15:00.000-07:00

A Common Sense Definition of a “Citizen” and a “Natural Born Citizen”

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

September 1, 2011

The Framers of the Constitution called all those who made up the citizenry of the new Constitutional Republic “Citizens of the United States.” We know this from reading the following constitutional Articles: Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that, in addition to being at least 25 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 years. Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 provides that, in addition to being at least 30 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 years. The Framers provided in Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 the eligibility requirements for then and future Representatives and Senators, respectively, which were, among other things, that each had to be at least a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. We also know from Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 that a “Citizen of the United States” is a naturalized citizen, for those sections speak of the person being eligible for the offices of Representative and Senator if he or she is a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. Clearly, such requirements do not mandate U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth.

Regarding presidential eligibility, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.” So, these clauses together show that the Framers during the period that the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was in effect, allowed naturalized citizens to be eligible to be President. After the grandfather clause expired, it was no longer sufficient to be simply a “Citizen of the United States” to be eligible to be President, for such citizens also include naturalized citizens. Rather, one had to now show that one was a “natural born Citizen” which was not a naturalized citizen.

The problem with applying Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is that the Constitution as originally written defines neither a “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States.” Hence, we have to identify the sources to which the Founders and Framers would have looked for their definition of these terms. The historical record and early case law show that they probably would not have relied upon the English common law for these national definitions but rather on natural law and the law of nations to which they normally looked to solve problems of national proportions. This historical record and case law also show that Emer de Vattel was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite commentator on the law of nations. Vattel said “[t]he citizens are the members of civil society.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). He said that “each citizen on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.” Id. Other than explaining in Section 214 how a “foreigner” can become a “citizen” through “naturalisation,” Vattel did not explain how that membership or entrance into society is acquired. Incidentally, he said that in England, “the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Hence, historically, our nation has struggled with defining who is a “citizen,” which our Constitution and laws have called a “citizen of the United States.” On the other hand, Vattel clearly told us who is a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Id.

Hence, never in the history of our nation have we had any doubt as to what a “natural born Citizen” is. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875) (“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first”). Consequently, our national debate over citizenship has been over who is a “citizen.” This debate has involved former slaves and their descendents, Asians, American Indians, and even the children born in the United States to alien white European parents. But this debate has never been over who is a “natural born Citizen.”

Because of the doubts over who is a “citizen,” our nation has had to define a “citizen” in Acts of Congress, treaties, the Fourteenth Amendment, and through case law (e.g., U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)). Regarding a “natural born Citizen,” we have defined this class of citizen only through case law which has explicitly or impliedly relied upon Vattel’s Section 212 and which to this day has never changed (e.g., The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring and dissenting for other reasons-explicitly); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring-explicitly); Minor v. Happersett (1875) (impliedly); Wong Kim Ark (impliedly)).

This means that a “citizen” is defined by Acts of Congress, treaties, and the Fourteenth Amendment (e.g., a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents or a child born out of the United States to one or two United States citizen parents or a child born out of the United States to alien parents who naturalizes to be a “citizen” after birth) and a “natural born Citizen” is defined by American common law. And that American common law definition has been since the Founding and continues until today to be a child born in the United States to a United States citizen father and mother. Finally, we are to keep in mind that the only difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” who is not a “natural born Citizen” is that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President and Vice-President.

If putative President, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii, he can be a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States." But because he was not born to a father and mother who were both U.S. citizens when he was born (he was born to a father who was a British citizen), he is not and cannot be a "natural born Citizen." He is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

September 1, 2011

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

####

The Rule of Law and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause

2011-08-21T19:24:00.000-07:00

The Rule of Law and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

August 21, 2011

Watch this video of putative President Obama at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8712959/Barack-Obama-accuses-Congress-of-holding-back-recovery.html. His point, which was also made by George Washington in his Farewell Address of 1796, http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=15, is that we can bring our nation back to greatness if politicians would only put country before party. But what is Obama talking about? When we talk about putting country before party, are we not really saying that we should put first what is good for the country as a whole rather than what is good for a particular political party? But how could Obama pretend to promote and defend the greater good of the country without at the same time honoring and respecting the rule of law that keeps that country together? The answer is that the country and the rule of law are inseparable. We cannot have one without the other.

The rule of law is nothing more than intelligence and reason applied to produce a just and predictable result concerning the distribution to people of benefits and obligations offered by the society in which they live. It is a fundamental component of good government and its proper administration. The rule of law, joined with military might, has made our country great and will allow us to prevail in the future. The Founders and Framers, being passionate students of ancient history, recognized the vital importance of the rule of law. In fact, they saw the rule of law to be so critical to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that as a testament of that understanding they gave us a constitutional republic in which military power is subordinate to civilian power. Indeed, the rule of law, which picked up where the Roman Empire ( http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/08ROMFAL.htm) left off when it transitioned into the medieval ages, has brought both quantity and quality to world populations. It has given our lives order and civility, allowing Americans to freely study, pray, work, trade, and travel, and thereby to live healthy, prosperous, and peaceful lives.

There exists plenty of historical and legal evidence that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is therefore ineligible to be President. Since the Founding, a “natural born Citizen” has been understood to be a child born in the country to citizen parents. The Founders and Framers were particularly careful to keep out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military foreign and monarchial influence. They therefore demanded that future presidents be "natural born Citizen[s]." By demanding such birth status, they assured that future presidents would be born with no allegiance to any foreign power and therefore loyal and attached only to the United States from birth.

A "natural born Citizen" was well-defined in natural law and the law of nations upon which the Founders and Framers heavily relied in the early years of our Republic. Founder historian, David Ramsay (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html) who in his A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/33676461/Founder-and-Historian-David-Ramsay-Defined-Natural-Born-Citizenship-in-1789-by-Atty-Mario-Apuzzo) told us that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizens, making no mention of place of birth. This definition surely came from natural law and the law of nations and not from the English common law which in defining a “natural born subject” made no reference to the nationality of the parents. In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. As we can see, Ramsay put forth a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that only depended upon the child being born to U.S. citizen parents with no mention of place of birth.

Other relevant historical materials such as Emer de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_00.htm), tell us: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Then we have Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html), which providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80. We can see from this American common law definition of a "natural-born citizen" that the Supreme Court did not rely upon the English common law for the definition, but rather on natural law and the law of nations as set forth by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. We can also see from the Minor decision that an American “natural born Citizen” is much different from a British “natural born subject,” for the latter did not consider the nationality of the parents and also included naturalized British subjects “at birth” and after birth.

Then there is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html), which cited and quoted Minor and its definition that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Wong then decided that a child born in the country to alien parents who were domiciled in the U.S. was a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did not nor did it have to rule that he was an Article II "natural born Citizen" which the Court told us was defined by Minor. Rather, the Court told us that he was a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment. So what the Court actually did was naturalize Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” like the Exchequer Chamber in Calvin’s Case (1608), creating the English rule of jus soli birthright citizenship, naturalized Calvin (the postnati) based on “procreation and birthright” to be a “natural born subject.” It is interesting to note that neither the British Parliament which started to debate the matter in 1604 nor the U.S. Congress prior to 1898 were willing to naturalize persons like Calvin and Wong, respectively, so the matter fell upon the courts of justice, and that those who were born prior to 1603 (the antenati), when James VI of Scotland inherited the throne of England as James I, could naturalize only by statute. Hence, the jus soli rule of Calvin’s Case is really a naturalization rule used to bestow citizenship or nationality at birth. This is confirmed by Vattel who in Section 214 of The Law of Nations, entitled, Naturalisation, said: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Hence, the jus soli rule of Calvin’s Case, as applied by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, is a rule allowing person to become naturalized “at birth” and not a rule that can be used to establish “natural born Citizen” status in the new republic, for being naturalized “at birth” one cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Our courts have incorporated the jus soli rule of Calvin’s Case into the application of the Fourteenth Amendment. By doing so, they have declared children born in the United States to one or two alien parents to be “born” “citizens of the United States.” But these children, being naturalized “at birth” under jus soli are not “natural born" “citizens of the United States.”

There are other historical sources and cases which inform on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” but for the sake of brevity, I will not include them here.

We know from Vattel and Minor that "citizens" can be the parents of "natural born Citizens" but are not necessarily "natural born Citizens" themselves. Being born in the country to citizen parents allows a child to be born with no foreign allegiance and with loyalty and attachment only to the country of his or her parents. Such birth circumstances allow a child to be born under the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States.

Obama's father, a British citizen, was never a U.S. citizen. Hence, Obama was not born in the country to citizen parents. Because Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama, even if born in Hawaii which he has yet to conclusively prove, was also born with allegiance to and citizenship in Great Britain. Consequently, Obama was not born with no foreign allegiance and with sole loyalty and attachment to the United States. He was not born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship in the United States at birth, a natural condition that the Founders and Framers wanted in future presidents and commanders in chief. He was not born under the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen." Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

But how can we expect to achieve and maintain greatness as a nation when our own president does not follow the rule of law as it pertains to his eligibility to be President? Being the putative President and Commander in Chief, Obama should be the first one to follow his own advice of putting country first. He and his enablers should put the Constitution (country) before his personal political ambitions (party). But up to now, Obama and his enablers are just saying "do as I say, not as I do."

A great number of Americans have come to understand these fundamental truths and are not happy with how Obama and political and legal institutions have turned a blind eye to Obama’s ineligibility to be President. These Americans are demanding justice on a daily basis. If Obama and his enablers were to follow Obama’s advice, these Americans, who have lost respect for their political and legal institutions, could once again get behind their political leaders and help them solve the many social and economic issues which are currently disrupting our nation. On the other hand, some Americans believe that the “natural born Citizen” issue is a “distraction” from the real issues pressing our country. But as we have seen, the "natural born Citizen" issue goes to the heart of our constitutional republic, the rule of law. Without the rule of law, we have no constitution or republic. I would not consider any of that a "distraction."

This state of affairs leaves Americans who truly care about their country and the rule of law with having to continue this fight on their own. Their fight will not go unrewarded, for as history has shown, those who persevere will in the end win.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

August 21, 2011

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

####

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Jedi Pauly: The False Flag Obot

2011-08-14T17:32:00.000-07:00

Jedi Pauly: The False Flag Obot

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

August 14, 2011

Every once in a while, a “Jedi Pauly” (we do not know what his/her true name is; I will assume for sake of argument that the person is a male) makes himself alive. Every time he does he just cannot resist taking a shot at the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case. Now he is back with more of his pseudo law and his appeal to the revolutionary mantra of no taxation without representation. He has recently posted an article to The Post & Email entitled, “How ‘We The People’ Can Put An End To Taxation Without Representation,” accessed at http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/11/the-real-revolution/.

Pauly starts his article by telling us there are “three political classes in the United States.” This is a preposterous statement, given that we have no political classes in the United States. The United States is a constitutional republic. The people enjoy a representative government which under the constitution is supposed to have limited powers. Any citizen, regardless of social, racial, cultural, ethnic, economic, religious, or physical condition or station, who is 18 years of age or older, can vote for his or her representative government (unless disqualified due to a criminal conviction). But yet, Pauly tells us that we have three political classes. The only reason that I can see for Pauly to put forth such an argument is to stir up division among Americans, claiming one class has some superior right over another class. He would just love for the “birthers” to run with such theories.

Being a covert Obot, Pauly loves to take shots at the Kerchner case and the undersigned, Mario Apuzzo, Esq., the attorney who filed that case and presented it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Pauly, as he has repeatedly attempted in the past, makes every effort to discredit both the Kerchner case and Apuzzo. There is no basis in Pauly’s argument that the court in Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010), denied Commander Kerchner standing because we did not allege that Kerchner was a “natural born Citizen.” He says that the Federal Court denied the Kerchner case standing because we alleged that Commander Kerchner is a “citizen of the United States” rather than saying that he is a “natural born Citizens.” I have seen many kooky arguments in my day but this one tops the cake. The only difference that exists between any of our citizens, whether “natural born Citizens” or naturalized citizens “at birth” or after birth, is in being eligible to be President and Vice President. Other than eligibility for these two high offices, our law simply does not favor or give any special privilege or right to one type of citizen over another. The privileges and immunities granted to citizens under Article IV and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are granted to all citizens and the due process protections given by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment are extended not only to all citizens but also to all persons.

Also, simply saying that one is a “citizen of the United States” does not rule out that that person is also a “natural born Citizen.” Just like saying that one is a “citizen of the United States,” which under the Fourteenth Amendment includes naturalized citizens, does not rule out that one is a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” saying that someone is a “citizen of the United States” which also includes those citizens who are not “natural born Citizens,” does not rule out that one could be a “natural born Citizen.” To further make this point, Article I provides that a Representative and Senator must be a “Citizen of the United States” for a minimum of 7 and 9 years, respectively, to be eligible for office. We can all agree that it would be absurd to contend that a “natural born Citizen” cannot be a Senator or Representative because Article I calls for a “Citizen of the United States.” Article II’s grandfather clause also says that one could be a “Citizen of the United States” and be eligible to be President if born before the adoption of the Constitution, but that for one born thereafter, one has to be a “natural born Citizen.” From these provisions, we know that the Founders and Framers grouped all citizens, both “natural born” and naturalized, into “Citizens of the United States” and that they also told us that all “natural born Citizens” are “Citizens of the United States” but that not all “Citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizens.” Hence, Pauly’s argument that the Kerchner court denied Commander Kerchner standing because he alleged that he is a “citizen of the United States” rather than also alleging that he is a “natural born Citizen” is totally baseless.

Additionally, Pauly, like the courts that decided the Kerchner case, wants us to think that the only standing argument made in the Kerchner case was that of Commander Kerchner maybe being recalled to active military duty and having to report to a usurper acting as the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This argument is simply a total misstatement of the case, evades the real standing argument in the Kerchner case, and is designed to mislead the public on what was the real standing argument in the Kerchner case. In the Kerchner case, I raised legitimate claims of injury to the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment right to life, liberty, safety, security, and tranquility, caused by having an usurper, who does not meet the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, sitting in the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military and wielding the great and singular civil and military powers of those offices. In fact, no court in the Kerchner case even addressed the Fifth Amendment due process argument. The courts in Kerchner therefore evaded addressing this standing argument. But Pauly does not want the public to know that.

On January 2, 2009, I wrote an article stating that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, citing and explaining the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875). See http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor held:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Id. at 167-68.

This U.S. Supreme Court’s definition was stated in 1758 by Emer de Vattel, the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite writer on natural law and the law of nations, in his, The Law of Nations, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) where he said the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The virtually unanimous documented view that prevailed during the Founding, as confirmed by the views of the Founders and Framers, text and structure of the Constitution, and federal and state case law, was that the law of nations was considered universal common law that was binding on the people, the President, Congress, and the nation, and “part of the laws of the United States within the symmetric ambit of Article II, Section 3, III, Section 2, and VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.” As to this conclusion, see the exhaustive research paper of Jordan J. Paust, “In Their Own Words: Affirmations of the Founders, Framers, and Early Judiciary Concerning the Binding Nature of the Customary Law of Nations," University of Houston Public Law and Legal Theory Series 2009-A-27, which can be downloaded without charge at The University of Houston Accepted Paper Series Index.

Moreover, Vattel’s and Minor’s definition was also acknowledged by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the seminal case on U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, which clarified and established the meaning of a Fourteenth Amendment “born” “citizen” and again confirmed the meaning of an Article II “natural born” citizen, and by doing so informed that there are two birthright citizenships under the Constitution, one under Article II (“natural born”) and the other under the Fourteenth Amendment (“born” in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Under Article II of our Constitution, only a “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President, for only a “natural born” citizen is born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States which means being born with sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States and none to any foreign power. The Founders and Framers wanted to assure that the new constitutional republic would be lead both civilly and militarily by a person who from the moment of birth had sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States. It is only by being born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother that no foreign allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship attach to the child at the moment of birth or as Vattel put it, “if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Id. at Sec. 212. It is therefore inconceivable that the Founders and Framers, who went to great lengths to insulate the new republic from foreign influence and monarchial rule, would have countenanced a person born after the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military who did not meet the law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Pauly does not agree with this reasoning. Pauly argues that if one is born to a citizen father, no matter where born, he/she is a “natural born Citizen.” So, for him, “natural born Citizen” has only one factor, i.e., born to a U.S. citizen father. He does not recognize a child’s mother’s status or the effect that that status and birth on foreign soil has on a child’s natural allegiance to the United States from the moment of birth. His argument which recognizes only the father’s citizenship in creating citizenship in his children and denies the role of the mother in that regard fails for reasons of equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. His argument which does not recognize the effect on a child of being born to a non-U.S. citizen mother and on foreign soil also fails because it does not comport with the Founders’ and Framers’ understanding of natural allegiance. They were aware that in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 (1608), Coke called this natural allegiance, “ligeantia naturalis.” For Coke, it was this natural allegiance which made the “natural born subject.” “Ligeantia acquisita” created those who were subjects not by birth but rather by conquest, denization, or naturalization. They would have also known that in Calvin’s Case, Francis Bacon, who argued that Calvin (a postnati) was a “natural-born subject” in England, argued that allegiance was due not by the law of either England or Scotland alone, but by the law of nature, itself a part of the law of England and of all nations. Coke agreed, finding that “ligeance of the subjects of both kingdoms, is due to their sovereign by one law, and that is the law of nature.” Id. at 394. They were also aware that William Blackstone confirmed the existence of this natural allegiance in his hierarchies of allegiance. He considered “natural allegiance” a product of “universal law,” “intrinsic” and “primitive,” due “upon their birth.” See William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357-58, 361-62. From this background, it is understandable why the Founders and Framers demanded that citizenship be determined by natural law and the law of nations and not by the English common law. They demanded that the birth status of allegiance be inherited by nature and not by law. Hence, they chose “natural born” Citizen and not just “born” Citizen, which latter status could theoretically be bestowed by naturalization upon a person by positive law.

The Founders and Framers, when it came to prescribing the eligibility requirements for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, offices of great civil and military powers to be given to one person for the purpose of protecting the republic, put their faith in natural law and not the English common law. They knew that natural allegiance was inherited not only from the place of one’s birth (jus soli) but also from one’s parents (jus sanguinis). A child born under the limited circumstances espoused by Pauly (just born to a citizen father) would still inherit allegiance and therefore citizenship under jus soli (from being born in a foreign land) and jus sanguinis (from being born to a foreign mother). Hence, the child would not be born fully and completely under the allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States which disqualifies the child from being a “natural born Citizen,” for the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” includes all those who are born with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those who are.

Note that under Pauly’s argument of just being born to a citizen father, Obama could very well qualify as a “natural born Citizen.” He concedes that place of birth does not matter. He also concedes that just one parent’s citizenship is sufficient. Hence, Obama would only have to make the simple equal protection argument and prevail as a “natural born Citizen,” even if not born in the United States. On the other hand, if Pauly argued that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to a U.S. citizen father and mother, he knows that Obama could never meet that definition and would therefore be disqualified as being eligible to be President.

Pauly says that no criminal case could ever be made against Obama. He says that Obama could argue that he reasonably believed he was a “natural born Citizen,” causing no prosecutor to bring any criminal charges against him and no jury to ever convict him. But he totally avoids the issues of Obama creating a fraudulent birth certificate, using a fake social security number, and creating a false selective service registration record. If these latter allegations are true, Obama could easily be impeached for high crimes and subsequently tried and convicted for those same crimes in a criminal prosecution. Again, Pauly comes to the aid of Obama rather than to his downfall which further raises the suspicion of who Pauly really is.

Pauly argues that being a taxpayer (and a natural born Citizen) gives one automatic standing in an eligibility lawsuit against Obama. But he fails to recognize that our courts have repeatedly told us that the status of being a taxpayer without more does not establish standing. Again, Pauly hands Obama an easy victory.

We can also see that Pauly does not really believe what he writes. He tells us that he, unlike so many other people who filed an action against Obama, has figured out all the legal angles of pleading a cause of action that will guarantee the plaintiffs standing. He submits that any one filing a law suit against Obama needs only to allege that living under an ineligible Obama we are slaves who are taxed without representation. He tells us about how all the cases that have been filed against Obama so far have failed and that he is the only one who knows what should be done. But he himself can satisfy all the elements he identifies as necessary for a successful action against Obama. Yet he has not brought any legal action against Obama nor does he tell us that he intends to do so. Very simply, Pauly has not and will not bring any such action because then the whole world would learn who the real Jedi Pauly is. Rather, he needs to remain anonymous and just continue to feed us his pro-Obama tripe.

Not advocating a definition of “natural born Citizen” which gives the United States extra safety and protection from attack from both outside and within and putting forth legal theories which in the end can hand Obama an easy victory raises great doubts about who Pauly really is. I believe that Pauly Jedi is a “false flag” who has been planted within the “birther” movement. He is an Obot posing as a “birther” or constitutionalist. He is sent to us just to feed us crank legal and “scientific” theories that have a superficial appeal, like telling us that a “natural born Citizen” only needs a citizen father and that we have standing to sue Obama because we have to pay taxes to a government led by an ineligible Obama which makes us slaves, theories he hopes we will adopt and which in the end will only discredit our valid Obama eligibility arguments and waste our precious time. I recommend that everyone reading this article and who is pursuing getting at the truth regarding who Obama is also read the interesting explanation of the meaning of “false flag” found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag and other articles on “false flag” found on the internet. Pauly has every right to continue to print his positions, although it would be appreciated if he told us whose side is he really on. In any event, those of us who are honestly working on the Obama eligibility issue should pay him no attention.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

August 14, 2011

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

####

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

The Most Stupid Story of the Year

2011-08-13T11:57:00.000-07:00

The Most Stupid Story of the Year

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

August 13, 2011

This has got to be the most stupid story of the year. When the Green Bay Packers visited the White House on Friday to celebrate the team's Super Bowl title, linebacker Desmond Bishop was not allowed to enter. He forgot his license on the team charter plane and without a license, White House security would not let him in. Read the story here: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Packers-linebacker-forgets-ID-can-8217-t-get-i?urn=nfl-wp5018

Needless to say, Desmond Bishop is a well-known football player.

Yet, Congress let Barack Obama, who is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," who has yet to show us a valid birth certificate, social security number, and selective service registration, and who was never properly vetted, not only to live in the White House, but also to assume the singular and great civil and military powers of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. I guess a well-known professional football player entering the White House for a short social visit for the purpose of celebrating his team's Super Bowl victory without his license is a greater national security risk than allowing a person who has refused to properly identify himself to not only live in the White House but also to assume power over our nuclear arsenal and to learn our national military secrets.

As the old saying goes, I could not make this stuff up.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

August 13, 2011

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

####

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC Should Be Ethically Sanctioned for Intentionally Misstating to the American Public the Birthers’ Position On Whether Obama Is A "Natural Born Citizen"

2011-08-06T11:44:00.000-07:00

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC Should Be Ethically Sanctioned for Intentionally Misstating to the American Public the Birthers’ Position On Whether Obama Is A "Natural Born Citizen"

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

August 6, 2011

Readers should view MSNBC's Rachel Maddow’s news reporting on August 4, 2011, to the U.S. national viewing audience in which she presents what she claims it means to be a "Birther." The video can be viewed at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/08/rachel-maddow-schooled-on-obamas.html. She gives the most extreme, distorted, biased, inaccurate, and ridiculous statement of what "birtherism" is (e.g., she says that “birthers” believe that Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. concocted a grand plan to make a “terror baby” in 1961 who would secretly become President of the United States). Her explanation is replete with insolence, ridicule, misstatements, and ad hominem attacks. She then follows up her diatribe with audio clips of political leaders who question Obama’s eligibility, implying without any evidence that they also ascribe to the ridiculous explanation that she just presented on what it means to be a birther. Clearly, her insidious purpose is to ridicule the entire “birther” movement and any public person who would dare ascribe to any of its ideas.

What Maddow has presented on the critically important national security issue of whether Obama is constitutionally eligibility to be president is not unbiased, objective, and informative journalism. Her story is all about sensationalism wrapped with smugness, arrogance, and ridicule. Not once in her attack does she mention the real legal debate which is whether putative President, Barack Obama, is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Not once do we hear her talk about the debate regarding the constitutional definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Maddow mocks and ridicules the “birthers” for what she says are their conspiracy theories about Obama’s origins and eligibility to be President. But the issue of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not a conspiracy. Rather, it is a straightforward constitutional issue which not only Maddow, but the entire mainstream media continue to avoid reporting to the American people. Rather, their scheme is to talk about ridiculous conspiracy theories (the hatching of presidential “terror babies”), crack a lot of jokes about them and the people they falsely accuse of following them, give us their phony smiles, and hide the real issue. But people like Maddow can get on public television all they want and put on their little carnival act under the plastic cover of television, but they will not be able to hide the facts and the law from the American people.

Under binding U.S. Supreme Court case law, an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875), which held:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Id. at 167-68.

This U.S. Supreme Court’s definition was stated in 1758 by Emer de Vattel, the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite writer on natural law and the law of nations, in his, The Law of Nations, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) where he said the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The virtually unanimous documented view that prevailed during the Founding, as confirmed by the views of the Founders and Framers, text and structure of the Constitution, and federal and state case law, was that the law of nations was considered universal common law that was binding on the people, the President, Congress, and the nation, and “part of the laws of the United States within the symmetric ambit of Article II, Section 3, III, Section 2, and VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.” As to this conclusion, see the exhaustive research paper of Jordan J. Paust, In Their Own Words: Affirmations of the Founders, Framers, and Early Judiciary Concerning the Binding Nature of the Customary Law of Nations University of Houston Public Law and Legal Theory Series 2009-A-27, which can be downloaded without charge at The University of Houston Accepted Paper Series Index.

Moreover, Vattel’s and Minor’s definition was also acknowledged by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the seminal case on U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, which clarified and established the meaning of a Fourteenth Amendment “born” “citizen” and again confirmed the meaning of an Article II “natural born” citizen, and by doing so informed that there are two birthright citizenships under the Constitution, one under Article II (“natural born”) and the other under the Fourteenth Amendment (“born” in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Under Article II of our Constitution, only a “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President, for only a “natural born” citizen is born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States which means being born with sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States and none to any foreign power. The Founders and Framers wanted to assure that the new constitutional republic would be lead both civilly and militarily by a person who from the moment of birth had sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States. It is only by being born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother that no foreign allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship attach to the child at the moment of birth or as Vattel put it, “if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Id. at Sec. 212. It is therefore inconceivable that the Founders and Framers, who went to great lengths to insulate the new republic from foreign influence and monarchial rule, would have countenanced a person born after the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military who did not meet the law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

If Obama was born in Hawaii (a fact that he has yet to conclusively prove) and if his parents are Barack H. Hussein and Stanley Ann Dunham (it is reported that these are his parents), he can be a Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) “born” “citizen of the United States,” but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is the constitutional standard that he must meet to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a “citizen of the United States” at the time of Obama’s birth. But his father, being born in 1934 or 1936 in what was then the British colony of Kenya, was under the British Nationality Act of 1948, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (“CUKC”). Obama himself by right of decent from his father under the same Act was also born a CUKC. Hence, because Obama was not born in the United States to United States citizen parents, he was not born under the sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Obama was not born with sole citizenship in the United States. Consequently, he was not born with unity of allegiance to and citizenship in the United States. Obama, therefore, cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Media watch dog groups such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and Media Matters for America (MMFA), and the Project for Excellence in Journalism have been suspiciously missing from commenting on the mainstream media’s news reporting on this Obama eligibility debate. Such absence is more suspect when we consider what lengths such watch groups and others have gone to attack Fox News Channel for what they contend is biased news reporting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#cite_note-15.

The Preamble to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics provides:

“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.” http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.

See also the professional electronic journalists’ code of ethics at http://www.rtdna.org/pages/media_items/code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct48.php.

“Media makers and journalists carry a lot of responsibility when covering important news events. Journalists should follow a set of ethic standards to ensure fair, accurate and honest reporting. In the profession and study of journalism, a code of ethics has been set as a standard for reporters to follow. Often, journalists deal with sensitive issues and must tell stories while facing a number of ethical dilemmas such as privacy, conflict of interest, journalist-source relationships and the role of journalists in society.” Read more: Code of Ethics in MediaeHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6521911_code-ethics-media.html#ixzz1UGymorNh. Indeed, the pillars of a journalist ethical code are ethics, privacy, truth, fairness, accountablility, and independence.

So, what ever happened to enforcing journalist standards and protecting the greater good from corruption and abuse, whether it comes from government or from our own national media? The public having fair, balanced, and accurate news information is critical to the survival of republican government. Then why have we allowed our news media to become a propaganda machine that is politicized, untrustworthy, and, as we can witness not only from Maddow’s presidential “terror baby” presentation but from that of so many other news reporters, nothing more than a vicious joke factory? We should be very sensitive to the protections that the First Amendment gives us. But when will our news industry police itself and hold the Maddows of news reporting accountable from a journalistic standpoint for the potential harm that they do to their profession and our nation?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 6, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Obama’s Rape of the Fourteenth Amendment—From Defining a Natural Born Citizen to Authorizing His Threatened Dictatorial Raising of the Debt Ceiling

2011-07-30T16:10:00.000-07:00

Obama’s Rape of the Fourteenth Amendment—From Defining a Natural Born Citizen to Authorizing His Threatened Dictatorial Raising of the Debt Ceiling

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

July 30, 2011

For putative President, Barack Obama, and his enablers, the Fourteenth Amendment is the gift that just keeps on giving. He has used it to impose legitimacy upon himself concerning the question of whether he is a “natural born Citizen.” Now we see that he may again need the Fourteenth Amendment to carry out his plans. While White House spokesman, Jay Carney, has reportedly ruled out such use, Obama may in the end seek to use it to impose a higher debt ceiling on the American people without any Congressional say.

The Natural Born Citizen Clause

We have seen the argument put forth by Obama’s camp that the Fourteenth Amendment makes him an Article II “natural born Citizen.” They maintain that the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” was confirmed or changed by the Fourteenth Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S. 649 (1898), a U.S. Supreme Court case that interpreted that amendment. They maintain that this amendment and Wong Kim Ark confirmed or established that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is based on the English common law and that it means any child born in the United States, even if born to one or two alien parents, and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They add that for children born in the United States, the citizenship of the parents is not relevant, unless the parents are ambassadors or members of invading armies. They proclaim that this territorial birthright citizenship is what a “natural born Citizen” is and that there is not need to satisfy any parental citizenship component. But the historical record and case law show that a reading of the Constitution to produce this definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not correct.

The Founders and Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other parts of the Constitution gave us both a "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen of the United States." These are separate and distinct terms which must be given a meaning of their own. For births after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible to be President. Hence, the issue with Obama is whether he is a "natural born Citizen," not a "Citizen of the United States."

The U.S. Supreme Court has always defined a "natural born Citizen," an idiom and a term of art, as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This is still the only definition of the term ever provided to us by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has never given us any other definition. This American common law definition was confirmed in the precedential case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875), which dealt with the citizenship issue head on in order to determine whether Virginia Minor had the privilege to vote as a “citizen of the United States” under the Constitution, a privilege which she argued could not be denied to her by the State of Missouri under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did ultimately hold that based on the history of voting in America, voting was not part of the privileges and immunities granted to citizens. It therefore held that Minor did not have a constitutional right under the Constitution to vote and that the Missouri constitution and statute granting that right only to male citizens were not unconstitutional. The Court did add that women probably should have the right to vote but that only Congress could rectify the matter, not the courts. This part of the Minor case was later overruled by the Nineteenth Amendment which guaranteed women the right to vote.

But the part of the Minor case that is more important and which still has precedential value has to do with citizenship. Minor said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Id. at 167-68. Under Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which it borrowed from Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, at the time of birth, the child must be born in the United States to a father and mother who are both U.S. citizens either by birth or naturalization after birth. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Secs. 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”).

Also, Minor did not resolve the question of whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States.” But the Minor Court explained that it knew what a “natural-born citizen” was. The Court had no doubts about that definition. It defined the term under natural law and the law of nations as codified by Vattel in Sec. 212 of The Law of Nations. In fact, the Court took Vattel’s definition almost word for word. Including in the definition of a “natural-born citizen” a reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents, the Court clearly did not rely upon the English common law. What it did not decide and did not need to decide was the question of what is a “citizen of the United States.” Since Virginia Minor was a “native” or “natural-born citizen,” there was no need for Minor to address that issue and left it open to another day. This question of what is a “citizen of the United States” was addressed and answered in Wong Kim Ark in 1898.

A careful reading of Wong Kim Ark shows that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor that Court’s decision amended the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which the Founders and Framers relied upon when drafting that clause. Rather, the Court’s decision shows that under our Constitution, there are two different types of birthright citizenships. There is no indication in its text or in the history of its debates that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to or that it did in fact define or amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Constitution makes a distinction between an Article II "natural born" "Citizen of the United States" and a Fourteenth Amendment "born" "citizen of the United States." The Constitution provides for different birth circumstances for these two different classes of citizens upon whom it bestows birthright citizenship. These are therefore two different types of birthright citizenships.

In Article II, the Constitution demands the status of "natural born." In the Fourteenth Amendment, it demands "born" in the United States and "subject to its jurisdiction" at the time of birth. Only a child born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to citizen parents can be an Article II "natural born" "Citizen of the United States." Minor v. Happersett (1875). In contradistinction, a child born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to one or two alien parents can under the Fourteenth Amendment be a "born" "citizen of the United States." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1989). It should be noted that Wong Kim Ark also added in its holding that the alien parents of the U.S.-born child were domiciled in the United States. The Court felt that the fact of domicile gave the United States sufficient jurisdiction over the parents which at birth spilled over to the child.

If Obama were born in Hawaii, a fact that he has yet to conclusively prove given the questionable authenticity of his long-form Certificate of Live Birth that he released on the internet on April 27, 2011, and if his parents are Barack H. Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham, who are reported to be his parents, he can at most be a Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) born “citizen of the United States,” but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is the constitutional standard that he must meet to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a “citizen of the United States” at the time of Obama’s birth. But his father, being born in 1934 or 1936 in what was then the British colony of Kenya, was under the British Nationality Act of 1948, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (“CUKC”). Obama himself by right of decent from his father under the same Act was also born a CUKC. Hence, because Obama was not born in the United States to United States citizen parents, he was not born under the sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Obama was not born with sole citizenship in the United States. Consequently, he was not born with unity of allegiance to and citizenship in the United States. Obama, therefore, cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

The Debt Ceiling

Our nation is currently faced with a budgetary desperate situation. Simply put, our federal government over the last decade has spent greatly more money than it took in. Our federal government must continue its business. But it must reduce its spending and increase its revenue. Whether its spending reduction or revenue raising, both sides of the equation are tied to taxes. By reducing the mammoth size of our federal and state governments and their programs, we would be able to reduce our public expenditures and need for more tax revenues. Unfortunately, such choices probably will impact on the American way of life. An alternative that makes much more sense is to help our nation to get richer by putting into place forces which will increase the amount of money the nation makes and thereby allow the government to collect more taxes from current and new income sources without increasing taxes on any one segment of the population which in the end may just be counterproductive.

But Obama’s enablers and maybe even Obama himself want to take the fast and easy way out. Now we see Obama’s enablers and maybe even Obama himself in the future suggesting that he resort to the Fourteenth Amendment to impose his will upon the American people regarding raising their debt ceiling above the current 14 Trillion Dollars without the input or control of Congress.

In a news story entitled, Senate Quickly Kills Boehner Debt Bill, it is reported:

The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, ruled out more definitively than he had before the possibility that Mr. Obama would cite the Fourteenth Amendment to disregard the debt-limit law and order government borrowing to proceed if no deal was reached. House Democratic leaders, former President Bill Clinton and some constitutional lawyers have said that Mr. Obama should, if necessary, invoke the amendment, which holds that “the validity of the public debt ... shall not be questioned.”

“This administration does not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment gives the president the power to ignore the debt ceiling. Congress has the authorities necessary to ensure that we meet our obligations,” Mr. Carney said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/us/politics/30fiscal.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2.

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed during Reconstruction following the Civil War. Its purpose was to address the social, political, and economic problems that led up to and that resulted from that war. The debt clause was only to assure that debts incurred by the United States, including those resulting from that war, would be honored. The amendment sanctified the “public debt,” provided that it was “authorized by law.” It also made sure that neither the United States nor any State would pay any debt incurred by anyone in their effort to overthrow the government of the United States or suffered by anyone from his or her slaves being emancipated. It declared such debts, obligations, and claims illegal and void.

How would Obama expect to unilaterally raise the People’s debt ceiling without that debt being “authorized by law” (meaning Congressional approval) and consider it to be constitutionally valid under the Fourteenth Amendment? Note that the debt belongs to the People and not to their government. Only if our political and legal institutions were to again turn a blind eye to the Constitution could Obama get away with such unconstitutional behavior.

It is only expected that Obama and his handlers would again rape the Fourteenth Amendment for their purpose of maintaining political power and satisfying their self-ambitions. Here we see that he would dare override the authority and will of a co-equal branch of government, the legislature. Doing such an act would show that he has no respect for and attachment to Article I, Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Constitution, separation of powers, and the republican form of our government under which the People act through their elected representatives for the purpose of achieving the greater good.

Concerned Americans who questioned Obama’s eligibility to be President said early on that if Obama and his enablers were ready, willing, and able to turn a blind eye to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 regarding his eligibility to be President, they would do the same when it came to other important issues with which our nation may be faced in the future. Here, we again see how desperate people will get for the sake of maintaining power and showing the world that they are right.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 30, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Obama Cannot Be A “Natural Born Citizen" Under Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

2011-07-10T20:46:00.000-07:00

        Morrison Remick Waite
7th Chief Justice of the United States

Obama Cannot Be A “Natural Born Citizen" Under Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

                                                        By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                  Originally Posted January 2, 2009
                                                Reposted at this Blog on July 10, 2011

I am posting to my blog an article on Minor v. Happersett that I wrote on January 2, 2009, before putative President Barack H. Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009, and which Robert Stevens posted at the web site of Attorney Orly Taitz on the same day. The article as originally written by me may be read at Ms. Taitz’s web site at http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Morrison Remerick Waite. I also cited and discussed the Minor case and its American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" in the case of Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010), which I filed on January 20, 2009. Probably the most important statement that any court made in all the Obama cases is that made by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in footnote 4 of its decision where it stated: “We need not discuss Appellants’ contention that “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ . . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father’ . . . . That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office, which we cannot address unless Appellants first establish Article III standing.” Hence, the Court never reached the merits of whether this American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" still prevails today and whether Obama meets this common law definition. I have also cited and discussed the Minor decision in many of my essays which can be read on this blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/.

I will be following up this post with another article on this precedential decision of our U.S. Supreme Court which relied upon natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law to define citizenship in our society and confirmed the natural law and law of nations definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" which prevailed at the time of the founding and writing of our Constitution in 1787, a definition we can find in Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Vattel and The Law of Nations were a political philosopher upon whom and treatise upon which the Founders and Framers heavily relied in the early years of our Republic. This definition, which was incorporated into our American common law is a child born in the country to citizen parents which means a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to a father and mother both of whom are either "natural born Citizens" or "citizens of the United States." No constitutional amendment, including the Fourteenth Amendment, or U.S. Supreme Court decision, or Congressional Act (not to imply that any such Act could) ever amended or abandoned this American common law definition and it still prevails today, even being confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

                                                          Friday, January 2, 2009

OBAMA CANNOT BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” UNDER MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

Our U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) held that women, while being citizens of the U.S., do not have the right to vote under the Constitution. Of course, we know that this law was later repudiated. In discussing who are citizens of the United States and whether women may be such citizens, the Court explains that we did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to create U.S. citizens. It explains that before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution itself did not prescribe what a citizen was. While the Court does not cite The Law of Nations, the Court goes into concepts which can be found in that treatise. The concepts of "nation," "political community," "association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare," and "member of the nation formed by the association" are all concepts that are found in E. de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations (1758). The Court then says that each person so associated with the community was a member of that community and owed that community his allegiance. The Court says that citizens were then those persons who "associated themselves together to form the nation" and who were later admitted as members of that nation. The Court then explains that an individual's wanting to ban together with others to form the new nation was actually that person's allegiance to the new nation. The Court continues that it was the individual's giving of this allegiance to the cause of creating the new nation that made that individual a citizen of that nation. The Court explains that for his allegiance, the person received the protection of the nation (calling these reciprocal obligations). Finally, the Court comments that any person who participated and helped in politically separating the new nation from Great Britain and in the military cause against that nation became a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Court explains that anyone who was part of these people at the time of the drafting of the Constitution were the "original citizens" of the U.S.

The Court then says that citizenship would not be limited to only this original category, for the Constitution at Article II provided for allowing more citizens to be created by birth and in the clause giving Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization by naturalization. The Court then tells us that the Constitution does not define what a "natural born Citizen" is. The Court then said the following in explaining what a "natural born Citizen" is:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

This test was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).

Article II of the Constitution provides that "[n]o person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . ." From the Minor decision, we learn who the Framers placed in the second category as being eligible to be President. These were the "original citizens," those who were members of and who gave their allegiance to the revolutionary cause that produced the new nation. The Framers grandfathered these individuals to be eligible to be President. There cannot be any doubt that even children who were born on U.S. soil fell into this category simply because they were the first generation of citizens. It is interesting to note that Jane Randolph Jefferson (1720-1776), President Thomas Jefferson’s mother, was born in the Tower Hamlets of Shadwell, a maritime neighborhood of London, England, and came to Virginia when she was young. With the passing of time, no one would be able to benefit from the grandfather clause and then would have to be "natural born Citizens" to be eligible to be President. We learn that "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. . . " make up the “natural born Citizen” category. The Court says that there have never been any doubts as to the status of these children. As to children born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, there have been doubts. In other words, "natural born Citizen" under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil. It is important to understand that we are focusing on what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II which specifies the requirements to be President and not on what a "Citizen" is under the 14th Amendment or under some Congressional Act which does not relate to Article II natural born Citizenship.

Obama, while having his mother's U.S. citizenship generation, is missing that of his father's, for his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. He therefore cannot be a "natural born Citizen," even if he was born in Hawaii.

(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 2, 2009
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 2, 2009
Re-posted to this blog July 10, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Democratic National Committee Uses Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate for Fund Raising--A Huge Mistake

2011-07-08T10:51:00.000-07:00

Democratic National Committee Uses Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate for Fund Raising--A Huge Mistake

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 8, 2011
According to Dr. Conspiracy, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has recently mailed to voters a solicitation for political contributions for Obama’s re-election in 2012. See his web post entitled, Democrats Rub It In, here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/07/democrats-rub-it-in-2/. He lauds them for including in the solicitation letter a copy of Obama’s long-form Certificate of Live Birth which he released by posting an image of it on the internet on April 27, 2011.

The DNC letter is signed by DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The envelope to potential donors is stamped “HELP US COUNTER THE GOP’S DIRTY TRICKS.” A red-letter alert reads on the front of the envelope reads, “ENCLOSED: President Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate.” Recipients will find a copy of the official State of Hawaii “Certificate of Live Birth.” Ms. Schultz’s letter describes Republicans as “the masters of dirty politics.” She adds: “Some even went as far as to join the ‘birthers’ in their effort to throw doubt upon President Obama’s birthplace.” Donors who send at least $44.00 are promised a “Made in the USA” Obama coffee cup with a copy of the birth certificate printed on the side. See a July 7, 2011 CBS article that promotes this latest DNC stunt entitled, Birther issue resurfaces, but now Democrats are the ones raising it,” at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20077587-503544.html.

Dr. Conspiracy in his web article says: “Is it payback time? More accurately it’s ‘pay up’ time because the letter is just another typical fundraising letter. Get the donor angry, and ask them for $44.”

Apart from the lie that the Obama eligibility issue is a “GOP dirty trick” given that Attorney Philip J. Berg, a life-long party Democrat, was the first person to file a law suit against Obama contending that his birth certificate was a forgery and that Obama had perpetrated the biggest fraud in the history of the U.S., and that the Democrats first challenged McCain’s eligibility to be President before anyone challenged Obama’s, what Dr. Conspiracy and the DNC fail to understand is that the DNC has committed a monumental mistake. They are soliciting from the public political contributions based on a forged government document. This is clearly fraud of great proportions. We have seen countless expert reports (including from world-renowned computer and software expert, Mara Zebest, and according to retired Major General Paul E. Valleley, even from former CIA officers) that the April 27, 2011 birth certificate image is a forgery. We have not seen one credible response to this plethora of experts who have convincingly shown that Obama on-line Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. Private citizens should immediately report this great fraud, including CBS’s aiding and abetting of it (note CBS derides the “birthers” and does not report on all the evidence showing that the birth certificate is a fraud), to their local FBI offices and to the Federal Election Commission. The Federal Election Commission, the FBI, and Attorney Generals across the nation should immediately step in to protect voters and consumers of the United States and of their respective states. Since the birth certificate document is being used as a motivation for voters and consumers to give their money for this political cause, these law enforcement officials should honor their oaths to enforce the law and verify that the birth certificate document is in fact genuine. So now that the DNC has let the cat out of the bag, let them provide the proof that the document that they are using to extract money out of the public is in fact genuine or at least show that even if it is a forgery, that the information it represents to be true is in fact true.

Should these law enforcement officials continue to disappoint us and not take any action, then private citizens, who should not let the fear of ridicule silence them, can also file legal actions in their respective states for an injunction against such fraudulent fundraising activities. During the legal proceedings, surely the defendants will be compelled to prove that the birth certificate document is in fact genuine or if a forgery that it at least conveys accurate information regarding Obama’s place of birth.

And let us not forget that even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he is still not eligible to be President. A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to a U.S. citizen father and mother. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212-217 (1758); Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (to name just a few sources). It is reported that Obama was born to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack H. Obama. While his mother was a U.S. citizen, Obama Sr. was a British citizen and never a U.S. domiciliary or legal permanent resident let alone a U.S. citizen. Obama himself was also born a British citizen. Under such birth circumstances he can be a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen who can be born with dual and conflicting allegiances and loyalties. But he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for a “natural born Citizen” is born only subject to the allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States and as such is born with no political, military, legal, or moral obligations to any foreign power nor can any foreign power expect any. How convenient that the CBS article does not tell us anything about that.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 8, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

The Boston Globe Kept Obama Newsworthy Information Secret and the Immigration Service Released Two Different Obama Sr. Immigration Files

2011-07-07T12:13:00.000-07:00

The Boston Globe Kept Obama Newsworthy Information Secret and the Immigration Service Released Two Different Obama Sr. Immigration Files

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 7, 2011

On July 7, 2011, Sally Jacobs published her story in the Boston Globe entitled, Father Spoke of Having Obama Adopted. The story can be read at http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/07/07/father_spoke_of_having_obama_adopted/.

What is rather revealing in Sally Jacobs’ story is what she says about Barack H. Obama Sr. speaking about having Obama Jr. possibly being adopted. What is so revealing is not so much what Obama Sr. said but rather that this information is coming out just now.

Here is what Ms. Jacobs wrote:

“‘Subject got his USC wife ‘Hapai’ [Hawaiian for pregnant] and although they were married they do not live together and Miss Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to give the baby away,’ according to a memo describing the conversation with Obama written by Lyle H. Dahling, an administrator in the Honolulu office of what was then called the US Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Obama, the Subject, and his USC, or United States citizen, wife, obviously, did not put their baby up for adoption. Whether the young couple actually considered such a step, or the elder Obama made the story up in order to appease immigration officials who at the time were considering his request for an extension of his stay in the United States, is unclear. Family members on both sides of the marriage now say they never heard any mention of adoption.

But his statement provides a unique glimpse into the relationship between the president’s parents and the fragility of his connection to the father whom he would little know.

Dahling’s memo, dated April 12, 1961, is one of dozens of documents in the elder Obama’s ‘alien’ file released by the Department of Homeland Security in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made in the course of research on a biography of Obama’s father. Obama was visiting the United States on a foreign student visa which required him to apply for an annual extension of his stay during the five years he was attending US colleges.

The memo advised that officials should continue to monitor the senior Obama’s personal life, and raised concerns about his behavior, noting that the previous summer he had been warned about his ‘playboy ways.’’’

The Boston Globe first obtained the INS file under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2009. For some unknown reason, it never released that file to the public. See the story at http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2011/04/journalism-fail-boston-globe-reporter.html and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2712804/posts .

The Boston Globe wrote a story on the Obama Sr. immigration file on April 29, 2011. See the story here http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-29/yourtown/29488020_1_ins-documents-elder-obama-memo . It is safe to speculate that Ms. Jacobs wrote her story because on April 27, 2011, another newspaper had also obtained the same file and released it to the public. What is odd is that in this story written by the same Sally Jacobs, there is no mention of the Dahling memo. The adoption story surely was newsworthy but there is no mention of it in her story.

On April 27, 2011, the Obama Sr. INS file was also released by the Arizona Independent who also obtained the file under a FOIA request by staff writer, Heather Smathers. This second file was also published on the internet. That file can be accessed and read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File .

The Arizona Independent was not too happy about the Boston Globe keeping the Obama Sr. immigration file a secret from 2009. Its Managing Editor, Brian Wedemeyer, published a story on it on April 30, 2011, raising the ethical question of whether journalists should sit on newsworthy stories for the sake of writing a money-generating book about it at some later time. See his commentary here http://www.az-independent.com/2011/04/30/commentary-boston-globes-big-secret/ .

A close look at the Arizona Independent file shows that the Dahling memo found in the Boston Globe file regarding the proposed adoption is not contained in the Arizona Independent file. The question then becomes why would someone remove such a document from an official government file, causing the Arizona Independent not to receive a copy of it? Other questions are why did the Boston Globe not release the INS file since acquiring it in 2009 and not reveal the Dahling memo until now? What is it about the Dahling memo that someone did not want the public to know about it? An investigation needs to be done regarding this Dahling memo and breach of a government immigration file. Another investigation should be done into journalistic ethics and a newspaper’s duty to report the news to the public.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 7, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Bond v. United States and Standing to Challenge Putative President Obama on His Eligibility to be President

2011-06-28T21:52:00.000-07:00

Bond v. United States and Standing to Challenge Putative President Obama on His Eligibility to be President

                                                      By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                              June 29, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 16, 2011 decided Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ____ (2011). The Bond decision does not say anything that has not been expected regarding filing a case which can establish standing to challenge Putative President Barack Obama on his legitimacy to be President.  It has always been my position that a criminal defendant or someone being compelled to pay money challenging an Obama-endorsed Congressional statute which is the basis for the criminal charge against him or her or the money payment requirement will have standing to attack that law and in so doing also to challenge Obama's legitimacy to be President.  This is not to say that this is the only way that our courts should recognize someone like the plaintiffs I represented in Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010), who raised legitimate claims of injury to their Fifth Amendment right to life, liberty, safety, security, and tranquility, to have standing to file an action challenging Obama’s eligibility to be President under the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

In the Bond case, Congress passed 18 U. S. C. §229, a law regulating the possession and/or use of certain chemicals and passed to implement a chemical weapons treaty ratified by the United States. Bond argued that Congress sought to regulate conduct that is strictly local in nature and should be left to the States to control. Bond therefore argued that the federal statute violated the 10th Amendment and that Congress therefore had no right to regulate the conduct which the statute prohibited. That was the basis for the attack against the charging statute.

Both the District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that Bond had no standing to challenge the statute because the State was not a party to the litigation. In the Supreme Court, the Government changed its position and conceded that Bond did have standing to challenge the criminal statute. The Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae attorney to defend the position of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that Bond did not have Article III standing. The U.S. Supreme Court, reversed, finding that Bond, a criminal defendant, has Article III standing to challenge that law in the District Court and on appeal to the Third Circuit. It said that "incarceration . . . constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction.'”

Amicus curiae also argued that Bond was raising the rights of third parties (the State), and therefore principles of prudential standing also prevented the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that Bond actually sought to protect her own constitutional rights. Hence, it found that, even if State's rights were involved, she raised her own constitutional rights and so prudential standing was satisfied. The Court said that the key is whether a litigant can show that he or she has suffered an "injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable," regardless of the context in which the challenge is raised (i.e. 10th Amendment federalism or even separation of powers doctrine). The Court's discussion of separation of powers as we shall see below becomes very important in the context of challenging a law signed by Obama and thereby Obama himself.

Applying the Bond decision to a case challenging Obama's eligibility, one would have to be criminally charged or be compelled to pay money under a statute passed by Congress when Obama was President. One would argue that under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, laws passed by Congress need the action or inaction of the President (the veto power) before they are allowed to become laws. This requirement satisfies separation of powers and checks and balances doctrine. One would argue that Congress passed the charging statute, with the President's action or inaction. One would argue that a legitimate President must satisfy the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which contains the "natural born Citizen" clause. Then one would argue that the law is not valid because it never was presented to a legitimate President for consideration under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, arguing that Obama is not a legitimate President because he does not meet the requirements of the "natural born Citizen" clause. Hence, one would argue that separation of powers and checks and balances have been violated. Obama's eligibility to be President under the "natural born Citizen" clause would be the basis for the attack against the charging statute. Since the office of the President is a constitutional office, the de facto officer doctrine (that we should treat Obama as the President by fact even though he is not by law) should not be an obstacle to this argument.

Support for this argument is found in the Court's explanation of how a litigant can file an action under a separation of powers argument. The Court said:

"In the precedents of this Court, the claims of individuals—not of Government departments—have been the principal source of judicial decisions concerning separation of powers and checks and balances. For example, the requirement that a bill enacted by Congress be presented to the President for signature before it can become law gives the President a check over Congress’ exercise of legislative power. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §7. Yet individuals, too, are protected by the operations of separation of powers and checks and balances; and they are not disabled from relying on those principles in otherwise justiciable cases and controversies. In INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983), it was an individual who successfully challenged the so-called legislative veto—a procedure that Congress used in an attempt to invalidate an executive determination without presenting the measure to the President. The procedure diminished the role of the Executive, but the challenger sought to protect not the prerogatives of the Presidency as such but rather his own right to avoid deportation under an invalid order. Chadha’s challenge was sustained. A cardinal principle of separation of powers was vindicated at the insistence of an individual, indeed one who was not a citizen of the United States but who still was a person whose liberty was at risk."

It is important to understand that the Court is willing to grant standing in these situations because the litigant can show that he or she has otherwise suffered "justiciable injury." In the Bond case, the injury was the real potential for criminal conviction, incarceration, and the loss of liberty such government action brings.

But the Bond Court also cautioned so that its decision is not misinterpreted. It said:

"An individual who challenges federal action on these grounds is, of course, subject to the Article III requirements, as well as prudential rules, applicable to all litigants and claims. Individuals have “no standing to complain simply that their Government is violating the law.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 755 (1984). It is not enough that a litigant “suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.” Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923) (decided with Massachusetts v. Mellon). If, in connection with the claim being asserted, a litigant who commences suit fails to show actual or imminent harm that is concrete and particular, fairly traceable to the conduct complained of, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, the Federal Judiciary cannot hear the claim. Lujan, 504 U. S., at 560–561. These requirements must be satisfied before an individual may assert a constitutional claim; and in some instances, the result may be that a State is the only entity capable of demonstrating the requisite injury.

In this case, however, where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy, she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of our Government."

The Court also said that the ultimate issue of the statute’s validity turns in part on whether the law can be deemed “‘necessary and proper for carrying into Execution’” the President’s Article II, §2 Treaty Power and that the Court expressed no view on the merits of that argument which the Court of Appeals would address on remand.

So, in a Bond-like case, the law is attacked as invalid because Congress did not have constitutional power to pass it (relying on principles of federalism). In an Obama case, the law is attacked because it was never submitted to a legitimate President (relying on separation of powers and checks and balances principles). In both cases, the charging law is being attacked as unconstitutional. In both cases, the challenger, under threat of criminal indictment or having to pay money, being the basis of a threat to his or her individual constitutional rights, should have standing to attack the statute.

The point is that with Obama, one charged with a criminal offense or compelled to pay some money because of a law passed by Congress and allowed to pass into law by the action or inaction of Obama, acting as the President, would have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law based on the law lacking the action or inaction of a legitimate President which is needed under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution for laws to be passed. The standing argument would be made in the context of separation of powers and checks and balances.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 29, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Snopes.com Provides Misleading and Incomplete Information About Obama’s Social Security Number and Incorrect Information About Whether He Is a “Natural Born Citizen”

2011-06-22T22:58:00.000-07:00

Snopes.com Provides Misleading and Incomplete Information About Obama’s Social Security Number and Incorrect Information About Whether He Is a “Natural Born Citizen”

                                                           By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                  June 22, 2011

                                                                  Alexander McLeod (1774-1833)

Snopes.com has recently published an article in which it says it has debunked the claim that putative President Barack Obama Social Security number of 042 xx-xxxx is false. The article also proclaims that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” The article may be read at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp. There are various problems with Snopes’ analysis of the claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number and with its conclusion that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen:”

I. Snopes only addresses the on-line created story of French immigrant, Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890 and died in Honolulu in 1981. Snopes tells us that Mr. Ludwig's number was 045-26-8722 which is different from Obama's 042-xx-xxxx. How nice for someone to feed false stories into the "news" and then have Snopes debunk them.

II. Snopes does not address the question of whose Social Security number is Obama using. That he is using someone else's Social Security number has been well analyzed by private investigators Neil Sanky and Susan Daniels. For a thorough explanation on Obama using a false Connecticut Social Security number, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZlaIS5o9Vs in which Ms. Daniels explains that the Connecticut SS number belonged to a person born in 1890 whom she has not yet been able to identify. She also debunks the Jean Paul Ludwig theory. Ms. Daniels explains that the first three digits of the number were based on the location from where someone applied for the Social Security number. She clearly explains that it has nothing to do with one’s place of birth. She also explains that there is no evidence that Obama ever lived in Connecticut and that there is no other explanation that she has found showing why or how a 15-year-old Obama living in Hawaii would have applied for the Social Security number while using a Connecticut address on the application for that number. See also Ms. Daniels and Mr. Sanky’s response to this Snopes article at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/06/private-investigators-respond-to-snopes.html.

In her video presentation and response, Ms. Daniels explains that based on the record, Obama would have had to obtained that false number in March or April 1977, when he was 15 years old. She arrives at that conclusion because the Social Security number that precedes his by one number was issued on March 21, 1977. She states: “Obama allegedly got his CT number of 042-68-4425 in March ’77, which can be proven since the person before him -4424 and after him -4429 both got theirs then.” But we should ask ourselves, what is a 15-year-old teenager going to high school in Hawaii in the Spring of 1977 doing obtaining a false Social Security number? Something just does not make sense.

Ms. Daniels explains how she found Obama’s Selective Service registration record which also contains the same Connecticut Social Security number. She believes that the Selective Service registration was fraudulently done in 2008. She explains how someone floated in the public domain a letter allegedly from the Selective Service office in which it acknowledges Obama’s having applied and obtained the registration number in 1980. The problem that she identifies is that the government form which is the acknowledgement itself shows in small print at the bottom that it was not printed until 2007. Hence, the Selective Service letter, along with the Social Security number and Selective Service registration, is fraudulent also.

What is also telling is that Ms. Daniels was not able to find any indication that Obama used his Connecticut Social Security number prior to the appearance of the number on his September 4, 1980 Selective Service registration. Other than this Selective Service registration, the first time Daniels could find Obama using the Connecticut “042″ number was in 1986 in Chicago. This is very odd given that Obama has stated that he did have employment when he was young. It is reported by PolitiFact.com that Obama’s first job was at a Baskin Robbins in Honolulu and it also provides a complete list of all of Obama’s employments. Here is the entry: “1975 or 1976 — ice cream scooper, Baskin-Robbins — Honolulu — Obama claims to have lost his taste for ice cream during this, his first job, the duration of which is not publicly known.” http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/15/joe-scarborough/heres-scoop-obama-has-worked-ice-cream-business-am/ ; http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2007/01/16/ten-things-you-didnt-know-about-barack-obama (this January 16, 2007 article reports: “He [Obama] says he hasn't liked ice cream since working at Baskin-Robbins as a teenager”); http://letustalk.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/obama-summer-jobs-used-to-work-at-baskin-robbins/ (this July 20, 2008 article states that Obama was in high school when he had his Baskin Robbins job). “The workers and manager at the ice cream shop confirmed that Mr. Obama worked there. Unfortunately, no one remembers him because back then they weren't there.” http://www.bluemaumau.org/6621/presidentelect_barack_obamas_first_job (this December 31, 2008 article implies that Obama first worked there in 1979). What is odd is that while there might be a record of him working there, no actual person has stepped forward to say that he or she actually remembers Obama working there.

On another note, since the Baskin and Robbins workers and managers were able to confirm that Obama worked there, the records that they looked at should also reveal what Social Security number Obama used back then. Snopes should investigate that matter and report back to all of us.

While Snopes is in the investigative mood, it should also find Obama’s first passport and tell us the date of issue and what Social Security number he used on his passport application. Snopes should also find some of Obama’s early school records and tell us which records first show a Social Security number for Obama and what that number is. If Snopes really wants to debunk the claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number, one would think that it, with its vast debunking resources, would take these steps and report back to all of us with its findings.

Ms. Daniels also tells us that Weather Underground member, Bill Ayers, in one of his books brags about how he could easily obtain false Social Security numbers. Jack Cashill writes in World Net Daily: “Bill Ayers, terrorist and Obama close friend, of his years in the Weather Underground writes: ‘We invented all kinds of ways to obtain false identity papers, and got busy building multiple sets of ID for each of us and for every contingency. . . . We soon figured out that the deepest and most foolproof ID had a government-issued Social Security card at its heart.’” http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=275861.

We know of the relationship between Ayers and Obama. According to Jack Cashill, there is a strong probability that Ayers even wrote Dreams from My Father. http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/did_bill_ayers_write_1.htm; http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Decons. Ms. Daniels believes that we can probably look to Ayers as the person who helped Obama get his false Social Security number.

III. Snopes’ explanation (relying on Wikipedia) regarding the use of 042 and the claim that the number is "reserved for Connecticut residents" which Obama never was, also does not solve anything. Snopes concedes that before 1973 the first three numbers given to a Social Security number designated the location of the Social Security Office which issued the original Social Security card. It also explains that since 1973 (when all cards began to be issued from one central location in Baltimore), that number "'has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card'" (quoting Wikipedia). It explains that a mailing address does not equate to someone's place of birth or even place of residence. But Snopes provides no explanation how Obama ended up with the Connecticut 042 number, regardless of whether he obtained his number either before or after 1973. Why does Snopes not produce evidence that Obama's original application shows that he provided a mailing address with a zip code that would generate the 042 assignment?

I do not see what the big mystery is. But then with Obama it is par for the course. Orly Taitz has asked the Social Security Administration through the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of Obama's Social Security application documents. The documents, assuming they are real, can easily debunk any claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number. But, Obama, in his Obamaesque style, has not voluntarily provided a copy of those documents. I submit to Snopes that it would better spend its time investigating that and pressing Obama for a copy of those documents so that it can really debunk the claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number.

IV. Finally, we come to Snopes' most incorrect statement. It says that since Obama is a "natural born Citizen," his grandmother would have no reason to appropriate someone else's Social Security number.

First, the veracity of the claim that Obama is using a fake Social Security number does not depend on proving that his grandmother appropriated it.

Second, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.” Under this eligibility clause, I have argued since December 2008 that one must show that he or she is not only a “citizen” of the United States to be eligible to be President, but also a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html. I also made this argument in the case of Kerchner v. Obama/Congress. The case was first hear in the New Jersey Federal District Court and reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F.Supp.2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009). Never reaching the merits of the questions of whether Obama conclusively proved that he was born in Hawaii or that he meets the constitutional definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen, the District Court dismissed the case because of standing and political question. I appealed the case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decision is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010). The Third Circuit, also not reaching the merits of the case, affirmed the lower court, saying the plaintiffs did not have Article III standing. Probably the most important statement that any court made in all the Obama cases is that made by the Circuit Court in footnote 4 of its decision where it stated: “We need not discuss Appellants’ contention that “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ . . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father’ . . . . That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office, which we cannot address unless Appellants first establish Article III standing.” I then filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari which the Court, again not reaching the merits, denied. The U.S. Supreme Court denial of the petition is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010). In short, no court ever decided the merits of the Kerchner case in which I argued that Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii and that even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" because when he was born he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father, hence not meeting the original common law definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father. In my briefs to the courts, I cited all the pertinent U.S. Supreme Court case law, Emer de Vattel, and many other historical sources which you will also find discussed by me in my many essays on "natural born Citizen" on this blog. No court has yet reached the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Obama must therefore make that showing and Congress and each individual State should compel him to do so.

The text of the Constitution, common law history, legislative history, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent show that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to citizen parents. Let us analyze how I come to this conclusion.

Let us start with the text of the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution called all those who made up the citizenry of the new nation “citizens of the United States.” We know this from reading these Articles. Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that, in addition to being at least 25 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 years. Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 provides that, in addition to being at least 30 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 years. The Framers provided in Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 the eligibility requirements for then and future Representatives and Senators, respectively, which were, among other things, that each had to be at least a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. We also know from Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 that a “Citizen of the United States” is a naturalized citizen, for those sections speak of the person being eligible for the offices of Representative and Senator if he or she is a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. Clearly, such requirements do not mandate U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth.

Regarding Presidential eligibility, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

So, these clauses together show that the Framers during the period that the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was in effect, allowed naturalized citizens to be eligible to be President. After the grandfather clause expired, it was no longer sufficient to be simply a “citizen of the United States” to be eligible to be President, for such citizens also include naturalized citizens. Rather, one had to now show that one was a “natural born Citizen” which was not a naturalized citizen.

Our early Presidents¬, being born British "natural born subjects," were all naturalize¬d by the Declaratio¬n of Independen¬ce and by adhering to the Revolution¬. The first President to be a “natural born Citizen” was Martin Van Buren. The early Presidents were allowed to be President because of the grandfathe¬r clause g of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which says that a person who was a "citizen of the United States" at the time of the adoption of the Constituti¬on was eligible to be President. But the article also says that for those born after the adoption of the Constituti¬on, they have to be "natural born Citizens."

So these clauses also tell us that the members of the United States are called “Citizens of the United States.” With the capitalization of “C” in citizen not having any importance, we can simply call them “citizens of the United States.” The Framers of course knew that there would be more “citizens of the United States” made in the future by nature or by law. Those made by nature would be “natural born” while those made by law would not be. Those made by nature would continue to be “natural born Citizens” and those made by law would be naturalized. Of course they did not have to provide for those citizens who would be made by nature but they did have to provide for those who would be made by law.

The Framers gave Congress the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Under its naturalization powers, Congress was given the power to make someone a naturalized “citizen of the United States,” “at birth” or after birth. The Framers knew that Congress would use its naturalization power to naturalize persons to be “citizens of the United States” not only after birth but also “at birth” and thus make them “born” citizens. Hence, if the Framers meant to give Congress the power to make “natural born Citizens,” given that Congress could make someone a “born” citizen through its naturalization powers, they would have written in Article II “born” citizen rather than “natural born” citizen. Rather, the Framers did not give Congress the power to make a naturalized born “citizen of the United States” a “natural born Citizen,” for they required that such citizen be “natural born” which based on natural law only nature and no law could make. This means that for “natural born Citizens,” the Framers did not permit that a law could create such a status, but did require that the status be acquired naturally without the aid of any law. All this tells us that a “natural born Citizen” is a “citizen of the United States” that becomes so by nature and not by any law.

Now let us turn to understanding the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause. Why did the Founders and Framers include the “natural born Citizen” clause as part of the Presidential eligibility requirements? It is evident why the Founders and Framers chose it as the standard for any would-be President to meet. The historical record informs us what the Framers’ intention was in adopting the clause. The clause was added to the Constitution shortly after John Jay sent a letter dated July 25, 1787, to George Washington expressing concern about ‘‘Foreigners’’ attaining the position of Commander in Chief. 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (1911). So, when John Jay wrote to Washington, he was concerned with anyone with foreign influence becoming Commander in Chief of the Military. Hence, he meant to tell him that no foreigner or naturalized person be allowed to become Commander in Chief.

Jefferson also expressed his concern with foreign influence making its way into the government. The citizenship law that he wrote in 1783 gives us insight into why he wrote his citizenship law the way he did. In Chap. XVI of his 1783 law, he started:

“I. WHEREAS it is the policy of all infant states to encourage population, among other means, by an easy mode for the admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship; yet wisdom and safety suggest the propriety of guarding against the introduction of secret enemies, and of keeping the offices of government in the hands of citizens intimately acquainted with the spirit of the constitution and the genius of the people, as well as permanently attached to the common interest….”

CHAP. XVI. An act for the admission of emigrants and declaring their right to citizenship.

The Founders and Framers also wanted to make sure that no hereditary monarch could ever gain control of the new constitutional republic and to keep their influence out of the all-powerful and singular office of the Chief Executive and Commander of the military. Their use of the “natural born Citizen” clause and the birth circumstances that it requires assured them that the President and Commander of our military could not be of royal parents (a U.S. citizen must renounce all titles of nobility) and had sole and undivided natural allegiance to the U.S. from the moment of birth by the child not inheriting any other foreign allegiance by jus soli (citizenship by right of the soil) or jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from one’s parents). It is reasonable to conclude that the Founders and Framers therefore meant to exclude from the Office of President and Commander in Chief to the greatest degree possible anyone born with foreign influence. The historical record shows that they would have sought to exclude from being eligible to be President anyone with foreign influence inherited at birth not only from one’s place of birth but also from one’s parents.

The Founders and Framers sought to keep out foreign influence and monarchial government from the Office of President and Commander in Chief by requiring that anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution had to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible for those offices. Through that definition, they sought to prevent any foreign or monarchial influence from attaching to the child when born by requiring that he or she be born in the country to citizen parents. The following sources show that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents:

(1) Samuel von Pufendorf, in his The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature (William Tooke trans., Ian Hunter & David Saunders, eds., Liberty Fund 2003) Book II, Chapter 6 (1691), stated: “Moreover, Citizens are either Originally so; that is, such as are born in the Place, and upon that Account claim their Privileges: Or else Adscititious; that is, such as come from Foreign Parts. Of the first Sort, are either those who at first were present and concerned in the forming the said Society, or their Descendants, whom we call Indigenae, or Natives.”). Here we see that Pufendorf explained that after the original citizens are born in a land in which they form a new society, only children of citizens are entitled to birthright citizenship.

The Founders and Framers studied Pufendorf. For example, Jefferson was particularly influenced by Pufendorf’s Of the Law of Nature and Nations which he cited in his 1770 argument to the Virginia court in Howell v. Netherland, 1 Va. (Jeff) 90, 90 (Va. Gen. Ct. 1770). In 1770, Jefferson represented Samuel Howell who sought freedom from his status as an indentured servant slave. Citing Pufendorf, b. 6. c. 3.s. 4. 9, he argued: “Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” Argument in the case, Howell v. Netherland, 1 Va. (Jeff) 90, 90 (Va. Gen. Ct. 1770), reprinted in 1 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 373, 376 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., G.P. Putnam’s Sons 1892-1899. The Road to Monticello, at 84. He argued that the law of nature prevented the alienation of slavery continuously from one generation to another. See Aaron Schwabach, Jefferson and Slavery, 19 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 63, 65 (1997); Aaron Schwabach, Thomas Jefferson as an Unsuccessful Advocate for Freedom in Howell v. Netherland, 20 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 129 (1998). Jefferson relied upon the law of nature to define a person’s rights and liberty. The Virginia Supreme Court did not liberate the servant notwithstanding Jefferson’s natural law argument. But what this shows is that Jefferson looked to natural law to define a person’s status and not the English common law. As Hayes explains, “[i]ntensifying his study of natural law from the mid-1700s, Jefferson discovered how to solve the unjust laws the English imposed upon the American colonies. When something as venerable as the English rule of law could be undermined by capricious laws that abused its subjects, a more just and permanent system of laws remained, natural law, which transcended any laws a political state could devise. . . . The Road to Monticello, at 85.

(2) Emer de Vattel, in his The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), explained:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

As we can see, Vattel in his title of Section 212 distinguished between “Citizens” and “natives,” just as the Founders and Framers did in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, using the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural born Citizen.” Vattel also defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents. The Founders and Framers studied and were greatly influenced by Vattel. J.S. Reeves, The Influence of the Law of Nature Upon International Law in the United States, Am. J. Int’l L., Vol. 3 (1909) 547 et seq. (Vattel exerted such a profound political influence that it is often pointed out that his theories served as the backbone for American independence). The Founders and Framers believed that the first duty of any nation and its people is the duty of self preservation. They specifically sought the preservation of republican government. Apart from their reliance on the spiritual, they looked to law to accomplish that end. The historical record is replete with information showing that the Founders, Framers, and early political leaders looked to natural law and the law of nations for help in preserving the new nation and solving the many national problems with which they were faced during the early years of the republic. Indeed, while the States continued to apply the English common law to solve their local legal problems, the national political leaders did not look to the English common law for needed solutions on the national level. Rather, they looked to the law of nations which they also considered to be common law that was part of the supreme law of the land and therefore binding on the nation. And Vattel was their favorite when it came to looking to the most respected authority on the law of nations. R.G. Natelson, The Original Constitution 49 and 69 (2010) (“Vattel was probably the Founders’ favorite authority on international law . . . .” and his, treatise, The Law of Nations, was their favorite).

(3) Founder historian, David Ramsay, “was a doctor from South Carolina who wrote one of the earliest and best known nationalist histories of the American Revolution.” He was one of the writers of pamphlets on the Constitution between 1787 and 1788. The Online Library of Liberty. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=3847&Itemid=28. In his A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), explained that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizens, making no mention of place of birth. In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. As we can see, Ramsay put forth a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that only depended upon the child being born to U.S. citizen parents with no mention of place of birth. Ramsay would have been in a position to know how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” For more information on Ramsay and the importance of his contribution to understanding what a “natural born Citizen” is, see my essay entitled, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789, available at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html.

(4) The First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103). This Act provided as follows:

"United States Congress, 'An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization' (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States."

The membership of the First Congress contained 20 persons who had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 17 signers of the Constitution, eight of whom were members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the "natural born Citizen" clause.

As we can see, a child born anywhere in the world to U.S. citizen parents was “considered as a natural born Citizen.” This was typical naturalization language in the 18th century. Timothy Cunningham, A New and Complete Law-Dictionary, or, General Abridgment of the Law (1783) (defined “naturalization”). Also, a child born anywhere, which necessarily included the U.S., to alien parents was an alien and became a “citizen” derivatively when his or her parents naturalized if done before reaching the age of majority or upon naturalization in his or her own right if done thereafter.

(5) The Third Congress then passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 (Act of January 29, 1795, c. 20, 1 Stat. 414). The 1795 Act repealed the 1790 Act. This Act repeated the same language as the 1790 Act concerning children born to alien parents. The big change that it made was that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Hence, we can see that in the 1795 Act, Congress did not declare these children to be considered as “natural born Citizen” as it did in the 1790 Act, but rather left if up to those having interest to show that the child was born a “natural born Citizen.” With respect to children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, this act removed their status as “natural born citizens” and replaced it with “citizens of the United States.” This shows how important it was to our early Congresses to distinguish between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.”

The membership of the Third Congress included Oliver Ellsworth (April 29, 1745 – November 26, 1807) an American lawyer and politician, a revolutionary against British rule, a drafter of the United States Constitution, an the third Chief Justice of the United States; Roger Sherman (April 19, 1721 – July 23, 1793) was an early American lawyer and politician. He served as the first mayor of New Haven, Connecticut, and served on the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence, and was also a representative and senator in the new republic. He was the only person to sign all four great state papers of the U.S.: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution; Rufus King (March 24, 1755 – April 29, 1827) was an American lawyer, politician, and diplomat. He was a delegate for Massachusetts to the Continental Congress. He also attended the Constitutional Convention and was one of the signers of the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787; and other Founders and Framers.

President George Washington signed both of these Acts. As we can see from the text of the early Naturalization Acts, our early Congresses did not distinguish whether the child born to an alien was born in or out of the United States. In either case, the child was not a citizen and had to naturalize, either derivatively from the naturalizing parent if done before the child reached the age of majority or on his or her own if done thereafter. Since wives followed the national character of their husbands, this law meant that the father of the child would have to naturalize which would cause both his children and his wife to then become “citizens of the United States.” These Acts show that during the Founding, a child born in the U.S. to aliens was considered a “foreigner” who needed to naturalize either derivatively through his or her parents before becoming of majority age or on his or her own thereafter. After all, under the law of nations, the U.S. expected foreign nations to honor its proclaiming that those born abroad to U.S. citizen parents were U.S. citizens. So the U.S. would have done the same for these nations for the children born in the U.S. to their citizens. And let us remember that Jay recommended to Washington that a “foreigner” not be allowed to be Commander in Chief but rather only a “natural born citizen.”

The language of the 1790 and 1795 Acts was also followed by subsequent naturalization acts that preceded U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The same requirement of having to be born to citizen parents was followed in the Act of April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153, and Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 and in the acts of . Additionally, by an Act of March 26, 1804, the widow and children of an alien who had declared his intention to become naturalized, became citizens upon their taking the prescribed oaths provided by law. Again, Congress did not specify whether the child had to be born in or out of the United States for the law to apply. Hence, the law also applied to any child born in the U.S. to alien parents.

As we can see from a reading of the text of these early naturalization acts, they did not provide that any person by mere birth in the United States was a “citizen of the United States.” With respect to children born in the U.S., it was the citizenship of a child’s parents which determined whether the child was a citizen or not. Even if the child was born in the United States, if his or her parents were not U.S. citizens, the child was nevertheless not recognized to be born a citizen and had to naturalize derivatively or on his or her own. Under these acts, only if a child was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents was he or she not required to naturalize under these acts. As to children born abroad, if they were born to U.S. citizen parents, they were naturalized at birth and needed no further naturalization. These Congressional Acts abrogated any English common law rule that may have prevailed in the colonies before the revolution and the Constitution was adopted. Courts such as the one that decided Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandford Ch. 583 (N.Y. 1844), therefore, had no reason to apply and were in error to apply the English common law to define national citizenship in the United States. It was not until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment that our nation got laws --as interpreted by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which in lieu of requiring U.S. citizen parents and relying upon English common law engaged in an expansive reading of the Civil Rights Act’s “not subject to a foreign power” clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause--that together granted the status of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” to children born in the U.S. to one or two domiciled alien parents. This new status granted by Wong Kim Ark is not to be confounded with an Article II “natural born Citizen” status which is part of our common law and incorporated into the supreme law of the land and which always required and still requires two U.S. citizen parents.

Early judicial support for this reading of our early naturalization laws may be found in the following case law from our U.S. Supreme Court.

(6) In The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814), a prize case, Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, joined by Justice Livingston, cited Vattel and provided his definition of natural born citizens. The first thing he had to do which was standard in a prize case was to determine the citizenship status of the parties. He said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’” So when quoting Vattel, Chief Justice Marshall referred to the original citizens of a society as “citizens.” When referring to their children, he called them the “natives or indigenes.” Of importance is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in subsequent decisions translated the word “indigenes” to “natural born citizens.”

Our United States Supreme Court decided The Venus in 1814, at the beginning of the republic. The Justices sitting on the Court were men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they would have gained first hand knowledge of what the Framers of the Constitution intended when they drafted the Constitution. All but one justice involved in The Venus decision knew the Framers and had direct access to them. One justice was a clerk at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Why is The Venus case important to understanding what the Founders and Framers meant when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause? The insight that members of a Court have at a given time in history is important in our jurisprudence. As the Court stated in United State v. Morrison in reference to interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, “[t]he force of the doctrine of “stare decisis” behind these decisions stems not only from the length of time they have been on the books, but also from the insight attributable to the Members of the Court at that time. Every Member had been appointed by President Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, or Arthur–and each of their judicial appointees obviously had intimate knowledge and familiarity with the events surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 622 (2000). One of the members of the court was Chief Justice John Marshall. Justice Marshall, as the other justices, would have been in a position to know how the Founders and Framers defined the first citizens and their descendents.

Obama’s defenders contend that The Venus is about domicile during war and not citizenship. On the contrary, such statements are nothing more that an attempt to mislead people that The Venus case had nothing to do with citizenship and only dealt with the issue of domicile in the context of a war. This is the same approach that Obama’s defender have taken when discussing the Inglis case (discussed below). The truth of the mater is that given the nature of a prize case, the first thing the court has to determine is the allegiance and citizenship of the parties and whether the parties ever acquired any rights allowing the person to act as though adopting a different allegiance and citizenship. Domicile is important in this analysis. But domicile comes into play in analyzing whether the person has acquired special commercial privileges which arises from being domiciled in a foreign country. Clearly, the analysis must first start with citizenship before we may consider whether the person ever acquired these special commercial privileges as a result of changing his or her domicile. Authorities have recognized how central to a prize case both allegiance and citizenship are and that any proper resolution of such a case must start there. “Under such a usage, in the numerous cases of prize and capture with which, up to the close of the last war, the Federal Courts were crowded, the rights of parties in suit, under the law of nations, depended on their citizenship, and that on their allegiance.” 3 The New Englander, Massachusetts and South Carolina 414 (1845). http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel++"natural+born+citizen"&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false (emphasis in the original). So we can see that citizenship and allegiance have long been recognized as being central to a prize case. Despite this clear evidence, Obama’s defenders refuse to admit that The Venus, a case in which the Court had to first reach the question of what the citizenship status of the parties was and then decide whether those parties had done acts such as change their domicile which then would have given them commercial rights to act on behalf of another nation, is important as relating to defining a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” as conceived by the Founders and Framers for the new constitutional republic.

What Obama’s defenders also fail to recognize is that we are looking for historical references to help us find the meaning of "natural born Citizen." Clearly, Justice Marshall, who was an influential Founder, quoting from Vattel when the Chief Justice defined "the natives or indigenes" which is the exact language used by Samuel von Pufendorf in his, The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature. Chief Justice Marshall was also quoting from Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Sections 211-212 (1758 French edition, 1759 first English translation). Both of these natural law writers defined who the original citizens and their descendents were. Justice Marshall would have been in a position to know how the Founders and Framers defined the first citizens and their descendents and the fact that he relied on natural law and the law of nations as presented by Pufendorf and Vattel is critically important to the question of how the Framers defined a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” in the new nation.

The fact that Chief Justice Marshall relied on natural law and the law of nations as presented by Pufendorf and Vattel is critically important to the question of how the Framers defined a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” It is also critically important to see that in defining who was a national citizen of the United States, a controlling issue in a prize case, he did not refer in any way to the English common law or to any type of formulation of that law as explicated by Blackstone. If the new nation was still using the English common law to define our national character, Chief Justice Marshall would have used that law when analyzing the citizenship status of the parties rather than natural law and the law of nation. We can see from his decision that he did not but rather used natural law and the law of nations as the basis for defining the new national citizenship in the United States.

(7) Alexander McLeod (1774-1833), who was born in Scotland in 1774 and came to America in 1792, in A Scriptural View of the Character, Causes, and Ends of the Present War (2nd ed. 1815), a sermon he gave to the Christian community, http://books.google.com/books?id=kLUTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA170&dq=%22doctrine+of+allegiance+%22+inauthor:McLeod&hl=en&ei=IXH_TcfHH4rk0QHpt5zKAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22doctrine%20of%20allegiance%20%22%20inauthor%3AMcLeod&f=false, denounced the English monarchy as cruel, unjust, and ungodly. Writing concerning the War of 1812, he explained that the United States had every right to go to war with Britain because of its violation of Americans' right to life, liberty, and property. Among other things, he denounced England’s attachment to perpetual allegiance and how England used the concept to enslave American citizens to whom it laid claim and its own subjects. He argued that a person, being born equal and free, has a natural right to expatriation from his or her native country. He explained that allegiance and protection are the essence of any society. He said that members of society give their allegiance to a society in return for that society’s protection. He explained that being born on a piece of land does not create allegiance to a society. He said that it is being born to parents who are members of that society that creates the true bond that morally connect the child to that society and best provides for the preservation of that society. McLeod stated:

“3. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal; and 'protection is the foundation upon which the claim of allegiance rests. When the foundation is removed, the edifice falls of course.

I readily admit, that there is something in the idea of native country, which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance. It is not, however the spot of earth, upon which the child is born, that connects him with the national society; but the relation of the child's parents to that society.

In the ordinary concerns of life there is no need of such minute distinctions; and there is too little discrimination, exercised by the greater part of men, to be able to understand it. Even statesmen art not always wise; and designing men find it their interest to keep up a confusion of ideas upon important subjects. In the present discussion, nevertheless, it is necessary, that I distinctly state the true bond, which connects the child with the body politic. It is not the inanimate matter of a piece land, but the moral relations of his parentage. Let a child be born within the walls of a church, that does not make him a church member; but if the parent or parents be in connexion with the church, so is the offspring. Visible society, as it is provided for in the constitution of human nature, naturally seeks to perpetuate its own existence, by conferring upon children the membership of their parent. Each citizen too is supposed to reserve for his off spring the benefits of society. The Governor of the universe approves of this provision. Thus it is, that the country of the father is that of the child, and not because he happened to be born in its territory. Residence produces an attachment. Education cherishes affection for the scenes of early life; but only moral relations lay the foundation for moral obligation. It is the enjoyment of the privileges of society, that lays the foundation for obedience to its authority. It follows from this, that protection being the end of civil government, the sovereign has no other claim upon the allegiance of the subject, than what arises from the protection which he affords. As is the protection which I ask and receive, so is the fealty which I owe. If I ask none, I am under no allegiance: If I receive none, I have nothing to return. It is the very essence of despotism to claim authority over me without an equivalent.* . . . .

* " By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular—for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction. Children born at sea—out of the country—in the armies of the state-in the house of its ministers at a foreign court, are reputed native citizens. Every man, born free, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he finds that it will be of no advantage to him to remain in it, he is at liberty to leave it."

Vattel, Sec. 216—220.” Id. at 170-71.

Here we see how McLeod relied upon natural law and the law of nations to describe who Vattel called a “natural born Citizen.” What is telling is that he cited and quoted Vattel. We also witness McCleod arguing as Vattel did in The Law of Nations that society has a duty to preserve itself and that it does so “by conferring upon children the membership of their parent.” Hence, McLeod like Vattel said that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born to citizen parents. McLeod also cited and quoted from Vattel and holy scripture to support his argument that man has a natural right to expatriate. Id. at 171-80. McLeod, being a Presbyterian pastor, was a man of religion. http://www.covenanter.org/McLeod/alexandermcleod.htm. He also said that God provided the definition that he gave of such a citizen. This statement is important given that the Founders and Framers had very strong religious convictions. In fact, the Founders and Framers saw natural law and the law of nations as having a divine source. It cannot be doubted that someone like McCleod gives us true insight into how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.”

(8) Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) (the majority, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, cited Vattel on the right of election to change one’s allegiance and thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after revolution. The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father. On the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same time period a citizen of the State of New York or American citizen, respectively, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. Id. 136 and 164. This case shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of merger of the wife’s citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born);

(9) In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), Justice Daniels, concurring, cited Vattel and The Law of Nations and provided his definition of natural born citizens and took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, and stated: “‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .’” While the Fourteenth Amendment overruled this case’s ruling that blacks were not “citizens of the United States,” Justice Daniels’ definition of a “natural born Citizen” was never changed but rather confirmed by subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases.

(10) Slaughter-House Cases (1872) (the Fourteenth Amendment’s “‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”);

(11) In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167-68 (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court provided Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” without citing him by name. The Court did not refer to the English common law when defining that clause but rather to Vattel’s law of nations definition. The Court stated: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80).

The Minor Court had to first determine whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen in order to decide whether she had any constitutional right to vote. The Court concluded that she was a “natural born Citizen” under the natural law, law of nations/common law definition that it gave of that term. Hence, the Court’s resolving the issue of whether she was a citizen and that she was a “natural born Citizen” was central to the Court’s overall decision. As I have stated on this blog in previous articles and comments, the Court’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” is therefore binding precedent.

Why did the Court have to first decide whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen? Mrs. Minor argued that since she was a citizen of the United States, she enjoyed the privileges and immunities of a citizen under Article IV, Section 2. She added that the right of suffrage was a privilege that belonged to the citizens. Finally, she argued that under the Fourteenth Amendment, the State of Missouri was precluded from abridging her right to vote. Hence, the Court was required to determine if Mrs. Minor was a citizen in order to address her argument that the Missouri statute and constitution that denied her the right to vote were unconstitutional. Because the Court had to decide the question of Mrs. Minor's citizenship, its ruling as to what a "natural born Citizen" is and that she was a "natural born Citizen" is not dicta but rather precedential. The Court disagreed with Mrs. Minor and ruled that voting was not a privilege or immunity granted to citizens. It said that being a citizen did not guarantee one the right to vote. Hence, it ruled that the Missouri laws which denied her the right to vote were constitutional.

Minor left open the question of whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen”, let alone a “natural born Citizen.” As we have seen above, under the then-prevailing Congressional naturalization acts, a child born anywhere, which necessarily included the U.S., to alien parents was an alien and became a “citizen” derivatively when his or her parents naturalized if done before reaching the age of majority or upon naturalization in his or her own right if done thereafter.

Minor did not cite Vattel but as can be seen the Court’s definition of a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen” are taken directly out of Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Section 212. Hence, when Minor said “common law,” it was not referring to the English common law but rather to American common law which in national citizenship matters had its basis in natural law and the law of nations. Minor also distinguished between “natural-born citizens” and “citizens.” When Minor spoke of the common law, it referred to the “citizens” and the “natives or natural-born citizens,” explaining that there never has been any doubts that the children born in the country to “citizens” were the “natives or natural-born citizens.” Since Minor was being asked to apply the 14th Amendment, it then applied the common law rule to the 14th Amendment which only speaks of “citizens” and not “natives or natural-born citizens.” It then concluded that any person who is a “natural-born citizen” is necessarily also a “citizen.” The Court, was not, however, willing to go as far as to say that a child born in the country to parents who were not U.S. citizens was even a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, let alone a “natural-born citizen.” The Court added that “there have been doubts” as to whether that child is even a “citizen.” Having decided that such a child is not a “natural-born citizen,” it left the question of whether such a child is a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment to another day.

It is important to understand that if the English common law prevailed in the United States to define national citizenship, the Court would not have stated that “there have been doubts” whether children born in the country to alien parents were “citizens.” Under English common law, there was no doubt that such children would have been “natural born subjects,” for under that law the citizenship of the parents was not a factor in determining subjectship when the child was born in the dominion of the King.

So Minor told us that a child born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizen parents is not a “natural-born citizen” and that it was not necessary for it to decide whether that child was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment because the plaintiff was born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, making her an Article II “natural-born citizen.” What is important about Minor is that the U.S. Supreme Court told us that the definition of a "natural born Citizen" is not contained in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, or in any Act of Congress. Rather, Minor defined a "natural born Citizen" under American common law which as we can see was based on natural law and the law of nations as presented by Vattel in Sections 212-217 of The Law of Nations and not under the English common law. It also told us by implication that a child born in the country to parents who are not U.S. citizens is not a “natural-born citizen” and expressly told us that “there have been doubts” as to whether such a child is even a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment. If “there have been doubts” as to whether such a child was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, then given that pursuant to the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 the standard to be a “natural born citizen” was higher than that to be just a “citizen,” there is no way that such a child could be a “natural-born citizen.” After all, if one cannot satisfy the requirements to be a “citizen,” one surely cannot satisfy the requirements to be a “natural-born citizen.” For a further discussion on Minor v. Happersett, see my January 2, 2009 essay entitled, OBAMA CANNOT BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” UNDER MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) found at http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html.

(12) Writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), Justice Gray explained that a born citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment owes "no allegiance to any alien power" at the time of birth on U.S. soil and that a born citizen must be born within the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States. In Elk, Justice Gray ruled that a native Indian, even though born on the territory of the United States but on an Indian reservation, was not a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, even if he later severed his ties with his tribe and “fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Id. 99.

Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Gray stated:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306."

"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' 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, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations." Id. at 101-02.

Justice Gray in his decision stated that (1) the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or (2) the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” were not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. We can see that the exception is not only for children of ambassadors but also for children of aliens. Hence, Justice Gray was not relying on the English common law rule which did not contain the exception to “natural born subject” status for children born to aliens.

In interpreting the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” Justice Gray also looked to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which declared citizens of the United States “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. Sec. 1992.

Justice Gray then explained that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent. He said that it is the requirement that a nation consent to have someone be its citizen which prevents creating dual allegiance and citizenship. Id. at 103. He added that a nation’s consent to a person being its citizen relates to granting that person citizenship from birth or citizenship by naturalization. Id. at 104-09. If a person was not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, he or she could not be a born citizen and would have to naturalize if he or she wanted to be such a citizen.

Justice Gray stated: “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.” Hence, “subject to the jurisdiction” meant that the new born owed absolute allegiance only to the United States and to no other nation and that the United States had full and complete power over the child at the time of birth. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. Elk was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States.

Hence, as we can see, some temporary or local allegiance of the alien mother or father would cause the child not to acquire complete and absolute allegiance to the United States at birth. Since Elk was born subject to a foreign power at the time of his birth and thereby could not be declared a citizen by birth, he had to naturalize in order to become a citizen. This ruling was rendered moot when native Americans were granted citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. By logic and policy, there is no sound basis why the Elk holding did not equally apply to disqualify a child from being granted birthright citizenship if born in the United States of one or both alien parents given that that parent’s foreign country’s potential claim to citizenship and allegiance over the child would render that child born subject to a foreign power. But as we shall see, Justice Gray changed his definition of what being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant when he wrote the Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898). Justice Harlan dissenting, with Justice Woods joining, would have found Elk to be a “citizen,” because he was “born in our territory, owing no allegiance to any foreign power, and subject, as residents of the States, to all the burdens of government.” Id. 122-23. It was that Elk did not owe any allegiance to any foreign power which qualified him to be a “citizen.”

(13) In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court per Justice Gray explained that a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is a child born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” but an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, citing and quoting Minor v. Happersett for that definition. Wong Kim Ark modified Elk v. Wilkins by showing that there is a distinction between a born “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born Citizen” of the United States under Article II and said: “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’” which means that a child born in the U.S. to domiciled alien parents is as much a “citizen” as the “natural born” child born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents but the former is a “citizen” of the United States while the latter is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

The question that Minor did not answer was answered by Wong Kim Ark, wherein the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument was totally consistent with the then-existing Congressional naturalization acts. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to domiciled alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents, in no way disturbed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born Citizen,” for it was asked to decide only if Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also allowed Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” because it found that his parents, while not U.S. citizens, were, among other things, domiciliaries, residents of the United States, and not working in some foreign diplomatic capacity and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So Wong decided only the “citizen” part of Wong’s status. It never decided whether he also had the “natural born” part. The Court cautioned in its opinion in the beginning and at its end that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and also informed us under what limited conditions, born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not employed in some foreign diplomatic capacity, it ruled that he was so.

So Wong cited and quoted Minor and its definition that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Wong then decided that a child born in the country to alien parents who were domiciled in the U.S. was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment. It is critical that the Court did not say that Wong was completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but only that he was subject to that jurisdiction. Note the Court did not rule that he was an Article II "natural born Citizen" which the Court told us was defined by Minor. Rather, the Court told us that he was a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment.

(14) Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (confirmed that a child born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father and naturalized citizen mother, the mother being derivatively naturalized by marrying a U.S. citizen, was a “natural born Citizen.”

So, while a “citizen of the United States” is any citizen so made by positive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty, a "natural born Citizen" is by nature a child born in the country to citizen parents. Vattel, Sections 212-217. Such a citizen, being fully and completely in the allegiance of the United States and fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction thereof, does not need any positive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment, statute, or treaty to remove any natural foreign alienage to make him or her a U.S. citizen.

Assuming that he was born in Hawaii and also assuming that his parents are who he says they are, Obama does not meet the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen." At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. According to Obama and his recently released alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth, along with the immigration file of Barack Hussein Obama (“Obama Sr.”), Obama Sr. is Obama’s natural father. Obama has conceded and Obama Sr.’s immigration file confirms that Obama Sr. was a British national. But under the British Nationality Act of 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which under that same law and by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he become even a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.

The U.S. State Department has confirmed that Obama was born with dual allegiances. Leventhal cites FactCheck.org to state, "Obama was originally both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies from 1961 to 1963 given that his father was from Kenya, which gained its independence from the British Empire in 1963. Upon independence, Obama became both a U.S. and Kenyan citizen from 1963 to 1982 [sic should be 1984], and solely a U.S. citizen after that." The entry "The Obama Birth Controversy" was written by Todd Leventhal, the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State.

Obama may be a born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States from birth, a trait that the Founders and Framers decided was constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.

Consequently, Obama is not a "natural born Citizen," of the United States given that, being born to a father who was a British citizen and not a U.S. citizen, he was not born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he would be a born “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, but he is not able to show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

Third, even if Obama is a "natural born Citizen," having that status does not prove that he is not using a false Social Security number. Snopes should look into how many "natural born Citizens" use false Social Security numbers every day for one reason or another.

We have seen how Snopes has got it wrong with Obama's Social Security number. But Snopes' gravest error is in declaring Obama to be a "natural born Citizen." We have seen that at best, he could be a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." But he is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 22, 2011
Updated June 26, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Why Doesn’t Hawaii Senator Sam Slom Investigate the Authenticity of Obama’s Long-Form Certificate of Live Birth?

2011-06-18T06:33:00.000-07:00

Why Doesn’t Hawaii Senator Sam Slom Investigate the Authenticity of Obama’s Long-Form Certificate of Live Birth?

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 18, 2011

It appears that Hawaii Senator, Sam Slom, has been interested in finding out the truth about Obama’s birth origins. But why has he not investigated whether Obama’s recently released long-form Certificate of Live Birth is authentic?

Here is what researcher and writer, Devvy, wrote in her recent article: “Congress - Yes, Obama Is Above The Law:”

“The other thing I urge you to do, which I outlined in my recent column, Force an investigation into Obama's birth certificate criminal fraud, involves a state senator who has been very outspoken regarding Obama/Soetoro's birth certificate. The key to busting this wide open could be the Hawaii State Legislature:

‘My second letter went out to Sen. Sam Slom. He serves in the Hawaii State Senate. That document was allegedly generated by a state agency in the State of Hawaii. Their legislature has the authority to conduct an investigation into how that forgery was manufactured, by who and more importantly, who requested it and when? That won't happen unless YOU also write a letter. Hard copy letters (or a fax) is something tangible that can't be ignored. The phones ring all day long at the offices of state and federal lawmakers. Sometimes you can't even get through or you just get voice mail.’

This weekend, YOU need to write and mail off a snail mail letter to Sen. Slom. If his desk is flooded with tens of thousands of letters - and folks in Hawaii make this an issue - the heat will become so great, they have to act. Be sure to continue following up with Slom's office by calling a week after you send your snail mail letter. Thousands of us must keep the heat on his office until something breaks in that legislature. It can happen, but it takes all of us. Sen. Slom needs to man up or shut up.” http://www.rense.com/general94/cong_dev.htm.

I have reported on this blog about the great amount of existing evidence that the electronic image and the underlying paper document are both forgeries. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/06/congress-investigates-sexual-flings-of.html. As a Hawaii State Senator, Senator Slom surely has the resources and influence to be able to dispel this evidence and confirm with the Hawaii Department of Health whether the document image that Obama released on the internet on April 27, 2011 is authentic.

We should follow Devvy’s advice and find out why Senator Slom has not done more to seek the truth about Obama’s recently released birth certificate. We need to demand of him that if he is going to do his job and honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, he needs to fight this battle all the way and not just make believe that he is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 18, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Congress Investigates the Sexual Flings of Rep. Anthony Weiner but Not Obama, the Impostor President Sitting in the Most Powerful Office in the World

2011-06-08T08:48:00.000-07:00

Congress Investigates the Sexual Flings of Rep. Anthony Weiner but Not Obama, the Impostor President Sitting in the Most Powerful Office in the World

                                                 By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                         June 8, 2011

On December 20, 2008, I published an essay entitled, The Two Constitutional Obstacles that Obama Has to Overcome to Be President, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html. I explained that then-President Elect Obama had to first conclusively show that he was born in Hawaii. Having done that, he must still show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. I also explained that Obama may be able at some point to show that he was born in Hawaii, which would make him a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment, but that he would not be able to show that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); David Ramsay, “A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen" (1789); The Venus (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830); Dredd Scott v. Sandford (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring); Slaughter-House Cases (1872); Minor v. Happersett (1875); Elk v. Wilkins (1884); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

In his need to prove that he was born in the U.S., on April 27, 2011, putative President, Barack Obama, released to the public a digital image on the White House web site of his alleged long form Certificate of Live Birth. A majority of Americans have wanted Obama to confirm that he was in fact born in Hawaii. Yet, Obama refers to these concerned Americans as “sideshows and carnival barkers.” But worse than that, the document that Obama has released is a forgery.

We have seen the tremendous amount of evidence accumulate which shows that Obama’s April 27, 2011 released long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. Countless concerned Americans have been demanding that both the FBI and Congress conduct an immediate investigation into the fraudulent birth certificate that Obama released onto the internet. Recently, we have also been following the story regarding the sexual affairs of Congressman Anthony Weiner. Nancy Pelosi has formally requested a House ethics probe into the sexual affairs of Congressman Weiner and top Democrats have refused to defend Weiner, and many other top political leaders have asked for Weiner’s resignation. See the AP story here http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2011/06/08/pelosi-asks-for-ethics-investigation-of-weiner.html?sid=101.

Obama maintains that he was born in Kapi’olani Hospital in Hawaii in 1961. But he has yet to conclusively establish that fact with a valid long-form Certificate of Live Birth or with any medical evidence. Rather, on April 27, 2011, after refusing to do so for over 2 ½ years and spending or causing to be spent countless millions of dollars of public and private funds and resources and even the 6-month imprisonment of a decorated military officer, LTC Terry Lakin, he released on the internet a forged internet image of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. This computer image is a forgery, as it contains evidence of electronic manipulation and evidence that even if the electronic image is real, the underlying paper birth certificate is a forgery.

The document published on the White House web site (whitehouse.gov) is not a scan of a paper document but rather was built with computer programming by using many electronic layers. A scanned document only has one layer of information. This document has various electronic layers which raises the serious question of whether the document was obviously forged. A must-see video by infowars.com in which Alex Jones explains how in his opinion this document has been forged may be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgk&feature=youtu.be. A big question that the video raises is that this document is so obviously a fake that one wonders whether those who did it are that highly incompetent or did they fake it so badly so as to want to get caught. For more information on the “document” being nothing more than an electronic manipulation, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY ; The Market Ticker at http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185094; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfYwYyS_c  (Karl Denninger shows that the Obama BC image is not a scan and concludes the image is a forgery); http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/28/dr-ron-polland-evaluates-obamas-birth-certificate/ (Post & Email interview of Dr. Ron Polland); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgev9a7VDxY&feature=player_embedded .

Even if the internet image is a true representation of the alleged underlying Certificate of Live Birth, that underlying paper birth certificate, which is supposed to be a document filled in with a typewriter in 1961, is a forgery. First, it contains evidence of kerning. Web expert, Karl Denninger, has made this discovery. His article can be read at http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2534123. This discovery was also reported by WND and is contained in an article written by Bob Unruh which can be accessed at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=295189. Kerning describes a style of printing letters which causes part of one letter to extend into the vertical space of the letter next to it. The extension appears underneath the letter whose space is being encroached. Today, kerning can be done on a computer or with typesetting. Kerning could not be done on a typewriter in 1961.

Second, now we have additional evidence that the underlying alleged paper Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. On June 7, 2011, Jerome Corsi reported in his article with WND which can be accessed at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308397, that a retired typographer who worked in the industry for 50 years has analyzed the Obama April 27, 2011 alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. He concludes that the document contains different typewriter typeface letters which come from a number of different typewriters. Paul Irey, an expert in typefaces and typography, concludes that the forger(s) used different pieces of actual 1961 valid birth certificates from Hawaii to create the Obama birth certifificate. The problem for Obama is that the different typewriter letters which come from different typewriters prove that the document is a forgery, for a valid birth certificate would not contain typeface letters created by so many different typewriters.

"My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter," Irey told WND.

Industry expert, Doug Vogt, has recently filed a criminal complaint with the FBI. He concludes: "I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs." Read more: Why did Obama release electronic birth certificate? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=308277#ixzz1OhCgdaTq. We have also seen evidence of Obama’s social security number and selective service registration fraud. Despite all this evidence, criminal complaints, and countless letters, communications, and complaints by concerned Americans to their political representatives and police officials, we have not heard a word from our mainstream media or from either Congress or the FBI. Again, where are the FBI and Congress who need to be doing a full-blown investigation of this serious crime (identity theft, birth certificate fraud, social security fraud, selective registration fraud, and much more) which presents a serious security threat not only for the United States but for the entire world? While Congress is about to investigate Weiner’s sexual excesses, I have not seen Congress call for any investigations into Obama’s true identity and fraudulent birth certificate, social security number, and selective service registration. I guess our illustrious Congress believes that investigating Weiner’s sexual flings is more important to the national security of the United States than investigating whether or not we have an impostor sitting in the most powerful civilian and military office in the world and learning what his motives are.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 8, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Obama’s Enablers Put Forth Another Straw Man Argument: One’s Parents Do Not Have to Be Born in the U.S. to Be a “Natural Born Citizen”

2011-05-29T12:43:00.000-07:00

Obama’s Enablers Put Forth Another Straw Man Argument: One’s Parents Do Not Have to Be Born in the U.S. to Be a “Natural Born Citizen”



                                                        By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                              May 29, 2011

Putative President Barack Obama’s enablers are out and about making their straw man arguments in order to win the presidential eligibility issue. “A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To ‘attack a straw man’ is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the ‘straw man’), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

In arguing that putative President Barack Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen, his defenders maintain that the “birthers” are wrong in believing otherwise because there is no requirement that one’s parents must be born in the U.S. to be a "natural born Citizen." This is a straw man argument given that it suggests that this is the “birthers’” argument when in fact it is not. This is not the only straw man argument that we have seen Obama’s enablers advance. We have seen their effort to win the Obama eligibility issue by misrepresenting the constitutional argument (e.g., they argue that a “natural born citizen” is the same as a “citizen” and then they set out to show what historically a “citizen” is and publicly concentrate on the place of birth issue but suppress from the same public the constitutional argument on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen”); they present for public display “birthers” who may defend the constitutional position poorly as best defenders of that position; they invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then ridiculed and criticized (they have invented the “birther” who they attack as being a racists and/or attached to nothing but conspiracy theories or in the words of Obama himself: "We're not going to solve our problems if we get distracted by carnival barkers and sideshows." [Barack Obama, April 27, 2011, in reference to Donald Trump]); and they oversimplify our constitutional position and attack that position (e.g. they mock the “birthers” for saying that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents and add that a simple facial reading of the Constitution’s text contains no such requirement). They also use the slippery slope fallacy, saying that there is no reason for Obama to release any medical or other evidence proving his Hawaiian birth because the “birthers” will never be satisfied with no matter how much documentary evidence of his alleged Hawaiian birth Obama may present to the public. None of this is even to mention the unfounded charges of racism and other and various ad hominem attacks against anyone who would dare question Obama’s Article II constitutional eligibility to be President.

Now let us see how Obama’s enablers’ statement that the “birthers” put forth the argument that the President’s parents must be born in the United States is nothing but a straw man argument. First, we do not maintain that the parents need to be American born. Rather, we maintain that they must be "citizens of the United States," which status they can acquire by being "natural born Citizens" or naturalized at birth or after birth. The parents must be “citizens of the United States,” under any one of three scenarios: (1) “natural born Citizens” under Article II by being born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent to U.S. citizen parents; (2) naturalized at birth, under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) by being born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents or other Congressional Acts by being born out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents; or (3) naturalized after birth under some Congressional Act or treaty when born out of the U.S. to two alien parents.

Second, these same individuals also confuse an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a "born citizen" under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) which as currently interpreted do not require U.S. citizen parents in order declare one a “citizen of the United States” at birth. This latter citizen, lacking the natural quality of being born to two U.S. citizen parents, is actually naturalized at birth by way of Congressional naturalization power at first questionably exercised by Congress through the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then unquestionably exercised by it through the 14th Amendment. Today, we commonly refer to this citizen as a “native-born citizen,” not to be confused with a “native” under natural law and the law of nations which has the same meaning as a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, to be an Article II "natural born citizen," one must be born in the U.S. (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). See also the many other legal and historical sources cited at this blog site for support for this definition. The Founders and Framers wanted to make sure that no hereditary monarch could ever gain control of the new constitutional republic and to keep foreign influence out of the all-powerful and singular office of the Chief Executive and Commander of the military. These birth circumstances assure that the President and Commander of our military cannot be of royal parents (a U.S. citizen must renounce all titles of nobility) and has sole and undivided natural allegiance to the U.S. from the moment of birth by the child not inheriting any other foreign allegiance by jus soli (citizenship by right of the soil) or jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from one’s parents). Only the President and Vice-President have to be an Article II "natural born Citizen." The great majority of Americans are “natural born Citizens.” For every other citizen in the U.S. who is not a “natural born Citizen,” the clause has no constitutional or other legal effect, for “citizens of the United States” all enjoy equality in rights, privileges, and immunities. Hence, the clause is in place only to protect the United States and its people by assuring that our representative constitutional republic will be lead by a President and Commander in Chief who from birth is attached to the best interests and only that of the United States.

Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He maintains that he was born in Kapi’olani Hospital in Hawaii in 1961. But he has yet to conclusively establish that fact with a valid long-form Certificate of Live Birth or with any medical evidence. Rather, on April 27, 2011, after refusing to do so for over 2 ½ years and spending or causing to be spent countless millions of dollars of public and private funds and resources and even the 6-month imprisonment of a decorated military officer, LTC Terry Lakin, he released on the internet a forged internet image of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. This computer image is a forgery, as it contains evidence of electronic manipulation. Even if the internet image is a true representation of the alleged underlying Certificate of Live Birth, that underlying paper birth certificate, which is supposed to be a document filled in with a typewriter in 1961, is a forgery, for it contains evidence of kerning (a technique of spacing letters next to each other for aesthetic purposes) which cannot possibly be done on a typewriter in 1961. Also, there exist significant questions regarding whether Obama is using a valid social security number and whether his selective service military registration was also forged.

In any event, assuming the released birth certificate image to be valid, it conclusively establishes that Obama’s legitimate father was Barack Obama Sr. So, even assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii, he can be a “born” “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), but he cannot be a “natural born” “citizen of the United States” under Article II. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was born in 1961 to Barack Obama Sr., a British citizen father who was born in 1934 or 1936 in the then-British colony of Kenya and by descent from his father he himself was born a British citizen. He was therefore born with conflicting and divided loyalties to the U.S. and Great Britain, which under the Kenya Independence Act of 1963, converted to citizenship and allegiance to Kenya at age 2 which lasted until at least age 23. Consequently, Obama, was naturalized at birth and, like a person who is naturalized after birth is not eligible to be President, was not born with sole and undivided allegiance to the U.S. Obama is thus not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Obama is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 29, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Why Doesn’t Obama and the State of Hawaii Release Real Evidence of Obama’s Alleged Birth in Hawaii?

2011-05-20T21:58:00.000-07:00

Why Doesn’t Obama and the State of Hawaii Release Real Evidence of Obama’s Alleged Birth in Hawaii?

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 21, 2011

We have seen many on-line presentations showing the American public that Obama’s recently released alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. It is now time for Obama to release real evidence of his alleged birth in Hawaii. That real evidence is medical evidence.

Section 338-5 of the Hawaiian statute provides: “§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1].”

Obama alleges he was born in Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, now called Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children. He has also recently released his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth which states that he was born there. Hence, let us see the hospital birth records which name Obama and his mother and father. Let us see other medical records which name Obama and the mother and father. Since Obama has released to the public the name of his alleged birth hospital, he should have no interest in keeping private any medical records which show that he was in fact born in that hospital. Also, he can redact any part of the medical record which he wants to keep private.

Additionally, under Section 338-5, Hawaii has the power and authority to obtain medical records from Kapi’olani Medical Center to confirm Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth. At no time did Hawaii inform the American public that it in fact confirmed with that hospital that Obama was in fact born there which it can do under the cited statute. Hawaii has withheld this underlying evidence from the public. This withholding of evidence is a grave matter given that the recently released birth certificate has been adequately shown to be a forgery which creates such reasonable doubt as to whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.

Under Section 338-5, any birth certificate has to be completed and filed by some institution (hospital) or person (doctor, midwife, or parent). This statute also shows that Hawaii has the authority to confirm any reported birth by examining medical records. While Hawaii pretends to have come clean with the American public, it did not even provide such basic information or conduct such due diligence regarding extant medical evidence which would give the public that needed assurance that Obama’s birth record is genuine.

With the State of Hawaii having such authority under Section 338-5 to confirm through medical records that a birth in fact occurred in a Hawaiian hospital, why have we not heard that the Hawaii Health Department has any of this evidence in its files? We should also consider that Governor Abercrombie also did not confirm for the American people that the Obama birth file in Hawaii in fact shows that his birth event is corroborated with medical evidence from Kapi’olani Medical Center as is required by Section 338-5. Are we to reasonably believe that there exists no medical evidence confirming Obama’s birth in Hawaii that any one in Hawaii can share with the American people?

For a complete list of evidence of citizenship and identity identified by Medicaid, see http://www.ctelderlaw.org/HealthCare/Citizenship%20FactSheet%207%202%2007%20(2)%20(2).pdf. Out of all this evidence which can be used to prove citizenship and identity, what have we seen Obama and his enablers produce? The answer is a resounding “none.” If Obama wants to sell a lot of tee shirts proclaiming his birth in the U.S., let him put a copy of a Kapi’olani medical record on the tee shirts rather than the fake birth certificate.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 21, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved