Friday, August 7, 2009

Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving

Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important
and Worth Preserving

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

It was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (underlying "born" in the original). Jay’s recommendation did make it into the Constitution. Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “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. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen." Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a "natural born Citizen." Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. 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 has 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.

That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen." This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in, _The Law of Nations_ (1758), Vol.1, Section 212, Des Citoyens et Naturels, a "citizen" is a member of the civil society. To become a "citizen" is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, Vattel wrote that a native or indigenes (written in French as /les naturels/ or /indigenes/) or “natural born Citizen” as the term later became translated from French into English, 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. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.) With the presidential qualification question never being involved, 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 (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws 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." The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a "natural born Citizen" prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation).

The original definition of "natural born Citizen" gives our 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 foreign citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. Having all other means of acquiring other foreign citizenships or allegiances cut off is unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth. Additionally, by requiring the child’s parents to be U.S. citizens best assures that those parents most likely will have absorbed American customs and values which, in turn, they will transmit to their child.

The “natural born Citizen” clause serves a critical purpose today and must be enforced in every Presidential election. The President has immense power, both civil and military. The clause assures the American people that their President does not have any conflicting allegiances or loyalties. In our nuclear world, it will avoid having a President who may hesitate to act quickly and decisively in a moment of crisis due to some internal psychological conflict of allegiance or loyalty. It will avoid any foreign nation expecting and pressuring the President to act in their best interest instead of that of America. The clause gives the American people the best chance that they will not be attacked from within through the Office of President. Knowing the President is a “natural born Citizen,” the American people will trust their President with their lives. Finally, such a President can expect that the military will give him or her full trust and obedience.

When President Obama was born in 1961, under the British Nationality Act of 1948, both his father and he were British subjects/citizens. In 1963, they both became Kenyan citizens. In fact, Mr. Obama’s father was never even a legal resident or immigrant of America. Hence, regardless of where Mr. Obama was born or that he may be a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President. This ineligibility has absolutely nothing to do with his race or class but all to do with his being born with multiple citizenships and allegiances and not satisfying the strict eligibility requirements of Article II. If someone believes that today the “natural born Citizen” clause no longer serves any useful purpose, then the proper way to change or abandon it is by way of constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, not by usurpation.

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


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



Anonymous said...

THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

THE VENUS, 12 US 253:

Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Anonymous said...

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


[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.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Mario and Charles...

Incredulous said...

Today on air Michael Medved said that any 14th amendment citizen was a natural born citizen, which is a total lie.

What he said is that anyone who is born of only one US citizen, or just on US soil of no US citizen parents, (i.e. citizen at birth) is a natural born citizen when in fact a natural born citizen is a person born of two citizen parents and in-country (codified into law since 1758 Vattel La Loi Des Gens).

It is ironic that Mr. Medved chose the 14th amendment to lie about the definition of natural born citizen, for in fact, John Bingham who WROTE the 14th amendment and is IN the Congressional Record
makes the definition abundantly clear and ON RECORD---
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

John Bingham confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:"[4] [5] [6]
“ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

roderick said...

The imposter will be caught. It may take five years but he will be exposed. There will be no removal of term limits because he will not get enough votes in the senate. You jave to understand that that was what he was counting on. If he could be a dictator he would never legally be exposed.

Guy4013 said...

I also like Leo Donofrio's comment from Wong where the judge said," (Wong)if born in the country, is as much a CITIZEN as the NATURAL BORN child of a CITIZEN".

Leo comments that the judge talks about Two children, a citizen child and a "natural born" citizen child. The judge clearly states that ONLY ONE is Natural Born, the child of the citizens.

Chief said...

It is amazing to me that the 14th Amendment can be so widely translated into the very thing it does not say.

Where do these translators get their education?

I realize the seculars and progressives are hell bent on change our constitution and the Republic it created. Since the national media is encamped with the Obama Liberal/Socialist/
Marxist element it is difficult to educated the masses as Mario, Charles and other who contribute in this blog make the effort to do.

I disseminate this blog to every one I have contact with in the effort to help them understand the issue.

Mario/Charles are staying the course and that is the most important thing right now.

Hopefully the right decision will be coming down from the court soon.

Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy
"Going in Harms Way"

Bob said...

Very good stuff can be found here --

Attorney General Bates, "Citizenship," Washington, Government Printing Office, 1863

Bates was Lincoln's Attorney General, so this is an official U.S. opinion on "Citizenship." In it, Bates also reminds us all that even St. Paul claimed to be a "natural-born Citizen" of Rome -- that's how really, really OLD this matter really is -- 2000 years old.

jayjay said...

Very fine piece, Mr. A. ... keep up the good educational work!!

Unknown said...

(corrected version)
Off subject of NBC - Wednesday 8/5, Glenn Beck, within the first few minutes of his show, called us the "birther idiots" right before his segment with Dr. Keith Ablow on the Left's tactic of ridicule and marginalizing and name calling. Hypocrite! I wrote his 9/12 project site and said I was no longer watching and I got a sarcastic response back. In it, the editor said he had looked at the "facts" and agrees with Glenn. I have yet to hear which "facts" have been looked at and what the explanation is for dismissing them. We're just supposed to trust Glenn. I hope to get the word out to enough people to make a dent in his ratings. I think he's clueless as to how big the "fringe" group is.

Also Canada Free Press has an article that the Northeast Intelligence Network has been investigating the last eight months a media blackout due to threats on media personalities if they bring up the BC issue. They have copies of emails and proof. I hope that can be verified.

cfkerchner said...

Hi Mario,

Another outstanding essay. Great job. Your words will be remembered and quoted in history. We are living in heroic times. The Constitution and our Republic will be defended from the usurper and he will be booted out of the Oval Office. We will win.

Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

AnAmerican said...

The constitution does not define the word "the" and since "the" is commonly known today, does not need to go into a court for definition. It does not define "natural born" either, but can be found in legal references of the time when questioned, and can be further defined in a court of law today when contested.

The media who twist words are all documented and will be confronted in courts for obstruction of justice and deliberately defrauding the American public for self aims.

Mario and Charles, you are terrific, and I love to hear you discuss and explain the legal situation, because you make it so understandable to the lay person. May God bless you both mightly.

Brian H said...

Charles K.;
From your keyboard to God's eyes!

Incredulous said...

Mario thank God you're giving us bloggers some oomph to reference. The bots believe that since natural born is not defined in the Constitution it's one and the same as US Citizen.
EVEN THOUGH Article II s.1 specifically uses the word OR between NBC and US Citizen if alive at time of ratification. "OR" should be an OBVIOUS sign that the terms CANNOT be the same.
But they're hellbent on confusing the public and muddying the waters on such a simple term!
Barack is still British, he cannot be natural BORN American therefore.

Greg Goss said...

The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:

EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:

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;

EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:

The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

Yes, Law of Nations is capitalized, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.

Spaulding said...

Cmdr. Kerchner and Mario, I gather you have more to do than critique misstatements, but in a notable observation by Donofrio that Obama is a 'Natural born subject' a reference is made to a Nancy Salvato article in Worldandi. In the article, Ms. Salvato translates for us the title of U.S. Code Title 8, from "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:" into "Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen." Whether intentional or not, this simply adds to the the confusion. You and your scholarly contributors have cited a number of USSC cases which illuminate that they are distinct - natural born citizens are a subset of citizens of the U.S.

Incredulous said...


Incredulous said...

Donofrio says he's removing the Salvato reference because she lists 14thers as NBCs

sjc said...

To Greg Goss

Well Said, and the 3rd Congress of1795 further wrote into The Congressional Record, the statute defining Natural Born Citizen.

The original volumes residing in the National Archives Building in Washington D.C.

The same place where the original Constitution is dislayed enclosed by a hermetically sealed glass case for all posterity to see.

PatriotX said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shakes said...

Greg Goss said...

The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:

Yes, Law of Nations is capitalized, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.

So Greg....and anyone else...does this mean Congress needs to act....shouldn't this be brought to their attention....many of them are so ignorant they don't have a clue!!!

MinutemanCDC_SC said...

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time...

But the Obama camp expects they can fool at least half of the people at any given time, and that should be enough to keep Senators and Congressmen from breaking ranks and crying, "foul".

Greg Goss said...

Jackie, Congress will not act, at least I don't think they will in this Democrat controlled congress. Even without this revelation congress could appoint a special prosecutor to at least investigate but you don't see that happening. The one thing that needs to be understood is that once all this unfolds it becomes clear that the leadership is guilty of fraud. They know that and will not allow anyone "one minute" to discuss it.

Unknown said...

My deepest prayers for relief our in your hands.


Anonymous said...

Iran [Obahmadinejihad] charges dozens with [opposing the Iranian Mullahs] helping Western plot

There is a lot of disinformation about [the Iranian Mullahs]… These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about [Iranian Natural Born Citizens opposing the Mullahs ] send it to

Anonymous said...

If only Obahmadinejihad had his “Civilian National Security Force”…

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Webmaster said...

Have you seen this:

U.S. Constitution and Vattel’s Law of Nations: The Answer has been there All the Time!

EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:

The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared.

cfkerchner said...


Yes we have. Others are just discovering that point. But it is in our lawsuit and court filings. See EndNote 14 on page 78 of our Complaint, last amended on 9 Feb 2009.

Charles Kerchner
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress

Webmaster said...

Hello Charles. Thanks for your reply and your and Mario's great work.

I see the reference, but my reading of the Constitution goes further. It says that Congress shall have power to define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations. I think they were saying that the Law of Nations was an additional Constitutional rule book, it was part of the Law, and offenses against it's rulings or precepts were liable to punishment by Congress. It's not to do with Piracy and Felonies on the High Seas, it was just bundled in with them.

Therefor the Vattel precept that Natural Born equals born on US soil of US Citizen parents, is itself enfoceable as PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.

The Stacker said...

Charles, I have been meaning to ask you. Let's say you are right with your theory on what obama's original records say in Hawaii. You still wouldn't be able to remove him unless you had a smoking gun because no matter how stupid or silly the law is you'd have to have overwhelming evidence to remove a chaired president. Even if he were found to be lying (which he is, likely about being born at Kapiolani, although he nor Gibbs has confirmed that so they are careful in case it happens) there still would be no recourse to remove him.

I think the best thing we get out of this is embarrassment and lame duck status for the President. I highly doubt any chance for removal. You MIGHT be able to expose him as an obvious liar but proving he was NOT BORN in Hawaii will be next to impossible.

How do you respond?

My biggest issue is to finally resolve the NBC issue, once and for all, so we don't have to deal with this ever again.

cfkerchner said...

Dear Joseph,

Read the Complaint and lawsuit again. Link is found in this blog in the right frame. It does not matter where Obama was born. He is not a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen, nor an immigrant, nor even a permanent residence. Have you read Mario's essays in this blog. I called the Bill Cunningham Show and addressed the questions about the birth announcements in the HI papers because Cunningham challenged anyone in America to explain that point. However, you know or should know that being born in the USA is a necessary but not sufficient part of being a natural born citizen (NBC). I think you know that. If not, read the Complaint we filed again. All your concerns and the answers to all your questions are found therein in the body of the Complaint and in the 12 counts and prayers for relief.


andy g said...

the real question is ..why he can't prove citizenship...and why is he still in office and in control of america. and why can't some one or some group evict him off the property..i just don't understand how is organization of democrats letting him run and ruin and help put americans and america into an area of destruction..his backers are doing to america what we should be doing to obama..destroying from this the stoy of who's afraid of the big bad wolf....time to huff and puff and blow him out of the white house...and take back america for the people who are and applied for citizenship....

The Stacker said...


While I believe you guys to be clearly right on this subject, you must admit that there is no consensus on this issue. The only issue there is 99% consensus on is the aspect of being born on US Soil. That said, if you actually think you are going to get someone to give you the chance to remove him without proving unequivocally that he was born outside of the US, I sadly say you are being unrealistic.

Again, I applaud you for drawing attention to the issue for future generations and making sure something gets done so that the only eligibles (we don't even check for this let alone know what we are checking for!) are born of two american parents, preferably on our soil (if they define it as such).

I'm going to make a prediction. Something will come out next week which will reinvigorate the base of birthers and it will have to do with the issue of BO's parents ... which is right up y'all's alley.

PatriotX said...

The Indonesian citizenship angle is strong, if Obama used an Indonesian passport after age 18 he will likely be removed. No way can he claim NBC status when actively using a foreign citizenship as an adult. Discovery will be key must likely reveal other huge problems for Obama.

giveusliberty1776 said...

Joseph from Maine-Obama's Parents

The American people do not need to wait for next week. Obama has already provided the anwer on that one.

In Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" he states Obama Sr was Kenyan. To me that means non-US.

Obama has disqalifed himself. We just need to get into court.

Incredulous said...

Some minor good news: Most everyone hates him

James said...

Do you have any idea when the court might render a decision? Is there any way you can submit additional motions to push the court to rule in your favor?

PatriotX said...

Dr. Chiyome Fukino said the Obama was a Natural Born American Citizen; there is no such thing as American Citizenship, there is United States Citizenship. I hereby proclaim Barack Hussein Obama Natural Born World Citizen, it carries the same weight. This lady needs to be deposed!

The Stacker said...


I am the voice of reality and reason in this terrible storm. If Obama has disqualified himself, why isn't it so obvious --- meaning that he should be gone already? I agree that the strongest case is what Mario and Charles are fighting for ... however the only obvious thing is that "natural born" means born on our soil. Indeed we are in strange times. It's actually hysterical that because of that terminology and it not having been defined offiically as per candidate eligibility --- again, if we don't even check for eligibility, how could we know what we are even checking for? --- that people think it more important to be born here than to 2 american citizen parents. The latter is clearly FAR more important as to allegiance and conflict!

The timing sadly has to be right and these are tumultuous times, which puts the SCOTUS in a tough spot. Again, I really hope that discovery happens so that people can see with certainty what they are beginning to believe about this leader of ours --- he is a liar. Being a realist, I can no more than hope about it (just like the idiot obots during the campaign) because it just isn't realistic. My greatest desire is to make it apparent that he is untrustworthy and thus becomes a lame duck. Also, the media being exposed for its lame tricks and dishonest reporting would finally be official. I don't see any removal happening.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But I'm a man off odds ... and they are against this happening.

James said...

There seems to be little or no case law regarding the "Natural Born" citizenship requirement for POTUS. But, I think we can use a greater precedent; The History of our American Presidency. Since President Van Buren, all presidental candidates and actual presidents have been Natural Born citizens (Born in US to 2 US citizens) (Except for Chester Arthur but that is argumentative.). I think it is reasonable to assume that the general consensus qualification to be President has always been Born on US Soil to 2 US citizens. If Natural Born Citizenship only entailed being born on US Soil, it is also logical to assume that through many of the elections, candidates of direct foreign orgins would have been on the ballot. Other countries would have certainly taken advantage of the only requirement (Being Born on US Soil) to try to influence our country with the "Children" of their country. This does not seem to be the case. Neverthless, it does appear that in recent times, we drifting towards that premise. "Children" of other countries do appear to be getting on our ballots and getting elected into the POTUS. This appears to be a fundamental drift from the general premise that has been followed through much of American Presidency.

James said...

President Obama is considered by Kenya to the "Son of the Soil". It could mean he was born in Kenya. In any event, Obama is considered by Kenya to be their "Child". This type of allegience do not match up to the founding father's intent. If Obama's father became a US citizen this might be OK because by doing so, Obama's father would have had to swear sole allegiance to the US thus severing his ties with Kenya.(In terms of Allegience) This premise is definitely more in line to the intent of our founding fathers regarding Natural Born citizenship.

James said...


I know I said this before, but is it possible to file an additional motion urging the court to render its decision while stating that your plantiffs continued to be injured be by Obama's usurperness with each passing day and they are further injured by the court's delay in rendering a motion allowing this case to move forward into discovery? Further, Congress's recent failures to give any serious consideration to this matter further erodes your plantiff's liberty, oath, and trust with our government. Your plantiff's will have a difficult time as citizen of US and a taxpayer giving any support to any laws or social policies passed by Congress and authorized by Obama because is ineligible to be POTUS.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

To Joseph from Maine,

I do not understand what a "realist" is. How do we measure and judge "realism?" How do we know when we have reached the limit of human potential?

Were Jesus Christ, Aristotle, Galileo Galilei, Leonardo Da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, Christopher Columbus, the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Enrico Fermi, Henry Ford, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, to name a few, realists? Probably not. Did they achieve great things? Yes. These individuals had a dream of what they could accomplish. They put into action their vision. The rest is history.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Anonymous said...

Larry Sinclair Is Right About Obama Being a Thug

The Stacker said...


Your point is well taken. And you should do what you believe in, just as all of those [great] men did. However, the proof of my point lies in the details. Ultimately, their freedom of action was not dependent on others. Such is the case here, and more importantly, it is dependent on those who don't consider principle and the rule of law as as valuable and crucial as you and I do.

I must admit however, that you are noble and as I have thought and said many times, correct in your arguments and efforts.

My aim is not to deter but rather to temper the hope of some who may expect GRAND things when the reality is that the value is in the fight and even the smallest progress that can be obtained through it. As I said, I could be wrong about what happens, but my comments have never been about you. Since I believe in your efforts, my disdain and pessimism (which I call realism, just as I would call optimism in certain circumstances realism) comes from what I see as an increasingly uneducated lazy populace with similarly lost leaders. So it's not about you, it's about THEM.

Fight the good fight. That is where my hope is, and in that I find all the meaning, as I think you also agree and point out. That said, I also find it important to discuss what is going on overall with an even keel. These are my thoughts, God knows I could be wrong with some of them.

I have faith that the truth always comes to light but with that thought is an accompanying realization that it may fall in a way that is not necessarily in step with our human paths, wills, or desires --- perhaps it manifests itself in ways outside of our understanding. I think you can understand where I'm coming from.

sjc said...

I would expect the same intense effort to remove any ineligible POTUS, this isn't about Obama the black man. It's about Obama the non NBC President.

I have seen where the left has mentioned past candidates who ran for the office of POTUS whom they say were non NBC.

Goldwater for one is mentioned, in that he was born in the Territory of Arizona.

As Berg has found out the SCOTUS allows ineligible candidates to run for president as a 1st amendment right. If the Republican Party wanted to waste their efforts on Goldwater in 1964 with the afore knowledge he had blemishes, or alleged blemishes, that could disqualify him, so be it. If those blemishes were true it would not justify his admission to the Oval office solely based upon election results had he won. None of the examples provided by Obamaists were ever elected, so to me that is what is called a moot point. How does comparing Obama's position as a de facto President to the moot point of past non winning Canidates even makes a logical argument?

I suppose when you don't have the truth on your side, a grasping for straws defense is all that's left.

jayjay said...

Joseph from Maine:

As Shakespeare sain in the Merchant of Venice (c. 1600):

"... at the length truth will out ..."

So 'tis here methinks ...

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Joseph of Maine:

When one decides to engange in any struggle, one has to know that one can succeed or fail. But knowing those two possible outcomes is no reason not to undertake the challenge. One studies the problem and makes a decision to accept or not accept the challenge. One measures all the consequences of action or non-action. Ultimately, it is our own values which will motivate to take the decison that we chose.

Knowing that one might fail, for whatever reason, should not be an obstacle to taking the proper action. In the end, having acted for the right reasons will make one a better person and will also positively impact the society, even if it is in some small way.

That being said, I now have to place my trust in the Court and just wait for a decision. I do not have to remind anyone that when the Court makes a decision, there will be a winner and a loser. Based on my and so many other's undertanding of the "natural born Citizen" clause, we definitely should be the winners.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

The Stacker said...

Indeed, Mario, indeed.

God Bless.

James said...

It may very well possible that Obama's birth in Kenya is not True:
Globe: Obama's Hawaiian birth document fake
Cover story in tabloid suggests Canadian connection

Could Obama have been born in Canada?

Worth checking into.

In any event, I think there is good chance that Obama WAS NOT born in Hawaii.

sjc said...

Platitudes, Platitudes...

I care nothing for fighting the good fight and coming in second place.

I fight to win. Our Country is at stake.

I'm in full agreement with Charles Kerchner. all in full agreement.

Anonymous said...

Father of Handicapped Son Received Threats After Confrontation With Rep. Dingell

James said...

I was listening to Phil Berg and Orly today. The media really should interview Mario and Charles. Out of everyone, these persons convey the most convincing arguments.

The Stacker said...

The more and more you look at the "facts" and you think about it, the more Mario and Charles become the only clear thinkers of the whole lot. Orly and Berg claim certain knowledge and demand attention, but they never deliver. WND keeps coming up with more stories, but it's getting old. I've gotta say at this point it is tiresome.

I'm still hoping Charles and Mario get it done, but look: they don't get any press and they aren't kooky or have baggage like the others. This is what makes me sad. I think the zenith may have come and already went --- unless Kerchner v. Obama comes up big.

DrJim77 said...

Commander Kirshner I salute you for your leadership and patriotism.

Attorney Apuzzo you are also a great patriot and a credit to your profession.

Millions of citizens who love their country are behind you 110%.

Keep up the GOOD FIGHT

James said...

The Kerchner suit is the lawsuit that no one talks about. Assuming that it isn't dismissed, the media is about to get quite a suprise.

Mario, do you have any legal power to further stress the merits of your case to the court and to sway it to rule in your favor.

The Stacker said...


When will you guys next be on air? I want to call in again. You always think me the trickster but I think I do a valuable service in elucidating your arguments and qualities. In fact, when I re-listen to your shows I often come out with a better appreciation for who you guys are and what you stand for.

Did you see Donofrio's comment on Horace Gray's opinion in USA vs. Ark? I don't know how one couldn't see plain as day that he is absolutely on point with that one: "Ark is as much a citizen as the natural born citizen ..."

---> meaning both are citizens, enjoying full rights, but the former doesn't have something the latter does ...


jayjay said...

Joseph from Maine:

I'd like to remind you of part of what Winston Churchill said when addressing his old school and schoolmates at Harrow in 1941:

"Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

James said...

I think your right Joeseph. I would raise the argument that an ordinary citizen is different from a citizen who the POTUS due to the powers and abilities given to the POTUS. Further, I would argue that a citizen might in fact be a "Natural Born" citizen sufficient for an ordinary citizen but not for the POTUS. Since, we know that there is a class of citizen who hold the qualification of being born on US Soil to 2 US citizens you can assume those citizens hold the highest degree of allegience and loyalty to the US. The person who is the POTUS should therefore be held to that highest degree given his position and powers.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I have already written on more than one occasion in this blog that neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark makes a "natural born Citizen."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Court rules do not permit a party to just keep sending more legal arguments to the Court. Once the procedure is exhausted, there is nothing left to do but wait for the Court to decide. That is what we are doing now.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

cfkerchner said...

The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.

The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.

It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."

Link to the treason quote in case context:

Link to Case Summary:

Link to Full Case:

The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

Anonymous said...

Its important to show the reason for the law of natural born citizens, referenced in law of nations, a book cited in the constitution; is that one has loyalty to your country, and loyalty to your father. That should not be tested by a president. And its a real concern.