Tuesday, May 5, 2009

The President’s Sole Allegiance at Birth Serves the Best Interest of the United States

The Constitution itself does not define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Since the founding of the United States to the present, no court of any state or of the United States has decided whether a candidate for or sitting President has satisfied the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement. The Constitution itself can be looked to for clues as to what the Framers meant by the “natural born Citizen” clause. There also exists ancient Greek and Roman law; civil law; American common law; John Jay’s letter to General Washington; records of constitutional debates on the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Congressional Acts; natural law and Vattel’s legal treatise, The Law of Nations (a natural born citizen was one born in the country to parents who were both citizens; English common law allowed for the single circumstance of being born in the country to naturalize the children of a foreigner which meant they were not natural born; a child born in the country to a permanent resident became himself a permanent resident and not a citizen); Supreme Court case law; federal and state statutes; and historical precedent showing who has been President before and after 1779, which all tell us what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. The political environment in which the Framers lived (transitioning from a monarchy to a Constitutional Republic) also provides further clues to the meaning of the term. Additionally, classical international law universally condemned dual nationality. From these sources, we learn that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is one that is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens by birth or naturalization.

How we interpret the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II should be driven by what the Framers intended the term to mean, as informed by what is in the best interest of the United States and the American people. In analyzing the citizenship requirements of Article II as it pertains to being eligible to be President, we are only looking to the citizenship requirement to be President and not to the requirement to be a born citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Acts, or any other law. The Article II citizenship standard to be President is higher than that to be a born citizen of the United States under these latter provisions and laws. It is for this reason that the Founding Fathers did not use the definition of a “natural born subject” as it existed in English common law as the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Any reasonable interpretation of Article II’s Presidential eligibility clause should provide the maximum benefit to the United States and the American people whom the President will represent. The American people deserve and under the Constitution are entitled, for their safety and survival and that of the United States, to the maximum degree of protection that they can possibly have from their President.

Requiring that a would-be President is born with no allegiances other than to the United States is in the best interest of the United States and the American people. The Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison), along with Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandeis, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Felix Frankfurter, among others, have all confirmed that undivided political loyalty to the United States should be an absolute condition of citizenship. John Fonte, Dual Allegiance: A Challenge to Immigration Reform and Patriotic Assimilation, November 2005, Center for Immigration Studies.

Being born with sole allegiance to the United States requires that the child be born on United States soil to parents who are both United States citizens at the time of birth. Under such birth circumstances, the child inherits his/her citizenship from the soil of the United States and from both of his/her parents. In another post, I have referred to this joining of citizenships as “unity of citizenship.” If both parents at the time of the child’s birth are also United States citizens by birth or by naturalization, it will not be possible under any law of any other nation (e.g. laws of other nations that through jus sanguinis grant citizenship to the children born abroad to their citizens and that allow those foreign-born children to possess dual citizenship) that the child will inherit by descent from his or her parents any other nationality. Parents who are naturalized United States citizens, through the naturalization process and the oath of allegiance, have manifested their consent to be subject only to the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby cannot pass on to their child any nationality or allegiance other than that of the United States. Such a Constitutional rule assures that the child will have immediate attachment to the United States not only by being born on United States soil but also through his or her United States citizen parents. Such a rule also guarantees that no other nation has any claim to the child’s allegiance. It is that immediate and absolute attachment from birth which is the seed for future affinity and fidelity for the United States alone. That seed will also flourish and instill in the child love for and loyalty to the United States alone and impart in the child the Constitutional values handed down by the Founding Fathers to past, present, and future generations of Americans. These are qualities and values which the American people rightfully expect their President to have. This birth status in a would-be President becomes even more critical given that Article II only requires that he/she be a resident of the United States for only 14 years.

There simply is no benefit to the United States and its people in having a requirement that demands of a President anything less than absolute and sole allegiance to the United States from birth. The Executive, represented by the Office of President, is one of the three branches of Constitutional power under our Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall in the case of, The Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 116 116 (1812), said:

“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source. This consent may be either express or implied. In the latter case, it is less determinate, exposed more to the uncertainties of construction; but, if understood, not less obligatory.”

Allowing a person with dual citizenship and allegiance from birth to occupy that powerful position does nothing but weaken American constitutional and national sovereignty which in the words of Justice Marshall is absolute. With a child being born with dual nationalities and therefore dual allegiances (“nationals” include citizens and others who “owe permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(22)) , the United States would not have exclusive and absolute jurisdiction over that child upon his/her birth, the time that the Framers in Article II set to be critical to presidential eligibility. Another nation through jus sanguinis and dual citizenship provisions would also have jurisdiction over that child which would conflict with the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United States. It is not reasonable to conclude that the United States would consent not to have full and complete jurisdiction over a child who could potentially grow and some day be vested with the executive power over the nation and its military.

The Founding Fathers expected the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have the maximum attachment to the United States and to be free to the greatest degree possible of foreign influence. There is no reasonable justification for having a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President that would allow a President from birth to dilute his/her attachment, allegiance, and fidelity to the United States. Given what we know since 1795 about the Founding Fathers’ demanding absolute and sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States from naturalized citizens, it simply is not reasonable to conclude that the Founding Fathers would have written a Presidential eligibility clause that would allow an individual, born with diminished and eroded American national loyalty, to occupy the Office of President.

Dual citizenship and allegiance in a President present a host of problems for him and the nation such as potential conflicts on how a President would conduct foreign affairs, perceive what are the national security interests of the United States, exercise his political loyalty to the United States, and satisfy his military service obligations to his other nation. A sitting President could conceivably have been or be required to satisfy a military obligation to a foreign nation in threatened or actual armed conflict with the United States. Stephen H. Legomsky, Dual Nationality and Military Service: Strategy Number Two, in David A. Martin & Kay Hailbronner (eds.) (2000). There is also the significant question of whether such a President should be given a top level security clearance which the Commander in Chief of the Military must have and which is required for military officers. These conflicts may potentially exist not only in the mind of the office holder himself but also in the minds of other nations and the American public itself, who would not have full confidence in his or her allegiance and loyalty to the United States. With the phenomenon of dual nationality growing rapidly in the United States, it becomes ever more important that Courts established now and not later that our Founding Fathers in Article II established that a Presidential contender cannot be born with dual nationalities and allegiances.

How is America to credibly stress to naturalizing immigrants who since 1795 are supposed to assimilate American Constitutional and political values and transfer their full allegiance, fidelity, and political loyalty solely to the United States if our nation allows a person to be President who was born with, and boasts of his citizenship of the world and dual allegiances and citizenship, i.e., Barack Obama,?

Finally, sole allegiance to the United States at birth in order to be President is not a very discriminatory requirement and it actually allows the most populous group of Americans to be President. Natural Born Citizens having sole allegiance to the USA make up the overwhelming majority of American citizens. On the other hand, dual citizens are actually a much smaller group and special category of citizens. The founders and framers wanted future Presidents and Commander-in-Chiefs to have sole allegiance to the USA and thus specified in Article II of our Constitution that future Presidents and Commander-in-Chiefs be selected only from the ranks of Natural Born Citizens of the USA, not from the ranks of dual citizens of two or more countries.

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].


rxsid 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!

Thomas said...

I think it's important to remember that the Constitution doesn't define's not a dictionary.

THHuxley said...

You have misstated British Common Law.

Under BCL, the child of a foreigner born on British soil was "natural born," not "naturalized."

Justin W. Riggs said...


Do you have a reference?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Thank you for your comment. I did not state that the English common law provided that a child born on British soil was naturalized. Rather, what I stated was Vattel's position. I repeat here in quotes what I wrote:

". . . Vattel’s legal treatise, The Law of Nations (a natural born citizen was one born in the country to parents who were both citizens; English common law allowed for the single circumstance of being born in the country to naturalize the children of a foreigner which meant they were not natural born; a child born in the country to a permanent resident became himself a permanent resident and not a citizen). . ."

As you can see, the parenthetical information provides the reader with what Vattel's position is on the issue. It does not state what I believe the case to be.

Vattel did not believe that a person could become a citizen by simply being born on a nation's soil. He believed that by the law of nature, a child follows the condition of his father (in history including U.S. history, the wife would usually acquire the same citizenship as the husband). Hence, Vattel argued that a child inherits his citizenship from his parents and not from the soil on which the child is born. He did not believe that the place of birth created in a child that which is needed to preserve the society in which the child is born. Rather, he believed that a society cannot exist and perpetuate itself without the children of citizens of that society.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

shakes said...

Great information here Mario!!!

Joe said...

Did you get any answers on May 5?

Or is that ruling void until the Judge decides on the second request for an extention??

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


There was no requirement that the Court answer the USA/Obama's request for an extension on May 5, 2009. Their lawyer filed the extension motion with a return date of June 1, 2009, which was the next motion day. Her motion is requesting a 20-day extension (20 days from the day the judge signs the order) for all the defendants, including USA/Obama, who aready had a 15-day extension to May 5, 2009. The Congressional defendants' answers were due on April 27, 2009. I have until May 18, 2009 to file opposition.

Joe said...

I don't understand,

"including USA/Obama, who aready had a 15-day extension to May 5, 2009."

My question was did USA/Obama file an answer/response on May 5?

I guess they didn't but that's when I thought it was due.

I thought their answer was due on May 5 unless the Judge rules otherwise.

Anonymous said...


I sincerely hope you get to argue to the supreme court. you understand and explain it better than anyone. Berg does not seem to understand that both parents need to be citizens.

Please stay away from Orly. She is attacking everyone. As Mark McGrew said we need to drop lawyers like Orly who attack other lawyers as if she is a hot potato and have nothing to do with her. I agree.

I have been a strong supporter of Orly but she keeps breaking the laws. that is not good for our movement.

anyway keep up the good work Mario. You are the star. I love listening to you on the radio. You are so full of great positive energy.

Anonymous said...

That is clever. vattel argued that being born in usa does not make you a citizen but the parents make you a citizen of their citizenship. so Obama father is British so Obama is british but he was born in USA (maybe.) However, if both parents are americans and the child is born in america then that makes the baby natural born. the parents make him a citizen. clever. Everyone misses this point. They think being born in america makes you an american citizen. I am talking from the natural law. what vitelle says makes sense.

So the two parents make you a citizen and then if born in the country you become natural born. simple. once I got it. very good work mario.

No matter what happens with Obama I hope the Supreme Court will give a definition of NBC that is exactly what you say. It will simply help in the future of our country.

James said...

FINALLY! A Well-Worth Plan from Orly Taitz!


COME JOIN US the week of MAY 11 for a MEDIA BLITZ to Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck!

Is Obama a natural-born citizen and therefore qualified to be President of the United States?
Some say, “NO! He pays lawyers to hide his citizenship status” (no one really disputes this part of the debate). Some say, “He has been vetted by Fox News!” (Fox has never seen the paperwork, though). Others say - “who knows? - but what’s the point because he cannot be removed?”
The real problem is that conservative talk radio has dropped the ball on a great story that would drive ratings like mad. Why? Is it that their profits surge when conservatives are unhappy (true)? Are they afraid of being mocked? Do they really think that the leader of the free world is paying lawyers to “defend” him from producing his long form birth certificate because that’s something someone does for a hobby?
We’ll never know unless public awareness is raised on this issue. So now it’s time to take back Conservative Talk radio.


The Schedule:

Monday, May 11: Contact Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity
Tuesday, May 12: Contact Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity
Wednesday, May 13: Contact Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh
Thursday, May 14: Contact Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity
Friday, May 15: Contact Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh

You may already know about this, but if not you should! Hundreds-to-thousands(not hundreds-OF-thousands unless this takes off like mad - make no mistake) appear to already have committed themselves to calling SEAN HANNITY, BILL O’REILLY, RUSH LIMBAUGH and GLENN BECK, demanding to know what evidence they have that allows them to dismiss this very salient issue.
MONDAY, MAY 11, 2009. THIS TIME WHEN YOU CALL ON THIS ISSUE, YOU WON’T BE ALONE. No, you may not get through. If you do they’ll likely cut you off. But if we all call together on the same day, we’ll gum up the works. No facility can run with operational sanity when they’re trying to fend off hundreds of calls, all about a subject that the core audience wants vetted but THEY don’t want to touch. At that point, we force them to deal with the issue. That’s the target.
If you are worried about exposing yourself to hostility personally, call *67 in front of the number to block them.

***IMPORTANT*** Do NOT mention the eligibility issue as the reason for your call when you get through to the screener! You will NOT be allowed to speak about this issue IF you show your hand! While we don’t like to mislead, our chance to speak with the host will evaporate into thin air at the mention of this “forbidden” topic.

Here’s the info for HANNITY, O’REILLY, RUSH and BECK.

or e-mail through the website contact form
Here is the message board at Hannity’s facebook page, where you can make this issue clear for all to see:
RADIO CALL-IN: 1-800-941-7326

Call Bill O’Reilly, The O’Reilly Factor & Fox News Channel
If you would like to call Bill O’Reilly, the producers of The O’Reilly Factor, The Radio Factor or the Fox News Channel, the number is 1-888-369-4762.
(This invitation to call comes from his website, so don’t be shy - they asked for it. Remember, you can always preface the call with *67 if you feel nervous. THE TIME TO DO IT IS NOW!)



Be respectful - BUT BE FIRM. If Obama is qualified, fine. BUT WE’LL NEVER
MONDAY MAY 11, 2009. JOIN US THEN! Thank you!

WIZolman said...

Read it and weep:

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

Summary of Case:
"The defendant, Julia Lynch, was born in the City of New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city. She returned with them the same year, to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States." [NYLO at 236].

"5. It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated, that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States ....[I]t follows, in the absences of a declaration to the contrary, that the principle which prevailed and was the law on such point in all the states, became immediately the governing principle and rule of law thereon in the nation formed by such union. ... If there had been any diversity on the subject in the state laws ... it is reasonable to believe that the framers of the constitution would have borne in mind, and enacted a uniform rule, or authorized Congress to establish one. The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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," ... The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive IN HIS FAVOR that by the [247] rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, HE IS A CITIZEN." [NYLO at 246-47; italics in original].

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

To Candid Blogger:

The Lynch court got it really wrong. With all due respect, the court did not realize that it was not possible for the Founders to apply English common law in the new nation on the subject of citizenship. The Revolution uprooted all prior concepts of subjectship to Great Britain. The colonists could not use birth on the soil to establish who was a citizen of any State, for those born on the colonial soil were either loyal to the Revolution or loyal to Great Britain. Rather, they relied on freedom of choice. One was free to choose membership in either society, that of the new nation or that of Great Britain. If one attached to the Revolution, you became a citizen of the state in which you resided and infants followed the election made by their fathers. Women also followed the condition of their husbands.

This common law of the United States is confirmed in Minor, Justice Morrison Waite said:

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

Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 (1874).

Please note that the Minor decision is of the United States Supreme Court and came after the Lynch decision. The United States Supreme Court decides what is the law of the land, not a court of the State of New York. Also, I suggest to you that you research what kind of reaction the Lynch decision had in the legistlatures of the several States.

There is so much more to be said on this issue but I will keep it brief. I just wanted to share something with you so you did not think that I was crying on Mother's Day.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

THHuxley said...


Thanks for the clarification. I see now that it was de Vattel that misstated British common law, not you.

Now... why would you find his misstatement (and it appears you agree that to be what it is) authoritative rather than Britain's understanding of their own common law?

Next, you assert in your reply to Candid Blogger that "With all due respect, the court did not realize that it was not possible for the Founders to apply English common law in the new nation on the subject of citizenship. The Revolution uprooted all prior concepts of subjectship to Great Britain."

What an odd assertion. Why would British common law regarding citizenship be inapplicable when almost the entire corpus of the rest of British common law was retained? What would make this one specific part of common law evaporate in such a unique and anomalous manner?

And herein lays the biggest problem for de Vattel boosters.

British common law is formally and explicitly the foundation of American common law... not by tradition, but by statute. With the single exception of "Napoleonic law" Louisiana, British Common Law has officially been made authoritative by reception statutes in each of the States.

In contrast, de Vattel and his book is never even mentioned in American statute by name a single time.

This is only one of the problems with de Vattel. Perhaps the biggest is that since he wrote in French, the phrase "natural born citizen" is found nowhere in his book.

The phrase never even appeared in an English translation of his book until 1797... ten years after the Constitution was written.

So... how can "de Vattel's definition" have influenced the Constitution since he never defined it in the first place, and it never appeared in a translation of his book until 30 years after his death?

mtngoat61 said...

Francis wrote:
"So... how can "de Vattel's definition" have influenced the Constitution since he never defined it in the first place, and it never appeared in a translation of his book until 30 years after his death?"

Wrong Francis!

Vattel certainly did define the French language terms he used in Section 212 translated to "natural born citizen" in 1797. The founders and framers were highly educated and many were fluent in French, the diplomatic language of that time. The words and clause immediately following that legal term of art clearly do define it and what Vattel meant both in the French in 1758 and of course in the English in 1797. A natural born citizen is born in the country to parents both of whom are citizens of the country. That is what Vattel clearly went on to say and define that he meant by "Les naturels, ou indigenes, ...". Read it in the French or the English. I have copies of both. The title of section 212 in the French edition was, "Des citoyens et naturels." See my article for more on the explanation of how Vattel defines "natural born citizen" in his 1758 legal treatise, The Law of Nations, Vol.1.

The legal treatise, The Law of Nations, pubished in French in 1758 was used by the founders and framers of our country to write the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as well as in the Continental Congress discussions before 1776, after, and up to and including the Constitutional Convention and after that too. George Washington was found reading it the first day of his Presidency. Vattel was widely used by the First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay.

Founder and Framer, Benjamin Franklin, and other members of the Contintental Congress, used Vattel extensively, as did other colonial leaders. It was the leading legal treatise of the times in the colonies in their revolutionary aspirations to achieve the goals of the Declaration of Independence ... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And then later in the Constitution ... in order to establish a more "perfect" union, i.e., an improved and better federal system of government. This is the thinking and teachings of Vattel.

A quote about Vattel from Franklin and other colonial leaders:
"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting." by —Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

"This [previous work on the law of nations], says a writer, is evidently rather an introduction than a system; and it served only to excite a desire to see it continued with equal perspicuity and elegance. The honor of this task was reserved for the great Vattel, whose work is entitled to the highest admiration!" by —James Duane, Mayor and Chief Judge of New York City, August 1784"

Read this book and you will see that George Washington was reading from Vattel in his first day in office as the new and first President of the USA.
This was New York, the Nation's Capital in 1789
By Frank Monaghan, Marvin Lowenthal

The post Revolution War generations of historians and also judges in later generations want to bury Vattel and his influence for their own purposes, i.e., rule by Judges, to build a new set of "common judge-made laws" layered over the supreme law Constituion in the USA to wittel away at our Consitution of the last two hundred years, but Vattel's writing were the preminent source of wisdom and inspiration for the formation of our Federal system of government. The judges have moved away from all power being in the hands of states and the people. The judges have continue to move power to the Federal system beyond what was intended by the framers. It is now time to put a stop to it. Vattel's vision is clearly what our framer's drew upon. Not for everything in our Constitution but a lot of it. All you have to do is read Vattel, Book 1, and then read our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Our federal system of government was heavily influenced by the writings of Vattel. Anyone who is intellectually honest and studies the framers and history knows that. And now with the seating of a Usurper in the Oval Office we see that "judge-made common law and snowing the people by an enabling media and ignorant or politically expedient members of Congress" type interpretations of the Constitution have in effect destroyed the Constitution as to the meaning of Article II by allowing three ineligble people on the ballot for President this year; Obama, McCain, and Calero, and for one to actually get sworn in as the Usurper in Chief.

It is time to right the wrong and restore the Constitution and its amendments to its rightful place, the supreme law of the land. It is time for a SCOTUS interpretation of what exactly is Article II natural born citizenship and why is it special and required for the office of President and Commander in Chief (and VP) and is not required for Senator or Member of the House, which only require simple citizen of any type.

Five types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: Kerchner v Obama case is seeking an answer to the question once and for all as to what was the intended meaning of the Article II "Natural Born Citizen" clause and legal term of art (introduced by the writings of Vattel) which was placed into the Constitution by John Jay, a man of French Huguenot heritage and fluent in French and who was the 1st Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, when the case gets before SCOTUS eventually, for the sake of our Constitutional Republic system of government, with its independent Judiciary as the ultimate guardian of our Constitution, as described by Vattel, in Book 1 of Vattel's Law of Nations.

The O-Bots can keep their head in the sand about Vattel's influence on our founders and framers but history clearly shows the founders and framers did not have their heads in the sand, they had their heads and minds deeply in the writings of Vattel in the founding of our country and the creating of a more perfect union in writing the U.S. Constitution and establishing a new form of government with an independent judiciary, written constition, and many other ideas for a more perfect form of government inspired by Vattel.

M Publius Goat

Mountain Goat's Ledge

mtngoat61 said...

Natural Born Citizen - a 'Term of Art' put in our Constitution in 1787 by Jay - Written & Defined by Vattel in 1758 - The Law of Nations Tome 1 pg 197. Citizen, Born Citizen, Natural Born Citizen by M Publius Goat: Publius Goat

Bruce said...

Mr Apuzzo, Can you please give us a brief update of this case. Has the court responded to the second request for time extension? When can we expect further action in the court?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

To Bruce:

I served the Second Amended Complaint on the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey on February 17, 2009. Defendants USA and Obama had 60 days to answer or until April 20, 2009 (April 18 was a Saturday). On April 13, 2009, USA and Obama entered an appearance and requested a 15-day extension to file their answer. We did not hear anything from the Congressional defendants, who having been served on February 24, 2009, were required to answer by April 27, 2009 (April 25 was a Saturday). USA/Obama then obtained their requested 15-day extension to answer, making the new answer date, May 5, 2009.

USA/Obama then filed the currently pending motion on April 27, 2009, requesting a second extension for USA/Obama to answer (what is represented to be a 20-day extension). While no one has yet to enter an appearance for the Congressional defendants, the attorney for USA/Obama has also asked in the same motion that the Congressional defendants be given an extension to answer. She added in her motion papers that the Justice Department is reviewing the question of which of the Congressional defendants it will represent. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider will decide that motion on June 1, 2009. In the motion, all defendants (USA/Obama and the Congressional defendants) are asking for a 20-day extension to answer, to run from the day the motion is decided. That means that if Judge Schneider decides to grant defendants' motion on June 1, 2009, all the defendants would have until June 21, 2009 to answer.

Because of the return day on the motion (June 1, 2009), such a result will give USA/Obama 124 days and the Congressional defendants 117 days to answer the Second Amended Complaint. By court rule, government defendants are given 60 days to answer. While it appears as though USA/Obama only asked for a 35-day extension (15 + 20) and the Congressional defendants a 20-day extension, they each respectively will have gotten a 64-day and a 57-day extension if Judge Schneider grants their motion.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

KitKat said...

Mr. Apuzzo, thank you for the update!

Let us move forward said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

Do you have to agree to the second extension for the court to grant it?

Are you going to file a motion to quash the second extension?

hartsill said...

After reading all the comments, I find it hard to believe,Why he can't be Removed from Office.He is not a Natural Born Citizen, & he knew from the start of his Birth Status. another point of law,is that he took an oath not once but twice to uphold the Consitution of the United States Of America.Knowing full well,what he was doing and in so doing he comitted Perjury. By All Accounts he should be removed from office

mtngoat61 said...

To Let Us ...

I am not a lawyer and Attorney Apuzzo can clarify and correct if I'm wrong, but I have been following this case very closely. Also Atty Apuzzo explained some of this in his radio show appearance on Wednesday. So let me pass along that. But you can listen to the whole thing via the link in this blog. The first formal 15 day extension was a "clerk's extension" and is pretty much granted by the clerk automatically if the defendant asks for it and of course they did. The Obama side has historically used every available tool and tactic to stall and delay getting to the merits in this and other cases. The informal second extension the defendants got was due to the court's "motion dates", as Atty Apuzzo explained, with the 1st of June being the next available court motion date after the formal 15 day extension ran out. The defendants now have filed a motion for consideration on June 1st for another formal 20 day extension. As I understand it from listening to the radio show on Wednesday, this second formal extension is not automatic and cannot be approved by the clerks only and must be heard and opposed by the plaintiffs and can be only granted by the Judge ... and as I understood the discussion on the show, Atty Apuzzo will be filing papers opposing the second formal extension and any further delays in getting to the merits in this case. As I understand it from a blog posting in another thread in this blog he will be filing his opposition papers on or before 18 May 2009, which is Monday. Of course it will be up to the Judge on June 1st as to what happens, i.e., whether he grants the additional 20 day formal extension or not. For the sake of our country and our constitution, I hope he does not grant it and thus the defendants must formally answer the complaint or move for a dismissal. You can likely guess as can I what there next likely move will be if further extensions are not granted. Whatever happens nothing will be final on this case until it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court and they get the final decision.

M Publius Goat
Goat's Ledge

Mick said...

Mr. Puzo,
I find it typical of the Obama lovers to cite Lynch, a circuit court case, in their quest to misinform and obfuscate the truth. You put him/her in his/her place very succinctly. The other typical tactic is the Vattel LON edition tactic, also handled well by you. I have 2 questions. First what is your view about the drums beating for a Jindal presidential candidacy? His mother and father (Indian citizens) arrived here 6 months before he was born, which I don't believe is enough time to be naturalized. After his rebuttal speech a few months back, a check of WIKI (I know, unreliable) said that his parents were naturalized before his birth, but that part was deleted within days. He said himself that his parents arrived here 6 months before he was born. Is there an expedited naturalization for highly skilled people? Nothing I can find about Jindal talks about the citizenship of his parents. It is really unbelievable that we could have another non NBC run for POTUS! Donofrio has said that Republican silence on the NBC issue about Obama is laying groundwork for Jindal's run. Question number 2 is about your case. What standing does it proclaim, and why do you think that the SCOTUS will hear it in light of Donofrio's belief that District of DC Quo Warranto is the only constitutional avenue to question Obama's qualification as NBC? Is that the reason that you two split?

mtngoat61 said...

Hi Mick,

I am not a lawyer. But let me try to answer some of your questions.

My research into Gov Jindall indicates his parents were not citizens of the U.S. when he was born and thus Gov Jindall is not a Natural Born Citizen of the USA. It would be a terrible mistake for him to pretend he is and allow people to keep his name in contention for Pres for the 2012 race. He should openly say he is not eligible. And it is a disgrace for the RNC to be doing this ... again ... i.e., putting forward to the public for consideration ineligible candidates in disregard to the minimum eligibility requirements of the Constitution.

As to the Kerchner v Obama & Congress cases, Atty Apuzzo brought that case at the behest of Mr. Kerchner and the other co-plaintiffs. Donofrio had no part in it and was not even blogging about the ins and outs of Quo Warranto when Apuzzo filed the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case, and neither was Orly Taitz either. Apuzzo's action was the first use of Quo Warranto in this battle by any of the attorneys. The Quo Warranto action was filed as part of the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit prior to Donofrio pontifications in his blog on Quo Warranto and his allegations it can only be used via the DC statute, which Atty Apuzzo does not agree with per his radio show discussion on the subject. As a follower of Obama's candidacy since early 2008 and all the cases in this battle since August 2008, I can tell you that Donofrio was never part of the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit. From what I know, Donofrio made a visit to Atty Apuzzo's office one day long after the Kerchner v Obama case was filed to inquire about Att Apuzzo's filings and the Quo Warranto action. Atty Apuzzo and Donofrio were never at anytime joined together on any actions or lawsuits so they did not "split", as you implied in your question. But as to anyone splitting, we all know from following Donofrio's blog, and his on again off again alka-seltzer type sallies in this fight, he has presently "split" the battlefield once again in this fight. Maybe he'll return to the battle or maybe he won't. That's up to him.

I wish all the attorneys who were in the battle, or are in this battle, the very best wishes for success in this fight. The legal tools are there for all to use. But the tools must be used correctly. Atty Apuzzo is a very experienced attorney and has practiced in the area of citizenship law cases for a long time as part of his normal law practice. In examining the cases todate, I believe Atty Apuzzo has put together a very strong case using some very good tools based on the Plaintiffs grievances and complaints against Obama & Congress, et al.

As to Atty Apuzzo's use of Quo Warranto, as I understand it, his use of it is under the 9th Amendment as a right retained by the people based on ancient common law ... and importantly ... the All Writs Act of the USC in that the Quo Warranto action is hooked into the case in conjunction with other counts in the case, of which there are 12 counts total with multiple charges against both Congress and Obama. The case was not brought as a stand alone Quo Warranto action simply against Obama, but was combined with other charges and counts against Obama and Congress who both violated the Constitution and laws to allow this mess to happen. The multi-faceted pleadings in this case is what makes this case stronger and unique and much harder for the other side to defend against, imo.

M Publius Goat

Anonymous said...

BY his OWN ADMISSION Obama/Soetoro is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN period end of story.

By His Own Admission he admits that he was Born a British Subject. We are talking 1961 before the feminization of America and the world. At that time men ruled and Citizenship was dominated thru the male. Therefore Obama II was a British Subject just like his daddy no matter where he was born. When Kenya became independent from UK he became a Kenyan just like his daddy. By his own admission he says he was a Kenyan til his Citizen expired at age 21 because he didn’t renew it.

He was a British before becoming Kenyan when he doesn’t renew his Kenyan Citizenship at 21 his Citizenship REVERTS back to British by British LAW. He is a British Citizen, NOT EVEN an AMERICAN CITIZEN never mind NATURAL BORN CITIZEN which would require TWO (2) QUALIFIED AMERICAN CITIZEN PARENTS. He had NEITHER. His mom was a minor and NOT a qualified Citizen required to pass down citizenship and his daddy was a FOREIGN NATIONAL. Even if he was born in the White House he could never be a Natural Born Citizen.

There are some misconceptions, confusion and intentional misdirections. Up until 1986 in USA there was no anchor baby statute. If a child was born in America it would have the citizenship of the parents. Now with the SABOTAGED and BASTARDIZED “anchor baby” rule babies are allowed to be citizens BUT THEY ARE NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

OBAMA II is a British Citizen even if he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.

This makes him a FRAUD and an USURPER that needs to be detained promptly.

This case will be WON in the Real People’s Court the Court of Public Opionion therefore it is our Duty to Present this CASE to more and MORE People till everyone is as OUTRAGED AS WE ARE.