Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!

Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!




By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
17 September 2010 - Constitution Day
During the process of developing a new U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. He also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

Many of the founders and framers had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel's codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a "strong check" against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a "natural born Citizen". Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a "born Citizen" was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., 'natural'. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one's parents via natural law.

The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay's letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a "born Citizen" of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.

John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "

See a transcription of Jay's letter to Washington at this link. This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective "natural" making it "natural born Citizen of the United States" for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton's proposed "born a Citizen". Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:

"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."

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.

Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be 'born a Citizen' of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person "born a citizen" to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a "natural born Citizen", to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a "natural born citizen" with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.

Jay's proposal recommended clause added the additional adjective before "born Citizen" that was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective "natural" means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one's birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective "natural" comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel's Law of Nations, the "Des citoyens et naturels", Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (as it was translated to English in the 1797 edition) that the "natural born Citizens" are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama's birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreign national, non-U.S. citizen serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.

Another founder of our nation and great historian of the American Revolution named David Ramsay contemporaneously defined in a 1789 essay what the term "natural born Citizen" means. Read a copy of Ramsay's original dissertation at this link. Other research papers from history on the term "natural born Citizen" published long before the current controversy was created by the 2008 election debacle can be read at this link. The paper by Breckenridge Long in 1916 is a particularly good one.

Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a born Citizen of the USA depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a "natural born Citizen of the United States" since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military.

The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

So, can a "born Citizen" be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding NO per the founders and framers. Being a "born Citizen the United States" is a necessary but NOT sufficient part of being a "natural born Citizen of the United States". But only a "natural born Citizen" can be the President of the USA. Obama is not constitutionally eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.

CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. Here is a chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. Being a "born Citizen" or "Citizen at Birth" is not identically the same as a being a "natural born Citizen".

Some [RINO] Republicans Want Birthright Citizenship Review-But is it Simply Cover for Another Cloaked more Sinister Objective? | by CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Some [RINO] Republicans Want Review of Birthright Citizenship. But is it Simply a Cover Story for Another Cloaked more Sinister Objective?

What Senator Lindsey Graham of SC with the backing of Senator John McCain of AZ is stating to the press with this new initiative of his is only half the story:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-Republicans-Birthright-Citizenship/2010/08/03/id/366508

Comments on What's Really Probably Up - The 6th Try Since 2001
by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Watch carefully how these key but sneaky Republican leaders (RINOs) such as Senator Lindsey Graham of SC and Senator John McCain of AZ will try to cleverly game this new initiative of theirs to make it look like on the surface that it appears they are trying to work on the very real "anchor baby" problem in the USA. But while they overtly say they are trying to correctly define who is a "born a Citizen of the United States" per the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to solve this "anchor baby" problem, they covertly in the process will also be trying to confuse the 14th Amendment part of the Constitution with another part of the Constitution, i.e., who is a "natural born Citizenship of the United States" as required in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, the Presidential eligibility clause. Watch them speak and how they switch Citizenship terms in mid-sentence and use them interchangeably. These two terms and parts of the Constitution have nothing to do with each other and are in the Constitution for two different purposes. The "natural born Citizen" clause in Article II was added by John Jay and George Washington as a national security protection clause required for eligibility to serve in the singular most powerful office in our new form of government, President and Commander of the Military. It was added as a higher level of qualification standards to the existing proposed eligibility clause proposed by Hamilton to provide a "strong check" against foreign influence on any future President after the founders were gone in order that the person in that office would have no "foreign influence" claims on them via birth. They wanted all future Presidents and Commanders of the Military of the United States to have sole allegiance at birth to only the USA. Only a natural law "natural born Citizen" meets that requirement. The "natural born Citizens", as defined by natural law, are people born in the country to two citizen parents of the country, and they are by far the most populous sub-group of those who are "Citizens by birth" of a country. The remainder who are not "natural born Citizens" were made "Citizens by birth" per Statutory Laws passed by Congress such as Title 8 Section 1401, the 14th Amendment, and U.S. court decisions interpreting those laws and amendments, not always correctly. To learn more on the difference between "Citizen by birth" and being a "natural born Citizen by birth" see the historic and scholarly legal treatise by Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This legal treatise was used by the founders of our nation and framers of the U.S. Constitution to write our founding documents The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

Adjectives mean something in man-made law and in natural law. But watch how these double talking Senators interchange the two citizenship terms in the same discussion like these two terms mean the same thing. Those two terms do not mean the same thing and these two different terms are used in two different places in the U.S. Constitution for two entirely different purposes and these Senators know it. It's the old repeat the big lie long enough people will believe it routine. They are running another deception game on the American people like they did in 2008. See this article I wrote for more about the clever and deceptive cavalier interchangeable use by the Progressives and RINOs in Congress and in the media of the terms "Citizen by/at Birth" and "natural born Citizen by/at birth". These two legal terms do NOT mean the same thing. Even the U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual points this out. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

These key Republican leadership and senators KNOW there is a difference in the wording, meaning, and intent of the 14th Amendment, the Wong Kim Ark 1898 and other Supreme Court decisions, and Statutory Laws as to whose is a "Citizen of the USA", ... and the wording in Article II as to who is a "natural born Citizen of the USA". They know that those two extra adjectives have very special meaning rooted deeply in natural law. But they are going to deliberately blur the lines on purpose because of what these same Senators and both political parties did in the 2008 election, i.e., both political parties putting up candidates for President who had suspect Article II "natural born Citizen" status. Both candidates from the two major political parties for the first time in history did not meet the historic law of nations and natural law Article II meaning of the legal term of art "natural born Citizen of the United States", which is being born in the USA to two citizen parents. McCain was born in Panama and Obama's father was not a Citizen of the USA, not even an immigrant to the USA.

These self serving clever politicians have tried five (5) times legislatively since 2001 to blur the meaning of "natural born Citizen of the United States" by statute but have failed. http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-democrats-failed-to-re-define.html

Why did they do that? They did it in an attempt to provide cover to run candidates for President who would otherwise not be eligible ... McCain and Obama. And maybe to also provide cover in the future for political figures like Gov. Jindal and others who are not "natural born Citizens of the United States" to run for President without amending the Constitution first. But instead of amending Article II of the Constitution to address the issue head on, they choose to obfuscate the issue and babble and lie and confuse the electorate about it in other ways. The reason they don't want to address amending Article II as to who can be the President head-on is because they know the We the People will not allow amendment of the "natural security" eligibility clause in Article II, i.e., that the person who would be President must be a "natural born Citizen of the United States" -- be born in the USA to parents who are both Citizens of the United States.

Ignore that clause and what do you get. You get what our founders and framers feared most ... a person not innately loyal to the USA by birth ... i.e. .... OBAMA a citizen of the world sitting in the Oval Office with more concern about his homeland of Kenya and the world than he does for the USA. Obama is NOT eligible to be the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our military. Americans have very good reasons to be concerned about Obama's exact legal identify and citizenship status. He may or may not be a Citizen of the United Stated depending on where he was physically born, but he is clearly NOT a "natural born Citizen of the United States' to constitutional standards. See this essay by Attorney Mario Apuzzo for more on the history and law and Supreme Court decisions on that point. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

Man cannot redefine "natural law". These law were created by nature and nature's God. It is from natural law that our unalienable rights flow, some of which were written into the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. These corrupt politicians can try to redefine what the word "is" is. And one infamous one tried in the past to redefine what "sex" is in his political musings. But they cannot redefine common sense and the laws of nature and nature's God who created them. As Lincoln said they can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but they cannot fool all the people all the time. But these weasels in Washington DC keep trying it and will try it again, imo. And the willing and enabling and corrupt press exemplified by the "Journolist'as" will enable them to try and obfuscate the two legal terms of "born a Citizen of the United States" and "natural born Citizen of the United States". For these snakes, will try to ignore all parts of the Constitution which stand in their way of overthrowing our Constitutional Republic and turning it into a National Socialist state. Again, "natural born Citizens" are the most popular group and is a subset of the larger group of all Citizens. As per Vattel's The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, the "natural born Citizens" define the culture and very nature of a nation. It is from those 100s of millions of "natural born Citizens of the United States" that we must choose our Presidents.

See these charts and the Euler logic diagram and essay for the tools to educate others and fight back against this latest sneaky Republican Party ploy to try to work on one problem all the while hiding the real goal which is obfuscating what a "natural born Citizen of the United States" is, all the while pretending they are addressing of the "anchor baby" problem in the USA, which does indeed need to be addressed by defining the "jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

What is the solution to the "anchor babies" problem? The real and correct way to solve the "anchor baby" issue is to simply address by a new law passed by Congress defining clearly and legally what the term "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment means when it says "All those born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States". It does not take a constitutional amendment to do that! Doing that 'definition law' for a legal term in the 14th Amendment, they would solve the "anchor baby" issue without messing with "natural law" terms such as exist in Article II or having to amend the Constitution.

You see "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means far more than just geographic location of birth. Lawyers know this. Senators know this. But they must write it into a law to straighten out poorly worded court decisions and bureaucratic decisions in the last 100 years or so. That "jurisdiction" term in the 14th Amendment is the term these Senators should address and define with statutory law to solve the "anchor baby" problem which has been created by poor court decisions over the last 100 or so years to enable many more individuals to be declared Citizen of the United States when the framers of the 14th Amendment never so intended the full words of that Amendment to be so loosely interpreted.

Citizenship of the USA is a cherished and highly desired status in this world. It should be better respected and protected. If the parents of a child want their child to become a Citizen of the USA they should legally emigrate to the USA and establish legal residency and become themselves Citizens of the USA, swearing sole allegiance to the USA via naturalization, and thus for their children in the right and proper legal way. They should not just be able to fly here from Brazil, have the baby in the USA, and then return home to Brazil and have that child be considered a U.S. citizen, a child who will grow up with little or no allegiance to the USA in return for the protection U.S. citizenship provides. Likewise two illegal alien Mexicans crossing the border into Texas and having the baby in Texas, that child should not automatically be considered a Citizen of the United States. With Citizenship of the USA comes the protection of the most powerful nation on earth. But in return for that protection, the nation expects full and sole allegiance to the USA. These "anchor babies" and their alien parents do not give that in return for the protection they seek in the Citizen of the U.S. status by their gaming the system as it is now operating.

Also, another key point when you listen to these obfuscating Senators speak on TV. Please note that the words "natural born Citizen of the United States" are not in the 14th amendment despite what the obfuscating politicians will try to imply or even say at times with a lying but straight face. The 14th amendment did not modify or amend Article II and did not modify or amend what the meaning of the natural law legal term of art "natural born Citizen of the United States" means.

Senator Graham is taking the lead on this because he trying to provide cover for his good friend and buddy Senator McCain on the "natural born Citizen" problem that Senator McCain had in the 2008 election and still has. This is all part of the continuing cover up of what the political parties did in the fraudulent Presidential election of 2008. The fix was in for the 2008 election and the cover up continues.

No Senator Lindsey Graham (good buddy RINO and right hand man of the RINO-in-Chief -- Senator John McCain) ... the proper way to fix the "anchor baby" problem in the USA is by passing a new law by Congress to define what the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment means, ... not to try and amend the Constitution or to blur the meaning of other legal terms in other parts of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our land and Republic.

The national security "natural born Citizen" clause in the eligibility requirements as to who can serve as President and Commander of our Military is very important and worth preserving. But if it is to be changed it should be proposed to be changed directly and head-on to try and convince the American people and 3/4th of the several states to do it, not by political subterfuge and obfuscation and hiding that objective within another stated initiative addressing our out of control border situation and lax and improper laws in granting birth Citizenship in this country. We don't need need double talking congressional secret purpose "earmarks" hanging on a proposed new change in the laws for one purpose, fixing the misinterpretations of the intent of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, to be secretly trying to amend or usurp another part of the Constitution, the national security protection afforded by the Article II presidential eligibility clause requiring natural law "natural born Citizenship" status for those who would be President and Commander in Chief.

America, we need to wake up and see what the Progressives in both parties are doing to damage our Constitutional Republic form of government in their continued efforts to usurp and/or ignore the Constitution. We are in great danger of losing our freedom and liberty if the trend in Washington DC continues much longer. If we allow these power hungry Progressives in both national parties to blatantly ignore the black letter law of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 they will eventually blatantly ignore every single part of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights and we will live in total tyranny. All the Dem Progressives and RINO Progressives should be voted out of office at the earliest opportunity. And the usurper Obama needs to be removed from the office he usurps. And those that participated in this illegality in allowing a usurper into the Oval Office and the continuing cover up to allow him to stay there need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the U.S. Constitution for what they have done.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. Do you want to do something to help the cause? Cast your votes to help the effort to get Attorney Apuzzo on the air with Judge Andres Napolitano to discuss the "natural born Citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution. Here are the two links to visit and click on the Vote button and case 3 votes at each link.

1st: Vote for Mario to be a Guest: Please add your vote here to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue. Here is the link to vote for Mario: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-

2nd: Vote for "natural born Citizenship" as a Show Topic: Please add your vote for this new TV Show topic suggested by JTX at the Judge Andrew Napolitano "Freedom Watch" TV show suggestion forum. Vote for the new show topic idea at this link:
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/969299-natural-born-citizen-meaning-in-natural-law-s?ref=title
####

AD - "Citizen vs Natural Born Citizen"- it's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with Obama's Exact Citizenship Status-Wash Times Natl Wkly-Mon 08 Feb 2010-pg 15

AD - "Citizen vs. Natural Born Citizen" -  it's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with Obama's Exact Citizenship Status - Washington Times National Weekly - Monday 08 Feb 2010 Issue - pg 15:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26563415/Citizen-v-natural-born-Citizen-It-s-Don-t-Ask-Don-t-Tell-20100208-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-15 

Many people do not know there is a difference between a "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen." Being a "Citizen" of any type, whether an Article II natural born Citizen, 14th Amendment born Citizen, 14th Amendment naturalized Citizen, or statutory born Citizen under a Congressional Act, means you are a member of the society and entitled to all its rights and privileges. But under our Constitution to serve in the singular most powerful office in our government, that is to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of our Constitution you need to be a "natural born Citizen." Being a "natural born Citizen" cannot be conveyed by any laws of man and can only be conveyed by the facts of nature at the time of your birth and circumstances of your birth, i.e., being born in the country to two citizens of the country. (Legal Treatise "The Law of Nations - Principles of Natural Law" Section 212 by E. Vattel 1758, SCOTUS Decision Venus 1814, SCOTUS Decision Minor v Happersett 1874). This new advertorial is designed to help educate the public pictorially about the fact that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and thus is ineligible under our Constitution to the office he sits in. Obama is a Usurper who was allowed to be put there by millions in foreign money, a corruptly led Congress, and an enabling main stream media. This is a constitutional crisis and a national security concern that must be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court or our Republic, Constitution, and Liberties are in great danger.

Obama is hiding the truth from the People with an enabling media and is refusing to answer questions on his Article II constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the military. In fact he said last week people should not even question him about it. With him his exact citizenship status policy is, "don't ask, don't tell" and hope it goes away. Well it is not going away. This is a constitutionally based legal eligibility question. Obama's election fraud and cover up will be revealed. The truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end and We the People will constitutionally remove the Usurper from his illegally obtained office.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ... help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/
####

New "Citizen vs. Natural Born Citizen" Pictorial Advertisement in Washington Times National Weekly - pg 5 - Monday 16 Nov 2009 Issue

New "Citizen vs. Natural Born Citizen" Full Page, Full Color, Pictorial Advertisement in Washington Times National Weekly - pg 5 - Monday 16 Nov 2009 Issue:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22586923/Citizen-vs-Natural-Born-Citizen-Advertorial-in-20091116-Issue-of-Wash-Times-National-Weekly

Many people do not know there is a difference between a "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen." Being a "Citizen" of any type, whether an Article II natural born Citizen, 14th Amendment born Citizen, 14th Amendment naturalized Citizen, or statutory born Citizen under a Congressional Act, means you are a member of the society and entitled to all its rights and privileges. But under our Constitution to serve in the singular most powerful office in our government, that is to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of our Constitution you need to be a "natural born Citizen." Being a "natural born Citizen" cannot be conveyed by any laws of man and can only be conveyed by the facts of nature at the time of your birth and circumstances of your birth, i.e., being born in the country to two citizens of the country. (Legal Treatise "The Law of Nations - Principles of Natural Law" Section 212 by E. Vattel 1758, SCOTUS Decision Venus 1814, SCOTUS Decision Minor v Happersett 1874). This new advertorial is designed to help educate the public pictorially about the fact that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and thus is ineligible under our Constitution to the office he sits in. He is a Usurper who was allowed to be put there by millions in foreign money, a corruptly lead Congress, and an enabling main stream media. This is a constitutional crisis and a national security concern that must be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court or our Republic, Constitution, and Liberties are in great danger.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ... help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

P.S. A special thanks to "Erica" at the http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/ site for the concept and idea.
###

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC). Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT identically equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC) at Birth.

Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

by: Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)

http://www.protectourliberty.org

While a natural born Citizen is obviously a Citizen at birth, not all Citizens at birth are natural born Citizens at birth. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal. All "natural born Citizens" are Citizens at birth but not all Citizens are "natural born Citizens" at birth. If you cannot grasp that logic concept then try this analogy, "all trees are plants but not all plants are trees".

There are five types of Citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. All Citizens have equal rights as a member of the society but not all Citizens have the privilege and legal eligibility requirements to be the President and Commander in Chief of the Military under Article II of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation.

There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401 that addresses "natural born Citizenship". The law addresses basic "Citizenship at Birth", i.e., who is a "Citizen by Birth", (which is needed under various situations and conditions of a child's birth spelled out in Section 1401) which requires such a man-made act of law to grant the Citizenship by an act of Congress, i.e., naturalized at birth by act of Congress. USC 1401 does not grant “natural born Citizenship" to anyone. Natural born Citizens do not need man-made laws to grant them Citizenship. The facts of nature of their birth do that. The legal term of art “natural born Citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Title 8 Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “Citizen” or a “National” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., a basic "Citizen at birth", i.e., a person entitled to the rights and privileges of membership in the society of our nation under our Constitution, the supreme and fundamental law of our nation. The Section 1401 law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law, not by nature. The legal term of art “Citizen at birth” is not the same legally as the legal term of art “natural born Citizen”. Simply note that in one case we are talking about who is at least an ordinary, basic “Citizen” at birth with no adjectives in front of the word Citizen, and in the other case we have two very important adjectives placed in front of the word Citizen by the framers of the Constitution, i.e., “natural born” Citizen. Since that term was used in the Constitution only once in Article II for singular most powerful office in our new federal government, the framers intended that it have special meaning. And the source of that meaning is written down and well known by legal scholars. That specific type of citizenship and "legal term of art" natural born Citizen was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise "The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law", published in 1758, in which he said that ... a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country. And this group or class of citizens are the most populous group of any nation. They do not need statutory law to be considered Citizens of the nation. Nature and the facts of their birth in the country to two Citizen parents granted that to them, not Congress.

Most citizens of the USA are natural born citizens. Most citizens of the USA were born in the USA to two parents who were citizens of the USA. And that is the pool of citizens that must be chosen from for the singular most powerful office in our nation, the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. Simple citizenship at birth by being born in the USA without regard to the citizenship status of both your parents ... or by naturalization and swearing an oath to this country and renouncing all allegiances foreign kings, princes, and potentates later as an adult, is adequate for the offices of Senator, Representative, or a Governor of a state. But it is not sufficient to be the President under Article II, to Constitutional standards. Article II requires that the person to be eligible to be President must be a "natural born Citizen". And that means that person must be born in the USA ... AND ... both his parents must be citizens of the USA.

Natural born citizenship status in a nation is granted by the facts of nature of your birth. No law or statute is necessary to grant it. The nations can make any law they wish to make a person a citizen at birth or later. But natural born citizenship can only be conveyed by nature by the facts at birth of the child. If you are born in the country of two citizen parents you are "naturally" ... a "natural born Citizen" … a citizen too … but a specific kind of citizen who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military since the child when born has sole allegiance to this country and there is no claim on him/her by a foreign country or power as to their citizenship at birth by that country too. Natural born Citizens have unity of citizenship at birth. A natural born Citizen is NOT a dual citizen at birth. A natural born Citizen has no divided loyalty issues by his birth since the child was born in the country to two citizens of the country.

See this chart showing the five types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S Constitution:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/

And "natural born Citizens" are not rare in the USA. The "natural born Citizens" are by far the most populous group in the nation. And it from this group, under Article II of our Constitution, we are to choose our President and Commander-in-Chief, the group with sole allegiance at birth to the USA and only the USA, not someone who has foreign and/or dual citizenship and divided loyalties at and by birth.

Obama's father was not a citizen of the USA, nor was he an immigrant to the USA, nor was he even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject via his British Subject father, per the British Nationality Act of 1948 which governed the status of children born to British Subjects. Obama thus was born with dual citizenship and allegiances and a foreign claim on his allegiance. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA and he is not eligible to be the President under Article II of our U.S. Constitution. He is a Usurper.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al
Help the Cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

The intent and purpose of the amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”

The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.

Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”

As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States.

The issue of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote “natural born Citizen” into Article II is surely ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to determine. The issue is one of first impression and the Supreme Court needs to decide it. The national security and survival of the United States as conceived by the Founders are at stake. Because of the utter failure of our political and media institutions to give proper and honest attention to this issue, only the highest court in the land can now come to the aid of the Kerchner plaintiffs and We the People.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 (HR1868) Does Not Nor Can It Make Anyone a "Natural Born Citizen." It Adds Conditions for Citizenship by Birth.

Congressman Nathan Deal (R-Georgia) has recently introduced in the House the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. The bill is included on the OpenCongress.org web site at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1868/show. The summary of the bill at the site states the following:

“OpenCongress Summary: This bill would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as natural born citizen. Under the bill, only children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a legal permanent resident, or an undocumented immigrant serving in the military would be considered citizens.”

This summary contains a very serious error. It states that “Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as natural born citizen” (emphasis supplied). This is not a correct statement of the law.

Any legal statement referring to citizenship is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts. The former refers only to “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . .” and the latter only to “citizen.” There is absolutely no mention in the amendment or statutes of a “natural born Citizen.” There also is no Supreme Court decision that says that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is the same as an Article I, II, III, and IV and Fourteenth Amendment “Citizen.”

There is a critical difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.” The Constitution itself does not tell us what a “natural born Citizen” is. Hence, we simply cannot just apply the term to a given situation. Rather, we have to construe from the Constitution itself and other extrinsic sources such as historical events, constitutional debates, congressional debates, case law, statutes, and any other relevant information what the Framers meant by the term. The Constitution uses both “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” It uses “Citizen of the United States” in Article II’s grandfather clause, giving such a citizen the right to be President, but only if born prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It even says that a President must be a “natural born Citizen” (implying from birth) and a Senator or Representative need only be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 and 7 years, respectively (a fortiori showing that he/she could be a naturalized citizen). Basic rules of constitutional construction tell that the terms are not interchangeable. These rules also tell us that in construing the Constitution, special meaning must be given to the words “natural born.” We must give meaning to the Framer’s use of the words “natural born.”’

The Constitution does not state that Congress has the power to determine and define what a “natural born Citizen” is. It is important to note that the Framers did not write in Article II “natural born Citizen of the United States,” but rather just wrote “natural born Citizen.” Why did they omit “of the United States” which they appended to the word “Citizen” when using that term? When the Framers included into Article II “natural born Citizen,” they used the definition of the term as established by the law of nations which the heavily relied upon in drafting the Constitution. The law of nations, which followed the jus sanguinis tradition, was based on natural law that had been accepted by the international community since time immemorial. Hence, a “natural born Citizen” did not need any artificial territorial boundary as part of its definition. Of course, it was understood that such a citizen would belong to the civil society or country called the United States of America. The definition from the law of nations became part of American common law and that definition was that a “natural born citizen” was one that was born in the country to a mother and father who were also citizens of the country. Our U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this definition when it stated: “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.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1874). It is clear from the language used that the Supreme Court borrowed its concept of what a “natural born Citizen was from Vattel. See Vattel, The Law of Nations Sec. 212-33. It is also important to note that the Supreme Court said that the Framers were “familiar” with this principle.

The Framers did not give Congress any power to change this natural law definition, for to do so would have been contrary to natural law and would have given Congress the power to decide who can be President which the Framers did not trust it to have. Rather, the Framers gave Congress in Article I, Section 8 the Constitutional power to make uniform the naturalization laws which means it could determine and define what a “Citizen” is as that term is used in Article I, II, III, and IV. Congress has used this power throughout American history and used it to define who are U.S. nationals and citizens at birth. Other than the 1790 Naturalization Act (which "natural born" language was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act-see my post on this blog concerning these two early Acts), Congress never defined a "natural born Citizen" nor can it. Just to mention some of the many more existing examples, in 1866, Congress passed the Act of 1866, Sect. 1992 US Revised, which was designed to allow blacks to be citizens. The law provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power . . . are declared to be citizens of the United States.” In 1924, Congress also passed a law making all Indians United States citizens. Current citizenship and nationality Congressional statutes may be found at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 and 1409. By making such individuals citizens at birth, Congress simply obviates their need to be naturalized. But Congress’s definitions are driven by the political influences and environment of the day and, as can be seen from the many changes Congress has made to who can be a U.S. “citizen,” can change direction like the wind. Indeed, Congress can naturalize and de-naturalize individuals if perceived to be warranted because of political and military interests as some countries have done in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalized_citizen. Hence, these definitions do not and cannot change natural law which is the basis for the meaning “natural born Citizen.” One cannot be made a "natural born Citizen" through legislation. Only a constitutional amendment would suffice to specifically change the meaning of "natural born Citizen" or generally change the requirements to be President of the United States.

H.R. 1868's purpose is to stop the "anchor baby" syndrome. By doing so, it is restricting the open license of current U.S. policy on what is U.S. birthright citizenship. Because of the continuing wrong interpretation given to the U.S. Supreme decision of Court Wong Kim Ark, now even if both parents are illegal aliens and with some rare exceptions (children of ambassadors or of invading military soldiers), their children born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens (jus soli). The bill, by telling us under what condition the child born on U.S. soil will be considered as being "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," would require at least one of the parents to be (1) a citizen or national of the U.S.; (2) a Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) who resides in the U.S.; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. armed forces. By adding this additional element (modified jus sanguinis), the bill clarifies that birthright citizenship is not only based on being born on U.S. soil but also on the nationality/military status of at least one of the parents. Through such a law, Congress would also be telling us that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” does mean more than the incorrect and ludicrous notion that it means that the child simply needs to be born on U.S. soil. By not requiring both parents to be citizens of the U.S., the bill does not require the United States to have complete and absolute jurisdiction over the child in order for that child to be a “Citizen.” Being completely and absolutely subject to that jurisdiction would make the child an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for such a child has at birth sole and exclusive allegiance to the United States by enjoying unity of citizenship at birth. See my post on this blog on unity of citizenship. Not being completely and absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (i.e. born with dual or more citizenship) makes the child born on U.S soil only a “Citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment as it has since been interpreted by our courts.

Hence, the bill is correct in calling any child born under its reach only a “citizen” but as I have explained the bill’s summary is not in calling such a child a “natural born Citizen.” The bill does not require that both parents be United States citizens at the time of the child's birth on U.S. soil which is the correct definition of a "natural born citizen" under the law of nations, which the Founding Fathers relied upon in drafting the constitution and the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II. Hence, the bill is not declaring these children Article II "natural born Citizens." See my article on the meaning of Article II "natural born citizenship."

In short, under the bill any baby born on U.S. soil who does not have at least one qualifying parent, will not automatically be a U.S. citizen at the time of birth. Hence, the bill would put a stop to those mothers who sneak across the border into the U.S. or enter the U.S. with a visitor visa or some other non-immigrant visa and have a child here. After all, if the woman is pregnant, what is she doing traveling internationally and entering a foreign country (the U.S.A) at a time when she could be giving birth to a child? Are those mothers who enter the U.S. with a visitor or other non-immigrant visa telling the immigration authorities that they are entering the U.S. during a late stage of their pregnancy? Who is paying for that woman's pre- and post-partum health care provided in U.S. hospitals? The bill will also prevent those alien mothers who are already in the U.S. illegally for some time and who have the baby with a non-U.S citizen or non-resident who is also not in any U.S. military service from giving birth to a child in the U.S. and having that child be declared a U.S citizen. Also, those children who are born on U.S. soil to foreign parents acquire under the citizenship laws of their parent’s home country dual or triple allegiances by inheriting their parent’s nationality or citizenship through descent. To some of these children as they grow older, such dual allegiance might mean something to them politically or militarily. Making that class of children a U.S. citizen and giving them the right to vote could someday put in jeopardy U.S. political sovereignty and Constitutional values. If the American people are happy with these choices, then so be it. But they at least have to be informed of these possible consequences so their decision is knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. Additionally, under the current system of birthright citizenship, we hear how the U.S. is cold and vicious because it separates families by removing (formerly called deporting) the illegal parents back to their home countries while allowing their U.S. citizen children to stay in the U.S. with other legal natural or foster families. At least, if one of the parents is here legally and married to the other foreign parent, that legal parent can potentially petition for the foreign parent to become a legal permanent resident and eventually a U.S. citizen and thereby family unity will be achieved.

Thus, the bill summary should be reworded as it is not correct to say the bill is addressing "natural born citizenship." It is addressing statutory "citizenship at birth" which is an entirely different legal term of art. The Congress, when debating this bill, should for posterity's sake be made to state its position in the public record on the question of whether it believes there is a difference between a 14th Amendment born “citizen of the United States” and an Article II "natural born Citizen." This issue is critical to the question of who is eligible to be President under Article II. While Congress's debate and opinion will not be binding on any court of law, at least their opinion and rationale will provide some guidance for the courts and the public.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Also, please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship
and Sole Allegiance At Birth

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.

Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel's, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.

Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate's character and qualifications to be President.

Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers' meaning of what a "natural born Citizen" is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the Third Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.

The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the "natural born Citizen" clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

####

For more about what Obama wants to hide about citizenship laws and his citizenship issues see:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

####

DISCUSSION3: Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - Discussion Thread #3

NEW THREAD: I have hereby started a new discussion thread (#3) for Kerchner v Obama with this posting. Please use this new thread for the continuing discussion on the ongoing issue of "natural born citizenship" as per the Constitutional standards and the intent of the founders and framers. Also, please use this thread to ask questions or post comments about Kerchner v Obama. For your convenience, I have provided a link below to the Amended Complaint posted at SCRIBD.com. There you can read and download it to aid in discussing the case.

Case Doc Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/

The Rules: Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in the case threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this case. Unsubstantiated statements which I determine are false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts of this case, repetitive, argumentative, personal attacks, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics of the case as to my planned tactics or strategies for pursuing this case. That will be only be revealed at the appropriate time in subsequent court filings and in the hearings or trial. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on this case, it may be several hours to 1/2 a day at times before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Thank you for your kind consideration of the purpose of the blog posts about Kerchner v Obama and for your comments.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: appuzzo [AT] erols.com
Tel: 732-521-1900
Fax: 732-521-3906