Saturday, January 10, 2009


Article II "natural born Citizen" is a word of art. In our quest to determine what it means when applied to a candidate’s eligibility to be President, we have to consider the particular context or knowledge environment out of which it originated. That means that we have to go back to the context and political and social environment in which the Founders and Framers found themselves. In this endeavor, we must first recognize that the term is found in our Constitution, a document that cannot be so simply changed because of the changing winds of political opinion. Next, we must look to the surrounding political and social circumstances with which the Framers were faced.

During the founding, "natural born Citizen" meant the same thing as "native born citizen." It is only in later years that the the term "native born citizen" came to mean a child born in the United States without any reference to the citizenship of his or her parents. The term was so used to distinguish a born citizen from a naturalized citizen. But use of the word "native" in this sense caused it to no longer mean the same thing as "natural born Citizen." In this modern context, "natural born Citizen" means much more than "native born citizen," for the former also has a connection to the child's parents and not just to the soil on which the child was born. The connection to the parents is of utmost importance because a child to a great degree "inherits" his/her values, condition, and allegiance from his/her parents. Knowing who a child's parents are tells us a great deal (of course not all) about the child in this connection. Put all together, this vital information helps the people to know who their would-be leader is and place their trust and national security in his hands. See Oxford English Dictionary for the definitions of "natural born" and "native born."

Finally, we must keep in mind that Article II only provides for threshold eligibility standards which are only the minimum requirements to be President. It does not make any further value judgments. Hence, once a would-be candidate satisfies the strict standard of what a "natural born Citizen" is, i.e., born on U.S. soil or its equivalent under military circumstances to two U.S. citizen parents who have acquired that status by birth or naturalization, it is still up to the people to vote for that individual based on their perception of what that candidate stands or does not stand for. In other words, there are no value judgments made by the people when it comes to a Presidential candidate's Constitutional eligibility requirements, for the Constitution has already given the people what those requirements are. Once that candidate shows the people through objective, credible, and sufficient evidence that he/she meets those minimum Constitutional eligibility requirements, the rest is in the hands of the people.

© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

January 10, 2009

Amended on November 16, 2009


daddynoz said...

Thank you for your adamant support of this constitutional crisis.

I certainly believe in the "cause" and have offered my unique standing before the court to that of Drs. Berg and Orly.

My two cents...

Ted said...

The nation owes more than thanks to three unlikely modern day patriots: professional poker player, musician, and retired attorney, Leo Donofrio; life long Democrat and former Pennsylvania assistant attorney general, Phil Berg; and Soviet emigree and attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz (she’s also a dentist).

While Mr. Donofrio painstakingly established the airtight case that BHO could not be an Article II “natural born citizen” (at BHO’s birth, dad was British/Kenyan, not American, citizen) Leo’s Stay of the 12/15/08 electoral college vote was denied by SCOTUS as procedurally unripe.

Nevertheless, since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress — rendering moot the Berg and Taitz (Lightfoot) cases — Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the Friday 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference Friday 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case Friday 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.

Now that BHO is in checkmate and cannot be POTUS, he can be a patriot as well. He need not subject the nation to the expense and trauma of requiring SCOTUS to overrule his ‘Presidency’. BHO can and should voluntarily step down with Biden becoming Acting POTUS under the 20th Amendment, and under the agreement all potential claims by the Government for itself and on behalf of others against BHO are released.

daddynoz said...

Ted, what can I say...I wish this reality did reflect certain truths, one of which was Mr. Obama was a man of integrity and considered the needs of Nation and its' citizenry superior to his own political aspirations.

Anonymous said...

Mario - I have a question and would love a simple answer. All over the blogs, there are varying opinions and predictions for what the SCOTUS decisions mean. If even lawyers can't agree on the interpretation, how the heck is the average citizen going to process the information? What is your educated opinion on what SCOTUS is or isn't doing?

Anonymous said...

In all the cases that SCOTUS has ruled upon so far, the petitioners have lacked standing. Unless a petitioner has standing (someone who was a candidate in the election), expect the same for future rulings.

As for the Keyes/Lightfoot petitions, while they have standing, they have been unable to state a cause of action, that is, specify the state law that was violated by the named defendants/respondents. So they too will lose in SCOTUS, especially since SCOTUS does not tell states how to interpret their own laws (unless the state law violates federal law, but that has not been done either).