Having just won a revolution, the Founders were faced with constituting a new nation. Under the constitutional plan devised by the Founders, they had to identify who were the members of the new nation. They called these members “citizens” of the United States. Thus, they created our first generation of United States “citizens.” These persons were either born abroad or in the British colonies before July 4, 1776 or abroad or in the new States thereafter, but in all cases inhabited one of the colonies or States and were loyal to the American revolution. The Founders under Article II grandfathered these original “citizens” to be eligible to be President. Under this plan, once the new nation had its first generation “citizens,” it was placed in position to have in the future its Article II “natural born Citizens,” who would be born in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution and descend from mothers and fathers who were both original “citizens.” Given that America was already a land of immigrants and that the Founders expected that many more immigrants would come to its shores in search of a new life and to share in its vast resources, they gave Congress in Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 the power to naturalize aliens and thereby create more future first generation United States “citizens.” Having become a naturalized “citizen,” one would then be in a position to procreate with another “citizen” (born or similarly naturalized) a “natural born Citizen” who would be eligible to be President.Throughout American history, there have been no doubts or disputes as to who is a “natural born Citizen.” As we have seen, it was not English common law but the law of nations that became United States common law that defined a “natural born Citizen.” It defined such a citizen as being born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens. It is this definition which our United States Supreme Court incorporated into our federal common law. It is this definition that creates subsequent generation “citizens” who are “natural born Citizens.” They are subsequent generation because born in the country to a mother and father who are citizens.
On the other hand, throughout our history, there have been doubts and disputes as to who may be a born “citizen” (as distinguished from a “natural born Citizen” or a naturalized citizen). These disputes have concerned the question of whether to be a “citizen,” must a child be simply born on U.S. soil and be subject to its jurisdiction, without any reference to the citizenship of the parents (jus soli which follows the old English common law), or must that child also be born to U.S. citizen parents (jus soli and jus sanguinis united which follows the law of nations’ definition and which any way only applies to “natural born citizens”). This dispute has concerned the question of whether we should declare a child a first generation “citizen” (in effect having the same status as one of the original first generation “citizens” which Article II grandfathered to be eligible to be President). The dispute has not been with whether we should declare that child a subsequent generation “natural born Citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment settled who could be a “citizen” by bestowing such status upon those born in the United States or naturalized here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. “Citizens” who meet this Fourteenth Amendment definition can be either first or subsequent generation United States “citizens.” If first generation, they are simply “citizens.” If subsequent generation, they are not only “citizens” but also “natural born Citizens.” Congress has also declared who may be a born “citizen” through legislation and has thereby not only confirmed what is already stated in the Fourteenth Amendment but has also granted citizenship to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents (one or two). Senator McCain, being born in Panama, falls into the two United States-parent category. The question of whether foreign-born children, born to two United States parents and thus falling in this category (by definition they would be subsequent generation “citizens” but not born in the United States) are “natural born Citizens” has not been resolved by any Court. If such a child were born to just one United States citizen parent, he or she would not only acquire the allegiance and loyalty of the nation on whose soil he or she may be born but also that of his or her foreign parent’s nation and thereby further compromise his or her claim for “natural born Citizen” status.
A study of citizenship and nationality case law, statutes, treatises, and other sources shows that one acquires allegiance and loyalty through citizenship. Obama has admitted that under the British Nationality Act 1948 when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and not a U.S. citizen and that he himself was a British subject/citizen by descent from his father. Therefore, what is clear and established by his own factual admissions is that Obama cannot satisfy the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for he was born with allegiance and loyalty not only to the United States (assuming he was born here) but to the same degree also to Great Britain. The best that Obama can be is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” assuming that he was born in the United States and assuming that one born subject to a foreign power can also be born subject to the full and complete legal and political jurisdiction of the United States. In such a case, he would be a subsequent generation “citizen” through his American mother but only a first generation “citizen” because of his foreign father. If Obama was not born in the United States or if being born in the United States he was not born subject to its jurisdiction, then he is not even a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment or any applicable Congressional Act. Hence, we can see that Obama is missing the mandatory Article II constitutional status of being at a minimum a second generation “citizen” through both a citizen mother and citizen father. What creates further allegiance and loyalty problems for Obama is that his birthright British citizenship, which continues in effect until today, also allowed him to gain Kenyan citizenship from the age of 2 to the age of 21 or 23. Being 47 years old when he was elected, just his Kenyan allegiance and loyalty occupied him for almost one-half of his then life span.
It is Obama’s being only a first generation U.S. citizen because of his father not being a United States citizen at Obama’s birth that caused his divided allegiance and loyalty at birth (United States v. British and Kenyan) and disqualifies him to be President and Commander in Chief. It is through his father that Obama was born with allegiance and loyalty to Great Britain (which continues until today), which then converted to allegiance and loyalty to Kenya. It does not matter that his mother was a United States citizen because at birth Obama inherited allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power (Great Britain) from his father just as he would have inherited allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power if born to parents who were both non-United States citizens. By Obama’s mother being a United States citizen at his birth, Obama was just spared acquiring even another foreign allegiance and loyalty. Just like a naturalized citizen who--despite taking an oath renouncing all foreign allegiances and loyalties and which incidentally Obama has never done--cannot be President because he or she is born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, Obama, born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, also cannot be President. All this leads to the inescapable conclusion that Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is therefore ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
31 August 2009
And this is what we see in the fuzziness of dual citizenship in the US.
ReplyDeleteIn Britain, Canada, they actually give you formal legal acknowledgment of dual citizenship between their countries and the USA, but not the other way around.
Someone can "say" they're a dual citizen with credible docs from other countries, but nada from the USA. This is consistent with WKA, CRA1866 and the 14th.
This is so big it's untouchable. It means all those people who think they are duals, are only duals in the eyes of other countries and just "tolerated" in the USA.
In the draft lottery, the lowest categories include dual citizens, mental retardation or other impairments, and then aliens...in that order, the bottom of the barrel, so it would seem that the application of political jurisdiction to duals is a remote possibility.
This is so huge, it means anchor babies are NOT US citizens, a strongly perpetuated myth. It means dual citizens (one US parent) are sub-US citizens even though they may be fully embraced by the other country as citizens and that other country fully acknowledges dual citizenship with the USA...it just does NOT happen in reverse! Or show me the documents! (as in show me the money!)
ReplyDeleteWhen the liabilities of citizenship come in to play, i.e. the enforcement of the other parts of jurisdiction such as POLITICAL and PERSONAL, such as the draft, the lottery does not want non-naturalized (i.e. those who have not taken an oath of allegiance revoking all others) citizens...i.e. duals and aliens.
The State Department says it "discourages" dual citizenship, which I read to mean they tolerate it unspoken.
If or until CRA1866 is revoked or superceded specifically it is still in effect, and the 14th, 2 years later, does not negate it in its wording. What I see is that if the first part (i.e. the no-foreign-power part) is not met, the REST of the citizenship possibilities are moot.
Were dual citizens and even resident aliens are required to register for the draft when Mr. Obama registered?
ReplyDeleteIf the answer to that question is yes, then Mr. Obama's act of selective service registration could not be considered an indication that he considered himself a US citizen.
totaly agree with cajapie reasoning about WKA, CRA1866, and 14th - anchors and Obama not citizens - Obama not eligible to be prez due to the above and not NBC - phil stone
ReplyDeletePhil Stone gets it.
ReplyDeletereally bothers me that people who have sworn an oath to protect constitution such as kerchner and others are told they do not have standing to perform their duties - have little faith in our corrupt courts - need to do 9/12 in washington and carry a sign saying Obama Claims to be British - difficult to educate people who have opinions cast in concrete but if they think Obama said it, it might open their minds a little - need publicity - phil stone
ReplyDeleteMr. Donofrio scoured the Kenyan Independence and British Nationality Acts of 1948 and 1981 and concludes that Barack Obama has
ReplyDeleteUS Citizenship (maybe--but only that substandard kind because looking at the naturalization oath, true US citizenship does NOT tolerate divided allegiances)
British Citizenship
AND
Kenyan Citizenship
AND most likely Indonesian Citizenship (look at the money/murder trail with Eni Faleomavagua/Lt. Quarles Harris/John Brennan former TAC CEO who now works for Obama...)
All of those allegiances he is legally required to maintain! THAT is not consistent with NBC. Mr. Donofrio's tact is one that averts the totally corrupted judicial system addressing an issue the lay person can easily understand is egregious.
I AM TOLD that in the US the consulate will give a parent a "birth abroad" citizenship certificate, but unlike other countries will not acknowledge dual citizenship on any official document.
ReplyDeleteHow can the oath of allegiance for naturalization be consistent with any other form of citizenship? Why require a person to naturalize on the one hand, revoking their other allegiances, while tolerating other "citizens" with other allegiances?
Well, certainly no CiC can have divided conflicting allegiances.
Berg's out there obfuscating the nbc issue a la michael medved:
ReplyDeleteHe writes:
“There have also been major misstatements to the effect that for a “baby” to be “natural born” both parents must be U.S. citizens. The law is very clear:”
1. “If a baby is born in the United States or its territories, the baby is “natural born” regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. [That is why so many pregnant women sneak across the borders from Mexico]”
2. If both parents are U.S. citizens then the baby that is born any place in the world and returns to the U.S. through Immigration, that baby is considered “natural born.”
I'm very certain of Apuzzo, Donofrio, Beckwith...
But there's many who verge on potential saboteur or outright betrayal of American patiots
Berg, Malkin, maybe even Orly (or maybe she's just seeing what sticks), Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, at least Greta's been silent, O'Reilly is a definite bot, Glen Beck sounds utterly confused...
I'm also not so sure about Joseph Farah, because he avoids the NBC issue too much, but I believe in Citizen Wells...
ReplyDeletejust sayin'
"I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before, although tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world,"
ReplyDeleteI think he is not proud to be a US citizen, not even proud enough to prove it, cannot prove he is nbc because, well, he isn't. The last part of his statement is the most profound-
I can hear him say "My fellow world citizens" and mean it.
"My fellow Americans", seems alien to and for him.
Besides living half his childhood abroad, he gravitated to a world that was decisively anti-American within America where all his accolades and credentials originated. Those people are now imported into unaccountable positions within the Executive.
His current attitude views America as guilty, it further shows no particular allegiance for, or pride in, America.
He has lain the groundwork for disastrous outcomes for Americas strengths, that appears to be deliberate undermining.
The preponderance of evidence, be it circumstantial or not, shows a failure of allegiance and unfitness to secure the nations best interest.
Not an nbc and not even loyal to America, laying a course for certain demise of the nation.
The lack of judicial action or duty to national security by certain agency heads is serving to wake up more people everyday to the constitutional crisis well underway now.
In the Constitutional Convention, according to James Madison’s notes, Mr. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania said: “As to those philosophical gentlemen, those ‘Citizens of the World’ as they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any other.”
ReplyDeleteI certainly can appreciate a judge's due diligence but there is also the need for sure and swift justice.
ReplyDeleteIf our courts do not act, the citizenry may over take them, and deal out justice themselves.
I would invite all readers of this blog to research the story of Betty and Mahtob Mahmoody, Betty is the American mother of Mahtob. Mahtob was born in the United States of an Iranian father and American mother.
ReplyDeleteOn what was supposed to be a short family trip in 1984 to Iran, Betty's Iranian husband decided to divorce her and keep Mahtob in Iran.
The Iranian courts took juristiction over Mahtob and gave custody to her father based on Mahtob's Jus sanguinis Iranian citizenship.
I would like on Obot troll who lurks on this site to explain to me how what they term a "natural born citizen" can be claimed by Iran or any other country.
We know the answer and we know why nothing could be done to help her. Because under US law she is a 14th Amendment citizen, but not a natural born citizen. If she was a true natural born citizenship no country could place a claim on having jurisdiction over her but the country of her birth,
So Iran exercised legal jurisdiction over a jus sanguinis Iranian citizen...
ReplyDeleteWhat's to stop Indonesia, Britain and Kenya from doing the same over Barack Obama?
Thanks, Teo, for the illustration. Leftist liars act as if only Ann Dunham matters to Obama's citizenship status. This story may crack open their minds long enough to let a ray of truth in.
ReplyDeleteYes, that was an EXCELLENT example of jus sanguinis jurisdiction!
ReplyDeleteHarry II: don't get your hopes up too hight!
Wow! Orly finally did her job:
ReplyDeleteFiled with Court Declaration of Lucas Daniel Smith and a copy of Kenian hospital Birth Certificate for Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate can now been seen on Orly's Blog. It is a scanned copy. Assuming its valid, Obama is history. We don't even have argue NBC.
ReplyDeleteBob needs to send Madison's notes to McCain.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteOrly really has not done anything, since she gets an electronic image and submits this to the courts as some sort of proof. This is what, her second?
Unfortunately Dr. Taitz has yet to embrace the definition of a natural born citizen that completely removes all possibilities of foreign influences attaching themselves to the Commander in Chief. I myself must wonder if she is reluctant to do so, because at the time when she gave birth to her first born she was not a citizen. I suspect she wasn't but I may be wrong. If I am not wrong this would explain much. If she took our position that a natural born citizen is the child of two citizen parents (who at one point in their family history had parents who renounced allegiance to their former countries or they themselves did,) then she would have to look at her children in the eyes and say, sorry but you are not a natural born citizen and cannot be President.
Returning to the Kenyan BC's she has filed with the courts, she thinks that these act as some sort of proof, but they are not. She has not brought to the courts attention that the true probative value of these images are a just and compelling reason to force the release of the long form Birth Certificate from the state officials in Hawaii in order to put the question of location of birth to rest so the more germane and valuable question of allegiances at birth can be examined by the court.
Orly is urging everyone to be at courthouse in CA on Tuesday September 8, 2009. If the hearing is sucessful, Orly may have the power to het her hands on Obama's documents. Please Pray for her success. No only does she need alot of supporters, she should try to bring as many lawyers as with as possible for support and for possible legal advice.
ReplyDeleteTeo: Agreed that Orly's aversion to NBC issues and former willingness to grant stipulation of NBC status based on documents, which don't change a damn thing as to his parentage and thus ineligibility as POTUS, make her saboteur/suspect--to me anyway. And any BC stuff I just ignore for now, it's fraught with nightmares, whereas the multiple citizenships are squared-up.
ReplyDeleteAlso you're right about personal bias...this guy's son born of a Canadian mom in Canada (he's American) he "wants" him to be NBC and insists he has official dual citizenship with the US, which has zero official recognition thereof
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
When the personal bias enters in, the output is non-factual.
Cajapie,
ReplyDeleteMy reading of the founding fathers and the meaning of a natural born citizen is that they did not want any one holding the office of Commander in Chief who had foreign allegiances from birth. I predicate this with Jay's warning not to admit foreigners into the executive branch. Black's law defines a foreigner as “A person who is not a citizen or subject of the state or country in which mention is made, or any one owing allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign.” This is the common definition in all major English language dictionaries. But I point your attention to the second defining characteristic of a foreigner "any one owing allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign." This is what our founding fathers were trying to avoid with the term natural born citizen. They believed that a person who at birth only had a singular claim on their allegiance was a natural born citizen.
Perhaps people would disagree with me, but I can see that in certain circumstances that a child born to two American citizen parents, who are NOT dual citizens, can be considered a natural born citizen if born overseas. Saying this I am not saying that this is a blanket statement, but my reasoning is as I stated based on Jay’s letter. If a child was born like John McCain, III and George Romney in a country that does not recognize jus soli citizenship (such as both Panama and Mexico at the time of their births,) and the parents are true blue Americans, that is without dual citizenship, then I can see the case being made for them. Of course being born in the country of ones parents’ removes all doubt, and nothing more needs to be said about that child’s citizenship, as it is complete and unified. The problem with jus soli citizenship is that it is based upon law and not nature, which in my opinion was why the Second Congress in 1795 reversed the Naturalization Laws of the First Congress of 1790, they must have privately debated this among themselves and chose not to condemn the First Congress as being wrong by placing into the official record the debates. I believe that they realized that even a country such as France that in 1790’s was a jus sanguinis country could at a latter date pass a law giving people born their citizenship and extracting a debt of allegiance from them later on in their life.
Today many countries are revamping their nationality laws to include jus soli so to comply with the UN Mandate that no one is born stateless. I think we as Americans can agree with this in principle, but I also think that we should not give citizenship to those who can claim citizenship from their parents country based on jus sanguinis. An example today is Mexico. Mexico has always had jus sanguinis, so children born of Mexican parents in the US, do not need American citizenship to insure they are not born stateless. People from a nation that only has jus soli citizenship whose children are born in the US need the 14th Amendment to insure they are not born stateless. I think we tend to forget the purpose of many things. In fact that was the purpose of the 14th amendment when it was ratified in 1868, to make sure that both the children of and the newly freed slaves themselves were not stateless. The sole intent for the amendment was to make sure that a later Congress could not weaken or rescind the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it was never meant as an anchor for future citizenship unless the parents were under the jurisdiction. I can only speak for myself, but I can see some judicial leeway in granting citizenship to the children of foreigners whose native countries do not offer their citizens a means of transferring their citizenship to their children born in another country.
James,
ReplyDeleteAgain, I am only speaking for myself, but everyone of us here knows what Orly is doing. If you want to be an Orly cheerleader, please do so on her site, as we are trying to discuss the subject of Mario’s essays. Since all Orly has on her site is news flashes, and has printed nothing at all in terms of her position of a natural born citizen you will find you are quite at home and welcome there.
And please while you are there ask her what her position is, as you have incessantly been asking both Mario and Charles why they don't get on TV. When you find out what here position is on a natural born citizen, please come back here and tell us so we can decide if we support her or not.
Right now forgive me for not praying for her until I know what position she is going to take with the court in her arguements.
Teo Bear,
ReplyDeleteYou do make a good point for McCain. Senate Resolution 511 was based on the constitutional scholarship of Olsen and Tribe. But these two authorities made three grave errors in how they declared him a "natural born Citizen." First, they used the Naturalization Act of 1790 which they failed to acknowledge was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed "natural born" from the former act's "natural born Citizen" status and just left in "citizen." Second, the 1790 act was only retrospective which means it applied only to persons already born and not to persons to be born in the future such as McCain. Third, they said McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone which appears to be false. Authorities have written that McCain was born in Panama, which is a foreign country.
There was another way to make McCain an Article II "natural born Citizen." The secret is in how we define "born in the country." In order to overcome any impediment to his "natural born Citizen" status, McCain would have to resort to the law of nations expressed as U.S. common law which would allow him to overcome the 1795's Act declaring his status as only a "citizen" rather than a "natural born Citizen."
Vattel covers this issue in Sec. 217 of his master treatise, The Law of Nations. Following Sec. 215 wherein he states that by nature children follow the condition of their fathers and that the place of birth produces no change in this particular, unless the civil or political laws of a nation ordain otherwise, he covers the question of what is the citizenship status of children born in the armies of the State:
"For the same reasons also, children born out of the country in the armies of the state, or in the house of its ministers at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory."
So even though McCain was born "out of the country," he can be reputed [to be] born in the country" because he was born "in the armies of the state." None of the Acts of Congress ever included the factor of a child being born abroad to U.S. military citizen parents while on service for the United States. Hence, this federal common law can fill the missing gap. It can also be argued that the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" included Vattel's explanation and therefore Congress could not alter it by legislation in any event. This might even explain why the Third Congress removed "natural born" from the "natural born Citizen" status of the 1790 act, for it was not necessary or appropriate for the First Congress to be declaring who was a "natural born Citizen." Remember that Congress had the constitutional power only to make uniform the naturalization laws and not to be declaring who was a "natural born Citizen."
We know that McCain's U.S. citizen father was in the military service in Panama. McCain's U.S. mother was there with him. His parents were both serving their country when his mother gave birth to McCain. They surely were not in Panama because they had "quitted" the United States. Hence, McCain was born in the "armies" of the United States and is deemed as if being born in the United States.
Also, if Panama followed the law as did most civilized nations that a child born on its territory to an army of a foreign state is not a citizen, notwithstanding any rules of jus soli, McCain would not have been born with Panamanian citizenship and therefore no allegiance and loyalty to that country. Being born to two U.S. citizen parents and not being subject to any foreign power at birth, McCain would be a subsequent generation U.S. citizen and therefore an Article II "natural born Citizen."
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
lol so McCain was not a citizen of Panama even though he was an ANCHOR BABY !!
ReplyDeleteha
Mario:
ReplyDeleteActually, Panama seems to be a special case covered rather specifically by law. Here's the data from the Foreign Affairs Manual:
================================
"7 FAM 1131.9 Birth in Panama; Special Provisions
a. Congress has enacted special legislation governing the conditions under which U.S. citizenship may be acquired by birth in Panama (see also 7
FAM 1120 for legislation relating to the Canal Zone). This legislation does not apply to all children born in Panama, but only to those born to U.S. citizens employed by the U.S. Government or the Panama Railroad Company. Section 303(b) INA (8 U.S.C. 1403(b)) states that: Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
b. This provision is the same as those in section 203(b) NA and Section 2 of the Act of August 4, 1937 (50 Stat. 558). Because it applies retroactively, it is not necessary to refer to the prior versions for citizenship
adjudication purposes; they are of historical interest only. Under all three sections, a child born in Panama on or after February 26, 1904, to a U.S. citizen employee of the U.S. Government or the Panama Railroad Company is automatically a U.S. citizen at birth even if the citizen parent
had never previously resided or been physically present in the United States. The child is not required to take any particular steps in order to retain citizenship.
c. Legitimation is required for a child born out of wedlock to a male U.S. citizen engaged in qualifying employment. A child born out of wedlock to an American woman employed by the U.S. Government or the Panama Railroad Company acquires U.S. citizenship at birth.
d. Until August 4, 1937, there was no special law relating to Americans born in Panama. Acquisition of citizenship was governed by Section 1993, Revised Statutes which on May 24, 1934, was amended to include retention requirements. Those retention requirements were superseded
by the August 4, 1937 Act, however, because it applied retroactively, as does its modern version, section 303(b) INA.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1130 Page 11 of 103
e. In cases outside the scope of section 303(b) INA, the general laws that govern the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad apply.
f. Evidence to prove a claim to U.S. citizenship under section 303(b) INA would include:
(1) The child's Panamanian birth certificate or other proof of the child's birth to a U.S. citizen (the blood relationship must be established);
(2) The parents' marriage certificate, if applicable; and
(3) Proof of the citizen parent's employment by the U.S. Government or the Panama Railroad Company at the time of the child's birth."
===============================
It would seem, perhaps that McCain would then be deemed a citizen by statute (if the court would rule the statue did not conflict with American Connomn Law) which is not the same as NBC since I'd think that military service of the parent (the father at least) would be considered employment by the U. S. government.
(continued in Part II, q.v. ...)
Mario: (Part II of "Panama" ...)
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting question never addressed, though, and the law of nations data you present might very well apply in other cases since the FAM also says:
================================
"7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.” U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
============================
Perhaps SCOTUS will finally give some Judicial guidance (which is much needed).
There is no need for SCOTUS to decide an issue like Senator McCain's.
ReplyDeleteHis problem is that he has deliberately blurred his personal history, in order to advance his ambitions to be President of the United States. He really no different from 3,527,550 of his American friends (Census 2000), who were born overseas to American parents (in Latin, "nati trans mare"). Under U. S. law, they are ALL 'naturalized Citizens' (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, the authority for Congress to enact the 1790 Naturalization Act, and all those following it).
By 'running away' from these Americans, and by claiming that HE is a natural-born Citizen,' McCain has suggested that their roots are something less than his — just at a time when he ought to have made them proud!
HOWEVER, it is important to take this into consideration -- namely, the Opinion of Attorney General Bates, “It is an error to suppose that citizenship is ever hereditary. It never ‘passes by descent.’ It is as original in the child as it was in his parents. It is always either born with him or given to him directly by Law.” Citizenship, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1863, p. 16.
ReplyDeleteBob,
ReplyDeleteBates addressed the question in 1862: "can colored men be citizens of the United States?" His analysis of citzenship law is only relevant to the question of whether blacks may be members of American society and therefore "citizens" of the United States. His analysis is not controlling on the question of what is an Article II "natural born Citizen." As you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment removed any doubts about the ability of blacks (now called African-Americans) to be members of American society, i.e. "citizens" of the United States. Again, none of that goes to what is an Article II "natural born Citizen," for it only goes to whether blacks may become first generation U.S. citizens.
I have a little piece coming out shortly on using Attorney General Bates' letter essay to show that our interpretation of the "natural born Citizen" clause is not racially discriminatory as the Obama supporters, having no valid argument to support their English common law position, would like the world to believe and thus so win this constitutional debate (like they so want to win virtually all debates regarding Obama).
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Mario --
ReplyDeleteYes, I know that Bates' opinion was sent to Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, to be forwarded to all Federal officers in the field, saying ‘all free persons born in the United States, or naturalized of whatever color, are CITIZENS of the United States,” and are to be treated as ‘loyal CITIZENS.’
And, it's equally important to note that Justice Noah Hayes Swayne in his Circuit decision, United States v. Rhodes (1866), was challenged to answer this question: “Is the ['Civil Rights Act of 1866.’] warranted by the Constitution?” Recognizing the civil law (jus civile) will eventually replace the common law (jus commune), Swayne found the key he needed in the ‘natural-born CITIZEN’ phrase of the ‘Presidential Qualification Clause’ (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5).
When defining 'natural-born CITIZEN' on the basis of ALLEGIENCE, then for Swayne, the civil law could take its rightful place: 1) the ‘Presidential Qualification Clause’ (jus commune) was the key to emancipating the slaves by means of the 13th Amendment; 2) the ‘Civil Rights Act of 1866’ was based upon the 13th Amendment, Clause 2. It conferred on ‘blacks’ the RIGHTS of CITIZENS (jus civile).
This proves (as you say) the 'Presidential Qualification Clause' is race-blind -- and that American jurisprudence employed this clause to emancipate the slaves when they could find nothing else to do the job.
Unfortunately, there are too many Americans who have forgotten our history.
James,
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that you fill my blog up with comments and links to the work of Orly Taitz. For some unknown reason, Taitz recently attacked me on her blog. If you want to continue posting here, please post on this blog the number of times and dates you posted on Orly Taitz's site about my works. Your failure to honor this request will result in your future proposed comments here being rejected.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
If military leaders knowingly follow orders emanating from foreign allegiances, are they not too culpable and guilty of treason? The military has, in the past, turned on its own citizens (Wayne State). How would Americans know that federal actions weren't in a foreign country's interests? Obama's Kenyan, British and potential Indonesian citzenships, are no less "sovereign" and of less import than his American one which we cannot even discern if real. How can any military member in good faith of their oath to defend the CONSTITUTION, follow a usurper who on face value violates that constitution even if he were born in Hawaii? Do those means ring meaningless to them ALL?
ReplyDeletecajapie,
ReplyDeleteAll members of the US military swear an oath to the Constitution and not to a government or leader.
They have two tests, first is the order unconstitutional. Second is the order immoral a yes to either gives them the protection to disobey it.
I can tell you this from looking at the logs of theBirthers.org website the members of military from multiple commands in multiple locations have visited the site and they know what is going on.
I am more worried about Obama abandoning them to the Muslim insurgents with no way to be evacuated and replacing them domestically with his "brown shirts in red berets" more than I am afraid of the brave men and women of our armed forces turning on us.
Mario,
ReplyDeleteThe revelation of the last few days that according to Kenyan statute that (unlike what Factcheck said, lying by omission) one's Kenyan citizenship does NOT automatically pass away at age 21, one rather has a 2 year period to affirm it or lose the citizenship, it is clear that it all makes sense. I think someone finally has something that is most certainly real or true, and it lends to your Natural Born Citizen argument ... AND THEN SOME. Age 21-23 for Barack Hussein Obama was the year 21 + 1961 = 1982: He had until 1984 to declare loyalty to the Kenyan government. Two independent sources place Obama in Kenya in 1983. And he had just graduated from Columbia in ~ June 1983 ... the perfect time to travel before starting his jobs in New York, on his way to Harvard Law in 1988. It is very possible that he had Indonesian ties on his file at Occidental, and when switching over to Harvard, what about Kenyan ones? The odds are such.
In summary I think if we were able to open up EVERYthing, we'd see the following:
1) Affidavits surrounding a supposed (uncertain if true or false) birth in Hawaii on the original vital record
2) Occidental records indicating Indonesia citizenship/scholarship thereof
3) Similar to (2) at Columbia
4) Harvard indicating a return trip in 1983 as proposed giving allegiance to Kenya, thereby showing Kenyan citizenship, international status, and scholarships from Al-Mansour/Saudi funds.
Mario, this is the KEY and it proves not only that (like Donofrio) he owed allegiance to another power at birth and therefore CANNOT be NBC, but also that he more than likely DID swear citizenship to Kenya.
I can understand how one can legally argue that a birth certificate is private because in some way it can be seen as a medical record, even though I believe this is lame. What I can't understand is that through FOIA or some other agency that US PASSPORTS for the president cannot be seen. What possibly is private on these? We can't know where our President has been?
Someone has to be able to get a subpoena on this given all the reasonable doubt! Why wouldn't show a passport! It's a US document, not a birth certificate, and nothing about it is private!
Thanks, I'm hoping that a judge realizes this ... namely YOUR JUDGE in the Kerchner case. Best,
JofM
Mario, thank you for this enlighteningand enjoyable look at Vattel's book. Clearly he was a gifted thinker.
ReplyDeleteWhile we await word from "our" judge, I wonder if he is waiting on the September 8, finding on Keyes v Obama by Justice Carter. I am optimistic that he will order us to proceed regardless the California outcome, but it would be less stressful for him if Justice Carter agrees there are questions that are worthy of an answer.
Godspeed Mario, Charles and America.
How can ANY order from an unconstitutional usurper, be constitutional?
ReplyDeleteHistory note for Joseph Maine --
ReplyDeleteObama was in Kenya at the end of 1982 for the funeral of his father, Barak H. Obama ["Barak" is how his father signed his name.]
The widely published photo of Obama, Jr. standing with his OLDER brothers was taken in Kenya during that visit.
Obama, Jr.'s OLDER brothers are Brits, who live in England under the 1981 law granting them the 'right of abode.'
That 1981 law is very important, because it became effective on January 1, 1983, when it was ratified by Queen Elizabeth II.
Is this bit from the Law of Nations (Book I) philosophically relevant (if not legally applicable) to your argument of international law controlling citizenship and qualifications of the president of the US?
ReplyDelete§ 67. That the right to the succession ought not to depend on the judgment of a foreign power.
…As the nation has established the succession, to the nation alone belongs the power of acknowledging those who are capable of succeeding; and consequently, on its judgment and laws alone must depend the validity of the marriage of its sovereigns and the legitimacy of their birth,...
To All -- I am not a defender of any one attorney attacking the Obama eligibility issue, I find all have merit and point in their writings and filings; some with success, other shot down at the pass, but still viable is they chose to go forward. I have found things in each case I would personally do differently regarding emphasis, with the exception of Kerchener v. Obama. With that said who ever arrived on 1st base first is not the winner, they have only advanced their client's case, which leaves much work yet to be done. I do not think finding fault, in any of the cases before the courts, necessarily validates anyone. So I say support the cause not the vehicle. My personal opinion obviously.
ReplyDeleteBob,
ReplyDeleteWhat is so important about it? His "brothers" were also born and owing allegiance to the British (as well as Kenya) from BOTH parents. They don't have the conundrum of being even potential US Citizens by whatever method.
Are you saying he was not there in 1983 as well?
What about Ruth's children? She was the other American wife of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. Where are her children? What citizenships do they enjoy?
ReplyDeleteJoseph Maine --
ReplyDeleteLooks like my 1982 visit and your 1983 visit are really one and the same -- namely to "mourn his father." Apparently, with different sources, there were different dates.
This is the lengthiest description concerning that visits that I could find, from 2004, even recording that "Grandma" Sarah had visited the United States several times.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200408160533.html
Concerning the brothers, my contention was, that if your father's older sons are Brits, then you would have a great deal of difficulty filling the definition of a 'natural-born Citizen,' as has been fully explained on this blogsite.
In addition, some very good historical material on the issue (supplementary to the legal material found here) has begin to appear here:
http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
I'm sure that Mario must also know about this site.
Dear Dr. Conspiracy,
ReplyDeleteI simply cannot understand your presumption that Vattel created “international law,” that is now controlling citizenship. Vattel codified natural law through observation on how nature conducted herself. This is especially true with regards to citizenship. His observation is that in nature long before a child realizes what country they belong to they realize what family they belong to. Your inference that Mario is supporting international law is without merit.
As to your reference to Vattel § 67. That the right to the succession ought not to depend on the judgment of a foreign power. The question I have for you is are you suggesting that Obama is a king, a monarch?
While Vattel is speaking of the Vatican clearly he is saying that a nation should not be subject to a foreign power in the selection of its leader, but rather that a Republic such as we have and by extension its leaders is subject to its own laws. In that, we have the US Constitution as our guide.
Mario has never said that Obama’s legitimacy to be President never depended on the presence of a foreign power, rather he has constantly stated that Obama’s natural born status depended on an absence of a foreign power.
Dr. Conspiracy,
ReplyDeleteYou state:
"Is this bit from the Law of Nations (Book I) philosophically relevant (if not legally applicable) to your argument of international law controlling citizenship and qualifications of the president of the US?
§ 67. That the right to the succession ought not to depend on the judgment of a foreign power.
…As the nation has established the succession, to the nation alone belongs the power of acknowledging those who are capable of succeeding; and consequently, on its judgment and laws alone must depend the validity of the marriage of its sovereigns and the legitimacy of their birth,..."
First, during the colonial period, whatever laws were used did not just come out of the sky. Those laws were based on legal developments that occurred mostly in Europe and other parts of the world for milleniums. In other words, laws are not just created in a vacuum, but have a connection to what has happened in the past and those happenings can occur in another part of the world. This evolution of the laws of a nation occurs whether we realize it or not.
Second, my position is not that international law controls who may be President of the U.S. My point is that the law of nations initially defined what a "natural born Citizen" is. The U.S. accepted that definition as is evidenced by various decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court. When the U.S. accepted that definition, the law of nations became federal common law. It is this U.S. common law that now controls the definition of what a "natural born Citizen" is. Hence, since the definition of what is a "natural born Citizen" is contained in the decisions of our own U.S. Supreme Court, Congressional debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, and in other U.S. sources, I am not using international law to decide the question of what is an Article II "natural born Citizen."
Third, your position is that we should use English common law to decide what a "natural born Citizen" is. The last time that I looked, Great Britain was a foreign country and has been for quite some time. We even fought two wars with them. Why is it acceptable to you that we can use English common law (a foreign law) to define "natural born Citizen" but we cannot use in your words some other "international law?"
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Bob:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link. It helps give a good overview and understanding of the time of the founding and the circumstances that had to be addressed - and why.
I know that Leo Donofrio uses material from this link and the historical material in the link is exceedingly well done. Everyone should read it to understand more about the context of our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
In fact, the treatise is good enough to be used as a classroom text. It would certainly be more helpful to students than today's "... look at me, I'm your Daddy; ain't I grand (and socialism, too) ..." lecture to the kidlets by my Obama.
Obama's father was little more than a sperm donor. He did not raise him or leave his imprint on him as a child. He did not impart any sense of British loyalty or duty on Obama, because he was not around. He was not a "real father" to him. Are children of non-citizen sperm donors also not natural born citizens? The question of what the framers meant and what is meant today by "natural born citizen" could have been raised before the election. I would consider them waived. The people have voted for their leader. Let the will of the people prevail. It is troubling, though, for Obama himself must have asked himself this question when first contemplating a run for presidency. I wonder what legal authority he asked and what answer he was given.
ReplyDeleteObama's father was little more than a sperm donor. He did not raise him or leave his imprint on him as a child. He did not impart any sense of British loyalty or duty on Obama, because he was not around. He was not a "real father" to him. Are children of non-citizen sperm donors also not natural born citizens? The question of what the framers meant and what is meant today by "natural born citizen" could have been raised before the election. I would consider them waived. The people have voted for their leader. Let the will of the people prevail. It is troubling, though, for Obama himself must have asked himself this question when first contemplating a run for presidency. I wonder what legal authority he asked and what answer he was given.
ReplyDeletePart I of II
ReplyDeletecwaldman,
You left the following questions/comments here. Your questions/comments raise some pertinent issues regarding Obama’s eligibility and I felt they deserved particular attention. Here are your questions/comments and my responses:
Question/Comment: "Obama's father was little more than a sperm donor. He did not raise him or leave his imprint on him as a child. He did not impart any sense of British loyalty or duty on Obama, because he was not around. He was not a "real father" to him. Are children of non-citizen sperm donors also not natural born citizens?"
Answer: The Framers understood that with citizenship comes allegiance. They concluded that the singular, powerful office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military needed special protection. Hence, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, they provided, among other things, that the President must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible for that office. At the same time, the Framers allowed all other collegial positions and offices mentioned in the Constitution (e.g. Senators and Representatives) to be occupied by a plain “Citizen.” Through the "natural born Citizen" clause, the Framers required that the status be established as of the time of birth. Under the natural law definition of “natural born citizen” that prevailed at the time of the Founding, a “natural born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents. Hence, what is constitutionally sufficient is that the child is born in the country to citizen parents. Since this is a constitutional status that a child acquires from the time of birth, it is not necessary that the child’s parents behave in any certain way after the child is born. In other words, it does not matter if the child's parents are "good" or "bad," raise the child in a certain way, or even abandon the child altogether. It is however hoped and assumed that given that the parents must to be citizens (either born or naturalized) at the time of the child's birth, that they will raise the child with the appropriate values and loyalty to the United States.
Of course, the people before they vote for any constitutionally eligible Presidential candidate will determine whether they will trust their lives, families, and fortunes to that person. If they are to make a knowing and intelligent decision, the voters will have to learn and rely upon information about that person before they vote for him or her. These voters will have to rely upon the campaign vetting process to show them who that person is and what that person stands for, a process that is conducted by our political institutions and media.
Continued . . .
II of II
ReplyDeleteQuestion/Comment: "The question of what the framers meant and what is meant today by "natural born citizen" could have been raised before the election."
Answer: The question was raised by thousands of concerned citizens. There were even lawsuits filed. The problem is that our political, legal, and media institutions have refused to give any real attention to the issue. As in they did during the campaign and following, they continue to "see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil." See http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/11/obamas-lack-of-eligibility-three.html.
Additionally, what the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is believed to be today does not change what the meaning was when the Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1789. The Constitution does provide for a way to amend it. That process is found in Article V which prescribes both the mode of proposing (two thirds of both Houses or two thirds of the State Legislatures which would then obligate Congress to call for a Convention for purposes of proposing such amendments) and ratifying (by three fourths of the Legislatures of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as Congress shall propose) such amendments. The Constitution cannot and should not be change simply because people believe that it means something different today. It should also not be changed by inaction that is the product of ignorance, fear, political collusion, corruption, or apathy.
Question/comment: "I would consider them [the eligibility questions] waived."
Answer: Concerned citizens are in one way (place of birth or citizenship of parents ) or another (both place of birth and citizenship of parents) still pursuing Obama’s eligibility issue. They have fought and continue to fight the issue. They therefore have not waived their right to have in the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military a person who is constitutionally qualified to protect their inalienable rights to liberty, safety, security, and tranquility.
Question/comment: "The people have voted for their leader. Let the will of the people prevail."
Answer: We are a nation of laws, not of men. We are a Constitutional Republic, committed to a written Constitution and to the rule of law. The will of the majority does not necessarily bind the will of the minority. The minority receives protection under our Constitution and laws and by the due process they guarantee. It is this same Constitution and rule of law that allows all persons no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or physical condition may be to aspire and be elected President. Hence, the election for President must respect both the substance and procedure of our Constitution and laws in order to be valid and binding upon all people in our Republic.
Question/comment: "It is troubling, though, for Obama himself must have asked himself this question when first contemplating a run for presidency. I wonder what legal authority he asked and what answer he was given."
Answer: It does not matter what Obama thought or what authority he asked for advice on the question of his constitutional eligibility to hold the Office of President. As I have explained above on the question of how we can amend the Constitution, those concerns or acts do not somehow amend the eligibility requirements of Article II of the Constitution. Rather, Obama must satisfy those requirements in order to be validly elected to the Office of President and to be legitimately vested with executive power under Article II, Section 1, clause 1.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Counselor,
ReplyDeleteThe Electoral College voted for Obama and he was sworn in by the Chief Justice.
Those worthy gentlemen, knowing our Constitution as well as you or I, chose to allow Obama to take office, despite a known defect.
This is an anti-constitutional coup.
When the various Writs of Quo Warranto wend their way to and from the Federal District Court in DC, and it is conclusively shown that BHO, Jr. is not an eligible candidate for POTUS, what then?
The courts have no power to remove a sitting President. That is Congress' role. Since the Electors and Congress are the same people, it is unlikely that they will reverse their election of the impostor. They gave us a de facto President, not a de jure President.
I believe the best we can hope for is a prevention of a second term for Obama, which appears unlikely anyway. In short, we would appear to be stuck with an illegitimate President until 2012.
Perhaps we shall have a direct, unambiguous ruling from the SCOTUS as to what a "Natural Born Citizen is, or is not. Perhaps we shall not. In either case, that is why the lawsuits MUST continue. This can never be allowed to happen again. Obama's illegal reign cannot become a precedent.
One other point: One sort of American citizen is not "better" or "less" than any other kind of citizen. The "Natural Born Citizen" clause has much more to do with national security, not civil rights. Other than that one point, all US Citizens are equal before the law.
Thank you for your service to your country, and Merry Christmas.
DD
Part I of II
ReplyDeleteTo The Homeric Companion,
Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause is not discriminatory. Undoubtedly, one class of citizen is not “better” or “less” than any other class of citizen. Indeed, Article IV, Section 2, clause 1, the Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment make clear that a Fourteenth Amendment or statutory born “citizen of the United States,” and Fourteenth Amendment “naturalized citizen of the United States” are equal in the eyes of the law and enjoy the same privileges and immunities. There is nothing in these provisions which says that these “citizens of the United States” must have the same privileges and immunities as Article II “natural born Citizens.” Additionally, being allowed to be eligible to be President is not a fundamental constitutional right. The “natural born Citizen” clause is not a constitutional provision that is the source of any civil rights. The Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly guarantee to anyone the substantive right to be President of the United States nor are there any constitutional underpinnings to such an alleged right. The fact that someone might want to aspire to be President does not elevate eligibility to be President to be a constitutional fundamental right. On the contrary, being eligible to be President is a political privilege given by the Constitution to those who meet the qualifications of Article II to be President.
The “natural born Citizen” clause as I define it is no different from Article II’s requirements that a would-be President have a certain age (35) and a certain time of residency (14 years) and that a naturalized citizen cannot be President. My interpretation of the “natural born Citizen” is not discriminatory but rather based on respect for the rule of law, i.e. the Constitution. Indeed, the clause has no race, color, ethnicity, or religion test, for its requirements apply to all people regardless of those factors. Under the clause, we are not condemning any child for any misdeeds of his or her parents. These children are not being penalized or stigmatized for anything the parents did or did not do or for their birth status. Rather, these children’s status is being characterized pursuant to a constitutional mandate that applies to defining the eligibility requirements to be President. These children are being treated no differently from how Congress treats persons differently when it comes to doling out government benefits to a person depending on that person’s relationship to the United States, i.e., citizen, resident, or alien. They are no different from the persons who cannot be President because they have been naturalized. Additionally, the Equal Protection Clause is not designed to equalize all persons and eradicate every distinction that may exist between people and for which people are not responsible. Indeed, guilt or innocence of the target of legislation does not control equal protection analysis. Hence, there is nothing discriminatory about my wanting our Constitution respected. On the contrary, there is much wrong in allowing a majority of our legislatures or people to circumvent the Constitution for the sake of wanting for whatever reason any specific person to occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief.
Continued . . .
Part II of II
ReplyDeleteOne might ask why we even have the “natural born Citizen” clause. The "natural born Citizen" clause’s purpose is to protect the national security of the United States. The Founders wanted to make sure to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief. We know from studying our own and international legal precedents that citizenship produces allegiance. Preserving the national security, safety, and best interests of the United States is a compelling government interest. Making sure a would-be President has attachment and allegiance from birth solely to the United States is a means by which the nation can assure itself that the person to be President will, indeed, have the survival of the nation as currently constituted at heart. Requiring that a would-be President be born in the country to a U.S. citizen mother and father assures that from birth that person has sole and absolute allegiance to the United States. Making sure the person to be President has sole and absolute allegiance to the United States and is free of foreign influence to the greatest degree possible is a reasonable means of securing the safety and interests of the United States. Keeping foreign influence out of the Office of President also assures the American people that the President will not favor once foreign nation over another foreign one to the detriment of the best interests of the United States.
When the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the People made their choice regarding wanting only a “natural born Citizen’ to be President. The choice is not discriminatory under today’s standards. The requirements for Presidential eligibility emanate from the Constitution itself and neither the federal nor state legislatures nor voters themselves can avoid or change them unless done by a way prescribed the Constitution itself. Hence, the People’s choice must be respected unless changed by constitutional amendment.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.