Monday, May 18, 2009

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

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 First 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 their allegiance for 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]
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906

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].

For more about what Obama wants to hide about citizenship laws and his citizenship issues see:


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Continued from prior thread.

RX posted and said:

It's just so obvious to any clear thinker.

Article II Section 1 Natural "Born" Citizen is one who is born with no allegiance or citizenship other than to the U.S.

Furthermore, there was only 1 definition for Natural Born Citizen (specifically, word for word) during the founding of our Country and the framing of our Constitution. That of Vattel's. The framers were obviously familiar with Vattel's work, even openly reading it during the Constitutional Convention itself.

Thanks again Mario for your brilliant analysis on this most critical issue that must be addressed for the greater good of our country and our Constitution.

Please keep fighting the good fight!


mtngoat61 said...

Hi all,

An online article titled, "Obama Presidential Eligibilty - An Introductory Primer", by Stephen Tonchen. Publius Goat

Tobias said...

Doesn't both parents have to be citizens for you to be a natural born citizen?

mtngoat61 said...

Natural Born Citizen defined - Universal Truth & Natural Law

To be a natural born citizen one has to be born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country -- natural law codified by Vattel in his 1758 legal treatise, The Law of Nations. Natural law is based on widely and internationally accepted universal truths.

Being born in the USA is a necessary component but Not Sufficient by itself.

Having two parents who are Citizen of the USA when the child is born is a necessary component but Not Sufficient by itself.

Being born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country is the only state of nature and facts which meets the universal truth of being a natural born citizen of the country at birth.

Being born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country is the "universal truth" and Law of Nations definition of the historical meaning of the legal term of art "natural born citizen" when the framers inserted it into the Constitution in Article II as part of the minimum eligibility requirements for the office of President & Commander-in-Chief. For the other branches of the new federal government being a simple Citizen was sufficient. But for the singular most powerful office in our new federal government, the framers wanted the person holding that office to have deeper roots in the country than required for Senators and House members ... by requiring the child's both parents to have allegiance only to the USA via those parents having been born here or being naturalized in the USA if they were immigrants ... AND .... that the child of theirs had to be physically born in the USA in order that the child could someday become the President & Commander-in-Chief. In order words the child has to be a 2nd generation American via both parents. This is the only way under "natural law" and the "universal truths" innate in that natural law, that the person in the office will have sole allegiance at birth and no claim on him at birth by any foreign power. A child born in that state of nature, in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country, meets the "universal truth" test and "natural law" as having only one country and one allegiance and no divided loyalties at birth. That is what the country's founders and framers intended for all future Presidents of the USA after their founding generation which fought to create the new Republic was gone from this earth.

Universal truths were self evident to our founders and framers. Only now has the progressive movement slowly been changing the meaning of words and universal truths of natural law passed down over the millenniums since time immemorial.

M Publius Goat
Goat's Ledge

cfkerchner said...

My email 6/19 to Glenn Beck:

I just finished reading your new book, Common Sense. You are correct. There is something very wrong in America. There’s a suppressed under-current of frustration and great distrust in our current government like we've never seen before.

And I know what it is. Both political parties and Congress betrayed the Constitution in the last election. The 800# gorilla in the room is that no one, including you, is willing to openly talk in the national media about the trampling of Article II of our Constitution, that is, the Obama eligibility issue under Article II of our Constitution to constitutional standards.

Obama has totally, cleverly ignored it with progressive changing the meaning of historic legal terms of art in that document. As you wrote they changed the meaning of "public use" to "public benefit". Now Obama wants the legal term of art "natural born citizen" the same meaning as "citizen at birth" or "native born citizen".

People want to talk about this issue. It needs to be discussed and fully aired to a national audience and not with the ridicule it is given on MSNBC. Obama has no respect for our Constitution and wants to destroy it or severely limit its power. He could be a Fascist in grooming.

If you start talking about the eligibility issue, people will rally to you to learn more. Explore the historical intent and meaning of the term "natural born citizen" in Article II of our Constitution. The 2 words "natural born" were put there for a reason. They are not synonymous with today's "native born". Study Vattel. He defined the natural born term in 1758. This issue needs to be openly discussed. Article II "natural born citizenship" is not synonymous with 14th Amendment "born" citizenship. Natural born in not mentioned in the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment did not change or modify Article II. Read the 1874 Supreme Court Minor v Happersett decision on the meaning of "natural born citizen" of which there is no doubt. Also read the Perkins v Elg decision of 1939 by the Supreme Court. The progressives have tried to change the meaning of Article II to equal the 14th Amendment but they are not the same.

Tonchen Essay

Print out and review this table and the legal references and check them out:
Citizenship Terms

Read these essays:
Article II Natural Born Citizenship

The Birthers

Add the book, "The Law of Nations", by Emmerich Vattel, published originally in 1758 to your reading list. Especially Book/Vol 1 and the chapter therein on citizenship of a nation. Particular chapter 19. This book was used extensively by the founders and framers of our country for inspiration in writing the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. In fact the quote you cited in the Declaration of Independence, "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is directly from Vattel. Much of the concepts in our Constitution are derived from Vattel and the need for a written constitution as the supreme law of the land. That all came from Vattel. Add it to your reading list, particularly Chapter 19, Section 212.

I agree with you that violence is not the way to resolve it. The solution is to public air the issue and call for hearings in Congress that should have been held last year, just like they did for McCain last year on his citizenship issues, but never did for Obama. I have taken action in a non-violent way in the legal system. I need public support to discuss this more openly. Will you offer it? Here is a link to my lawsuit.


A one page summary of it is attached (linked) as a PDF file:
Washington Times

Congratulations on your book.

Charles Kerchner
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Anonymous said...

You, Sir, Mr. Kirchner, are so right on the ball with your quest to have one of the most righteous lawsuits placed on a US President about his eligibility birthrights I've ever heard. I sanction your rights to keep after this compelling and most worthy suit to finally discover the truth about this President, Mr. B. Hussein Obama. I, and a lot of other people, are behind you as we will keep vigilant in watching these proceedings take place, and hopefully will come full circle. We, The People, of the United States of America, have a right to know if this President is eligible to be in the position of the highest office of this country, and if he's not, then I believe that all of us are in grave danger, physically and mentally, so that clause about without "standing" should prove to the courts that we actually are in mental and physical anguish over this President. I believe that Obama is NOT eligible, by all the secrecy he's been using to avoid this so obvious question. And I believe the Supreme Courts and the Congress of the United States was not fair in investigating Sen. McCain's eligibility and not Mr. Obama's! That proves their fear of being labled "racist" in fear of what Obama would do if acted against. This is clearly an issue that needs full attention, and needs closure and until we get full closure, this issue will need to continue on its course within the fullest extent of the law. I thank you, Mr. Kirchner, in your process to defend our U.S. Constitution for which you've shown us that this document is the highest law in the land, not Obama's!

Chief said...

The following is a letter I recently sent to several major media editors, it is reflective of the issue and I believe if the judge is interested in protecting our constitution he will rule against the motion to dismiss and proceed to trial.

To the Editors -- I am very concerned, and am learning I am not alone, that the sitting president is an interloper and usurper to the office.

Obama has never produce a long form birth certificate, to prove he is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States of America. When he decides to provide the long form certificate it will, maybe, show evidence that he is a "citizen", and that would only be possible if his mother because of her age at his birth could bestow U.S. Citizenship. To date Obama has spent an estimated $900,000.00, or more keeping his vital records sealed from the public and those that have a need to know; interestingly presidents are not required to have a security clearance to be privileged to confidential and secret United States information. Why?

The United States Constitution is very clear in Article II that the only person eligible to be president or vice president be a "Natural Born Citizen". The framers were clear in their intention when framing the constitution to make sure 1) the United States would be a Republic, not a democracy, and 2) that the President of the United States and Commander in Chief would be a "Natural Born Citizen", with the exception of the first few presidents whom they exempted because of the early citizens would have had problems meeting that standard so early in the history of the United States. The framers took much of the framing from Vattel's Law of Nations, and intended his interpretation of "Natural or Native Born Citizen when writing Article II.

Obama can not meet the requirements for "Natural Born Citizen"; his father was Kenyan, by his own admission, and a British Crown Subject at the time of Obama's birth; therefore Obama citizenship at birth was as a British Crown Subject; this he could have renounced at the age of majority; there is no evidence that ever happened, and if he had done so he could have then claimed his US Citizenship or applied for naturalization; again there is not evidence thereto.

All of this is enough to provide reasonable doubt in his eligibility, without going into his Indonesian history; which is another story of Obama's assorted life.

The United States Senate found it necessary to provide a resolution on McCain's birth abroad in Panama to two United States Citizens on a military base; and in that resolution it was stated that he was born of two United States Citizens, and therefore qualified.

Why did the Senate find that necessary to pass that resolution, on McCain's as a "Natural Born Citizen" and give Obama a complete pass when he obviously could not meet the same standard at birth? Interestingly Senator Obama voted "yes" on the resolution; what hypocrisy.

I have much more to say on this issue, but this is enough for now. I really do not understand why the media is avoiding this issue; when there are several pending lawsuits across the country; and some that were dismissed, but others very viable

niki069a said...

The only thing his COLB would prove if he is a U.S. Citizen that alone will not allow him to run for president, his father was a British Subject never applied for citizenship. I personally feel the reason he is paying all those legal fees to supress his records because he may even be a U.S. Citizen and we might have an alien in the oval office, he's a danger to the security of our nation, and has to be removed before he cause more damage .

Wordwaryor said...

Most if not all of the states post the qualification for President for candidates seeking access to the state ballot. But unbelievably and astoundingly, NOT one single state actually requests or requires documented proof of meeting the eligibility requirements.

A document was sent to electors notifying them of the eligibility issue, and advising them of their rights and duty to seek proof of eligibility. All were ignored.

Letters were sent to Congressmen, Senators, and even V.P Dick Cheney asking them to seek proof of eligibility before certifying the electoral votes. All were ignored.

Courts were asked to intervene via litigation to seek documented proof of eligibility. All of them punted.

Thus the system is BROKEN. And ALL American citizens have been DEPRIVED and DEFRAUDED of the protection written into the Constitution by our forefathers against an illegal or ineligible or usurper President.

Those who voted against Obama have been denied the protedtion, BUT those who voted FOR Obama have been denied that protection also, and they have perhaps been DEFRAUDED even more than those who voted against.

I have written a letter to the two judges in Camden NJ, on this very issue pleading with them to hear this case and to seek discovery of eligibility documentation.


Wordwaryor said...

Most if not all of the states list the Constitution's qualifications for President for candidates seeking access to the state's ballot for election. However, astoundingly, NOT one single state actually demands or requests documented proof of eligibility before allowing candidates on the ballot.

Letters and emails were written to Congressmen and Senators asking them to seek qualification documents before certifying electoral votes. All were ignored.

Letters were written to V.P. Cheney asking him to perform his duty and seek qualification documentation. He ignored them also.

A document was sent to Electors advising them of the eligibility controversy, and of their duties to seek proof of qualification before casting their vote. They ignoredg the issue also.

Courts were asked by litigation tot intervene and to seek discovery of documentation of eligibility. All courts so far have Punted.

The system is VERY BROKEN. AND American citizens, including those who voted against Obama BUT ALSO likewise those who voted FOR Obama, are being DEPRIVED and DEFRAUDED of the protection written into the Constitution by our Forefathers against an illegal, ineligible or usurper President.

I wrote a letter to the two judges in Camden NJ, telling them this fact, and pleading with them to hear this case and to seek eligibility documentation.

I just hope that this court still answers to the Constitution and listens to the people.

A Proud Dissenter of the United Socialist States of Obama.


Unknown said...

Random reasonings from Virginia:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Standing or locus standi is the term for ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law.

Each person in this country is equal with every other. That means that Kerchner, Apuzzo, yours truly (writing this entry), inidividual members of Congress, Soetoro/Obama, Cheney and every other citizen is created equal are are endowed . . . with unalienable Rights. . .

Government it an institution—it is instituted (“to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”). It is administered by “governors” who in that position do not have standing but only have standing as citizens of the U.S.A. What is more they most certainly do not have sovereignty.

The Government—that institution comprised of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches derives its powers which are administered by (citizen-elected) “governors” from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

Each “governing” person takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution which is the sovereign law of the land formed by “We the People.” “We the People” in total, or represented by a small group of “created equal persons,” or individually are caused irreparable harm when our Constitution is violated and/or ignored.

Perhaps kings are above the law, but this is not a monarchy. In our Federal Republic, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People suffer irreparable harm because if the Constitution can be violated and/or ignored:
1.Justice cannot be established and assured
2.Domestic Tranquility cannot be insured
3.No provision for the common defence is guaranteed
4.The general Welfare is no longer a concern of the “governors”
5.The Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity which depend upholding and defending the Constitution will no long be available.

Unknown said...

Because Obama's birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, there is no question that he is not a Natural Born Citizen. The injury as I see it is this: (1) One of the guarantees of the Constitution is that the government will provide for the Common Defense. (2) Whether the population of the country is 200 million or 20, each citizen now is living with the injury that we are now vulnerable within the country of our citizenship. (3) A Usurper who cannot Constitutionally be the Commander in Chief has no authority to command our troops. (Foreign governments know this.) He has ordered our troops to conduct military operations on a foreign soil, yet we have no assurance that they will be protected by the Geneva Convention due to the illegal "authority" of the office of Commander in Chief. (4) Thus members of our military could be taken captive and decimated with no international body to which to appeal. (5) With our military in such mortal danger and perhaps even unable to return home, we no longer have the peace of mind to believe that our government can or will provide protection Constitutionally or in reality. Our present dilemma is that we are individually and corporately unprotected because the office of Commander in Chief has been usurped. (Of course, to even publish these concerns is frightening.)

Our concern is not that the Constitution has not been properly applied. It is that the Constitution has been grossly and repeatedly violated in this matter.

Chief said...

Post I

The following is an email I recently sent to Byron Dorgan, Senator ND, with a copy to Senator Conrad, Representative Pommroy and Governor John Hoeven.

Byron -- First, your duty is to the State of North Dakota and the Constitution of the United States of American; that you are failing to carry out.

I can appreciate your not wanting to revisit Obama's birthright; but, not doing so makes you complicit in his cover up of his true citizenship status.

You again state that he was born in Hawaii, and therefore he is a "Natural Born Citizen", I disagree, at best he could only be a Citizen of the United States of America, that is NOT a Native or Natural Born Citizens by any stretch of the imagination; from what legal source do did you determine he is in fact a "Natural Born Citizen"?

If you will read Article II of the United States Constitution, and then look at Vattel's Law of Nations which the founding fathers used in their drafting of the constitution you will find volumes on native-natural born citizenship.

To be born a native-natural born citizen it cannot be bestowed on any one by a act of legislation, or a court of law; this can only be by birth to two (2) United States Citizens.

I know you, along with the other members of both houses of congress as still in denial. Your candidate won, but it is not about the issue of candidates or who won it is about the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is being expensively reported that Congress was well aware of the eligibility issue before they ever came to a conformation vote. All 535 of you, because of this knowledge, were in fear of overturning the election because of the riots that would certainly have occurred; and because you did not want to be labeled Racists; while in fact ignoring your constitutional duty.

Dick Chaney was as much to fault for this occurring as was every member of the certifying congress. You all, the entire congress and President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, violated your oaths of office; by basically wimping out when you should have stood up or our constitution. It is part of your oath of office.

Now, read this, Obama, even if he was born in Hawaii, can never be a "Native-Natural Born Citizen" you cannot get there by legislation; it has to be a procreation act by two (2) already United States Citizens; that is a natural act as Vattel describes it in the Law of Nations. Therefore, even if Obama was born in Hawaii only one of his parents could have been considered a United States Citizen; One is not Two (plural). His father was a Kenyan, a British Subject, by Obama's own admission, though well documented in research, therefore there is a missing citizenship link here.

Many will argue that Common Law says otherwise, but remember this, English Common Law had no effect on US Laws or Statutes since the founding fathers did not use English Common Law as a reference tool while drafting the constitution of the United States of America; and guess why, they were throwing of the yoke of British oppression, and the King's Law.

International Law has not place in the United States Legislature or the Judicial System as much as the liberal-socialist-Marxists of this country would like it to be a deciding factor in our legal system.

Chief said...

Post II continued from Post I

By Constitutional Law none of you in congress or Dick Cheney can be held liable for your failures, and cannot be arrested or prosecuted while sitting, going and coming from congress; but you al can be held liable by the people who elect you and that my friend is coming home to roost. Also remember treason is punishable for acts or lack of acts committed in legislative sessions; and is not exempt from being carried out when discovered and prosecuted in the federal courts.

So when you tell you do not want to revisit Obama's ineligibility again, I can understand where you stand on the Constitution of the United States of American; and that you are unwilling to defend it when it does not suit your needs, or the need of the liberal/socialist agenda that has been building over the last 50 years.

For me, I am, 1st a Constitutionalist and, I believe the founding fathers had it right when the held that the legislature would try to meddle in the very constitution they were about to ratify, that they need safeguards, and they were right; 2nd I am a Capitalist/Free Enterprise/Market person; I believe that any thing congress gets there hands on they will screw it up, management by committee never works, I believe that the wealth of the nation is in its people, who when left alone will get it right, and prosper; will they fail at times, yes; but it will be their failure and learning curve; will people get hurt along the way, yes; but again it is a learning experience; will be people get taken advantage of, yes, but that is also a learning experience, and if they learn anything from the experience they won't put themselves in that position again; can the people along the way have a redress to their problems, yes, but they need to take the initiative. Congress reminds me of the father and mother who ride herd over their offsprings to the point of not letting them fail at anything, and therefore direct their entire lives; this is what congress, and the president, are doing today, and have done in the past.

Too big to fail, I don't think so, let the free market place take care of the ills of capital wrongly placed or misdirected.

So will you hear from me again, yes, will I drop the Obama eligibility issue, no; the only way you can shut me up is to restrict my access to your eamil; then I will have to resort to snail mail and pay the postage, which by the way has gone up another $.02; good management by that organization; maybe we should out source this to the United Parcel Service; they have to turn a profit or their shareholders get real excited, I believe they are a little more efficient that the USPS could ever hope to be, even with a change in management; point to ponder.

As always, I am still here.

Jim Buzzell
Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy
313 E Division Street
PO Box 456
Kenmare ND 58746