Friday, July 31, 2009

What to Tell The Birthers Bashers

You are poorly informed on the constitutional issue involved with Obama's eligibility to be President. The primary issue is whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen," not whether he was born in the U.S. When drafting the eligibility requirements for the President, the Founding Fathers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen" in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 and in Articles I, III, and IV of the Constitution. Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” after 1789 the President must be a "natural born Citizen." The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder have sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

The distinction between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen" is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, a "citizen" is simply a member of the civil society. To become a "citizen" is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. Neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only "citizens" who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts, nor any case law has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Congressional Acts and case law, like the 14th Amendment, have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a "citizen." Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a "natural born Citizen" prevails today. It is this definition of "natural born Citizen" which gives the Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. I call this state of having all other means of acquiring other citizenships or allegiances cut off unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth.

Obama's father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. When he came to America, he was probably here on a student visa and he never became a legal resident of the U.S. or an immigrant. He had no attachment to the U.S. other than to study in its prestigious educational institutions which he did for the sole purpose of returning to Kenya and applying his learning there for the best interests of that nation. In fact, when he completed his studies, he did return to Kenya and worked for its government.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, at best, he is a U.S. "citizen" under the 14th Amendment and federal statute. But he is not a "natural born Citizen" under the Constitution, for at the time of his birth under the British Nationality Act 1948 his father was a British subject and Obama himself through descent was also a British subject. Obama has himself admitted to the controlling effect of the British Nationality Act 1948 on his birth. Additionally, in 1963, both his father and Obama also became Kenyan citizens when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain.

Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). Obama also obtained Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by his step-father in Indonesia at age 6. The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military. We the People have too many "natural born Citizens" in our country, the largest group of citizens by far, from whom to pick to risk jeopardizing the best interests of the United States by allowing a person born with conflicting allegiances and loyalties to be President and Commander in Chief of our Military. There simply is no sound reason for risking America’s national security, welfare, and ultimate preservation by allowing a non-"natural born Citizen" to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. To permit it is a violation of Article II of our Constitution, the supreme law of our land.

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


James said...

Lou Dobbs was supposed to appear on O'Reilly this week:

Emails are covered up, but I think I found them. Possible inside contact information for you

Mitchell, Ron Producer (212) 301-3697 (212) 301-5147

Monaco, Rob Producer (212) 301-3198 (212) 301-5147

cfkerchner said...

An outstanding new essay Mario. Great job!


sjc said...

Pt I
Obama was a co-sponsor of Senate Resolution SR511. Note the dubious wording and mis reporting the 1st Congress of 1790, whereas the 3rd Congress of 1795 superceded the earlier writing of 1790,the NBC statute.

Cheney's testimony at the end of the record as well as Judge Chertoff's is tellingly, in error.

# # # # #



S. RES. __

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.



Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on



Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;

Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to American citizens serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),

Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary,

sjc said...


On The Introduction Of A Senate Resolution

April 10, 2008

Today I join Senator Claire McCaskill in introducing a resolution to express the common sense of everyone here that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen,” as the term is used in the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution contains three requirements for a person to be eligible to be President – the person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt that Senator McCain is of sufficient years on this earth and in this country given that he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years. However, some pundits have raised the question of whether he is a “natural born Citizen” because he was born outside of the official borders of the United States.

John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has unearthed any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to military families stationed abroad or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.

It is interesting to note that another previous presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outside of the United States. He was widely understood to be eligible to be President. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S territory that later became the State of Arizona so some even questioned his eligibility. Certainly the millions of Americans who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they were eligible to assume the office of the President. The same is true today.

Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not. I ask unanimous consent that the relevant excerpt from the Judiciary Committee hearing where Secretary Chertoff testified be made a part of the record.

I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate and I thank the Senator from Missouri for working with me on this.

# # # # #



Chairman Leahy. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe--and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind--I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.

# # # # #

Unknown said...

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act". George Orwell

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". John F. Kennedy

Mr Obama, Congress, the main stream media, the Department of Justice and the Judges are ALL trying to suppress the Presidential ineligibility issue. The resultant chain-reaction through the internet and internet radio is already well advanced and is now unstoppable unless and until Mr Obama is forced to answer the charges that he is Constitutionally ineligible to act as President of The United States.

Time is running out. Eventually this will reach 'critical mass'.

We must now make maximum effort to persuade the main stream media to force Mr Obama to answer our questions and concerns. The Judges must also do their Constitutional duty and give full consideration to the merits of this issue. The safety of the Nation is at stake.

sjc said...

Obama's attempt to rewrite history-

To clariy: when I state Cheney and Chertoff's comments are tellingly in error, by this I mean Chertoff only partially stated the NBC requiremnets.
2 US Citizens, born on US soil would have been more complete and befitting an experienced Federal Judge.

Anonymous said...

A “citizen of the United States at birth” is NOT synonymous with a an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)


[13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States,…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

[35] That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, [NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS] does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

Suffice it to say, Obahmadinejihad is NOT an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States of America, as his father was a “foreigner”…

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)


[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

[419] Again:

[420] …to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.

Anonymous said...

PERKINS v. ELG, 59 S. Ct. 884, 307 U.S. 325 (U.S. 05/29/1939)


[12] The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, [ELG's PARENTS WERE NATURALIZED CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES] has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.

[17] First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case [Wong Kim Ark] — that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States [NOT AN ARTICLE II NATURAL BORN CITIZEN]– the Court adverted to the “inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.

[62] We conclude that respondent has not lost her citizenship in the United States and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of that citizenship.

Anonymous said...

I concur. No matter what happens in the courts this message needs to get out, and continue to be pressed for years to come. Don't ever back down.

Boggart Blogger said...

This isue was explained to me at the US Embassy in Britain in 1969 when I applied for a visa. Because my Dad had held dual nationality the officer was explaining I would find it easy to get a work permit and become a citizen. And because I had mentioned my interest in politics he jokingly told me the only problem was I could never be President.

So if I know, having spent all my life in Britain, how come a constitutional law expert (allegedly) like Obama not know?

Obama versus birthers

Anonymous said...

6 killed in Pakistan as Muslims burn Christian homes

Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only …in adhering to their Enemies”

Barack Hussein Obahmadinejihad:

“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country.”

“The United States has been enriched by Muslim-Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country… I know, because I am one of them.”

“I’ve now been in 57 States”:

57 States:

Obama surrenders to the Iranian Mullahs:

“My administration is now committed to diplomacy [appeasement] that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran [Mullahs] , and the international community [57 Islamic States]. This process will not be advanced by threats [except threats to American infidels]. We seek engagement [submission to Islam] that is honest [deceptive] and grounded in mutual respect [deception]…”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Hello Everyone,

I was just over at Dr. Conspiracy's site. I found the following there written by the good doctor:

"When looking at Greshak, and Apuzzo, and Taitz and Berg, and P. A. Madison, and the rest of that crowd, I am reminded of this phrase from the Bible:

(Mat 6:7b NRSV) “…for they think that they will be heard because of their many words."

He then continues:

"What is interesting is to compare Emerich de Vattel with Edward Lord Coke. Both derived concepts of citizenship from natural law, but arrived at different conclusions. De Vattel believed nature made allegiance something inherited from one’s father (as it was in Swiss society) where Coke (Calvin’s Case 1608) said that allegiance was created when one was born under the protection of one’s lord. De Vattel’s analysis formed the basis of Swiss common law, including the rule of the 13 Swiss colonies of Swiss North America. Coke’s analysis formed the basis of British common law for nearly 300 years, including the rule of the 13 British colonies of British North America."

I responded to the good doctor as follows:

"I see you have gotten religious lately.

I also see that you are fond of Coke and I of Vattel. Could you provide me one case or more wherein the Court defines what a “natural born Citizen” (not just a “citizen”) is by referring to Coke and his definitions (or any other English common law authority). I do have several cases in which the Court does refer to and cites Vattel directly and his definition of what “natives” or “indigenes” or “natural born citizens” (all three distinguished from an ordinary “citizen”) are or just gives his definition thereof in defining those words. I have cited some of these cases in my opposition brief to Obamas’s and Congress’s motion to dismiss my complaint/petition.

I do hope that you will take me up on my challenge.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq."

I also offer anyone on this blog to help the good doctor find any such case. Let me know of your findings. Happy hunting.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.