Monday, May 3, 2010

For Love of Party Obama Supporter Declares President George Washington a “Natural Born Citizen” Instead of an "Original Citizen" Covered by the Constitution's 'Founding Fathers Grandfather Clause'

It is becoming clear that Obama’s enablers are running scared and desperate. They are intensifying their campaign of deceit and ridicule and their war against the straw man, “Birther.” Even though they have no history, law, or facts to support their position and that history and all United States Supreme Court cases show that the Framers used natural law and the law of nations to define an Article II “natural born Citizen,” they continue trying to sell to the unknowing person that the Framers used the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen.” Can you just imagine? The Founders told us in the Declaration of Independence, the same document that was inspired by the political philosophy of natural law and the law of nations, that it became necessary for the American people “to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” They also declared that the new “Free and Independent States” were “absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved….” The Founders' goal was to “totally dissolve” all political connection with and allegiance to Great Britain. They saw themselves as establishing a new nation that was separate from Great Britain or any other nation. They saw that they had a right to this free and independent status by the Law of Nature and of Nature’s God. Hence, it was in nature that they saw their rights to be born and not from government. The Founders saw the need and the wisdom in totally dissolving any connection or allegiance to a foreign power which happened to be Great Britain. The Framers understood that adhering to the Revolution provided the Founding generation with the opportunity to dissolve any allegiance individuals had to Great Britain.

With all that, demagogue Dr. Conspiracy and his hate-filled team of birther bashers want us to believe that the Framers would have allowed a British subject by birth like Obama to be President and Commander in Chief of the Constitutional Republic. Now they want to convert President George Washington into an Article II “natural born Citizen” in order to give support to their untenable position. Dr. Conspiracy reaches the desperate point of declaring President George Washington an Article II "natural born Citizen" even though we know that President George Washington and his parents were born “natural born subjects” of Great Britain, when they were born there was no United States of America, it is his mother's (his father died a British subject in 1743 when Washington was 11 years old) and Washington's adherence to the Revolution which naturalized them to become original citizens of the United States, and David Ramsay, a highly respected historian from the Founding period, provides direct evidence from that period and explains in no uncertain terms at page 3 and 6 of his 1789 dissertation, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), that the “difference is immense” between a “subject” and a “citizen” and citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789, Of course, Dr. Conspiracy takes the position that he does because he is looking for mere birth on the territory (he will even go as far as settling with British territory) to make one a "natural born Citizen" rather than have to concede that a “natural born Citizen” is one born in the United States (or in what is deemed its equivalent) to parents who are themselves United States citizens (by birth or naturalization). See Ramsay; Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758 French edition) (1759 first English translation). See also all Supreme Court cases and other authorities cited and discussed in my essay, Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a Natural Born Citizen, Dr. Conspiracy would have a lot to do if he had to explain why President George Washington under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was only a grandfathered “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” He figures he better stay away from that one. Hence, a Washington that is a "natural born Citizen" of the United States, even though the United States of America did not exist when Washington was born, suits his unfounded position just fine.

But Dr. Conspiracy and his supporters do not stop there. They also put forth the position without providing any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment amended the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” by making a born “citizen of the United States” under that Amendment or under any Congressional Act to mean the same thing as an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Finally, they even go as far as to pooh-pooh the constitutional requirement that a President and Commander in Chief must have unity of Citizenship and sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States from the moment of birth and that the Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution for the security of the nation. It is by examining the Dr. Conspiracy team which is a reflection of the current Democrat and Republican parties that we can understand President Washington’s warning in his farewell address about the threat that political parties pose to the survival of the Constitutional Republic.

In his Farewell Address of 1796, Washington not only warns the young nation which had yet to “settle and mature its yet recent institutions” about the “insidious wiles of foreign influence” which he saw as “one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government," but he also continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of the “fury of party spirit” to the survival of the republic. His warnings are made in the context of the then-recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton's Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791 and which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in his address when speaking about the need to maintain neutrality in the war between England and France, was the Democratic-Republican party aligning with France and the Federalist party aligning with Great Britain in the ongoing conflict between the two European nations caused by the French Revolution.

Washington accepts that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups and to have the “spirit of party.” But he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek supremacy over other groups and take revenge on political opponents, motivations which he argues have led to horrible atrocities. He also warns that such party spirit could ultimately lead to a “more formal and permanent despotism” as people seek security in that individual who may gain and wield absolute power and who will most likely use that power for his own elevation at the expense of “Public Liberty.” Washington sees parties as something that could promote and protect liberty in monarchies. But he believes that parties must be restrained in a country led by self-representative government because of their tendency to distract the government from carrying out its most pressing duties, create unfounded group and regional jealousies, create false crisis among the public, and promote riot and insurrection. What he also cautions against and which is most relevant to the issue of the President having to be a “natural born Citizen” is his warning that the spirit of party “opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.” Finally, Washington advises that since there is the constant danger to liberty posed by the spirit of party, the people need to be forever vigilant that party excesses do not consume the nation and to express their views publicly.

We can see where love of party has led us on the constitutional question of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. People like Dr. Conspiracy now tell us that Washington was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Both the Democratic and Republican parties will not touch the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President and do not take any affirmative steps to stop party operatives and media cronies from bashing those who do, all at the expense and survival of our Constitution and Constitutional Republic. Obama and both political parties believe they do not have to prove or do anything because they consider those who question Obama’s eligibility to be President to be nothing but “radical fringe groups.” But polls, even recently in the NY Times with their liberal readership, disagree with that characterization and reveal that a significant percentage of Americans do not believe at all or doubt Obama's eligibility.

President George Washington warned us so that the spirit of party does not consume our nation, the people need to be forever vigilant and express themselves through public opinion on the issues that they believe are dear and vital to their liberties. Let the Obama eligibility debate rage on in the court of public opinion, for it is only with open, complete, and honest public debate on this issue that the truth will be revealed.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 2, 2010


A pen said...

Thank you Mario for such a wonderful and timely reflection on the dangers to our system.

I attended a gathering over this past weekend and had a very animated discussion over party. I was actually given a choice to state which party I was, D-R or Tea ! It was as if I had to have a label to speak or be characterized. My response was none of those, I am an independant thinker who reads the founding documents and compares the situations we are faced with to those which were fundamentally denied influence upon our liberty. That to decide a course of action on any political question there must first be a complete investigation into how any outcome might alter the power balance of the system and how abuse may evolve and be checked by the public. I recieved many sturdy handshakes from men who would rather be tossing horseshoes and beer rather than words. That politics have reached their recreation events and become as much a competition to be fluent in as any other match is quite moving. It isn't just a male interest either as the wives are equally well studied and likely are debating their spouses for practice. I wish I'd thought of the GW farewell address as a topic.

Mick said...

Washington foresaw the rise of Obama over 200 years ago, and is speaking from the grave. How wild is it that the overdue library book discussed in the last week is "Law of Nations"?
He also said in that address, "let there be no change by Usupation..."
I think the dam is finally breaking, as you are on Terrestrial radio again soon!!! Hammer home the dual citizen, dual allegiance, citizen father concepts and godspeed!!!!!

John Smith said...

The Constitution requires that the president swear, "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Untied States." The Constitution's oath of office is specific to the government established by the Constitution, not simply to the country the United States under any government that may be in power. Remember, the Constitution was itself a revolution: replacing the failing government of the United States established by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union with a new and distinct government.

As such, the Constitution requires the president to be loyal to the new government, not simply to the country. (The presidency is exclusively a creature of the new government. The presidency is not inherently a component of the country under any government.) This theme informs the debate of who is (and is not) a natural born citizen.

The Constitution requires that the person who will be president shall NOT be born under the jurisdiction of a government other than the government established by the Constitution - even if they were born in the territory of the Untied States.

This is why those born in the United States before the adoption of the Constitution were exempt from the NBC requirement. (Just like Obama, these people were born in the United States but were not born exclusively in the government established by the Constitution. Unlike Obama, they were exempt from the NBC requirement.)

The Constitution itself tells us what the Constitution intends by the limitations imposed by natural born citizen: the president must not be born under a government other than that one created by the Constitution, unless the person were born before the adoption of the Constitution.

Doublee said...

The "trick" question to ask is how many presidents were not natural born citizens but were legitimately elected to office?

There were ten. These were the presidents who were born before the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 and were therefore eligible to be president by virtue of the fact that they were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

The list in birth order:
1. George Washington 1732
2. John Adams 1735
3. Thomas Jefferson 1743
4. James Madison 1751
5. James Monroe 1758
7. Andrew Jackson 1767
6. John Quincy Adams 1767
9. William Henry Harrison 1773
8. Martin Van Buren 1782
12. Zachary Taylor 1784

Squeeky said...

I would not put anything past this RASCAL! As I have proven, a lie about his birth certificate OR ANYTHING ELSE is not that big a thing in our COUNTRY where unfortunately LYING PRESIDENTS is normal.

Girl Reporter

Incredulous said...

Notice the line of their disinformation and distractions?
1. He was born in Hawaii and statutory citizen suffices.
2. He was a dual citizen "as was George Washington" (never mind the grandfather clause in article II).
but that's mixed in with DEFIANCE
"(his eligibility) doesn't matter, get a life, we don't care, he's not going anywhere" (Pelosi's rep screamed this then phone slammed!)

Because his goons and bots and in fact everyone knows he wasn't even born in Hawaii and he's an illegal alien, there's now a two-tiered line of countering with distraction and defiance: Muddling NBC and Defiance. Defiance is next what you should expect fully next as Americans become aware he's just an illegal alien, that Hawaii was a total lie. That's why Obama is just joking around about it now, he's trying to defuse, as in "so what who cares doesn't matter ha ha har". Based on the level of support for Arizona's law he will not find support for his lighthearted shredding of our Constitution. Americans have stood for his pathological sociopathic lying on policy, but they are different when it comes to personal issues. He lied to Americans, he was not born in Hawaii, this is not a small matter, he utterly totally completely lied to them about who he fundamentally is.
Obama is the puppet of a movement, but in order to stem this evil communist movement, the figurehead needs to be shown in the glaring light of what he, and they, truly are: CRIMINALS ALL!

jayjay said...

Another marvelous essay that clearly delineates how the various Flying Monkeys are helping and complicit in the attempt to destroy our Constitutional Republic.

Their motivation is difficult to discern but we really need no greater discernment than that provided by George Washington. The ideas relating to the "permanent despotism" of which he speaks clearly says it all and is certainly what we now see reflected not only in the corrupt MSM and the at least equally corrupt two political parties, but also in the individual Obama who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

We now have a man as CIC (which may very well mean Chief IslamoCommunist) who is clearly seeking to install himself as a "complete and permanant despot". This would be complete anathema to our history and way of life and must not be allowed to happen.

Thanks to both George Washington AND you, Mario, for a brilliant essay!! Wake up, America!!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

John Smith and Doublee,

May I offer to you my position that the new nation was created with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, not with the adoption of the Constitution in 1787.

If you agree with me, you might want to re-visit your list of Presidents for the purpose of determining who was an original "citizen of the United States" and who was a "natural born Citizen."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Mick said...

Actually Mr. Apuzzo, my understanding was the United States
began with the first Contintal Congress, which ended in 10/1774.
The first election was held 12/1788. Thus upholding the 14 year residency requirement for POTUS.

jayjay said...


Not quite the case. The first Continental Congress was pretty ineffecive in trying to influence Britain with respect to their treatment of the colonies. The first actually primarily led to the Second CC where the DofI was put forth and THAT truly did make "the colonies" a country with a common cause.

Before either of those, however there were assemblegas of what are callen "committes of correspondence" which prior to the Gaspee Affair in 1772 were all just local committes formed to discuss formal problems with the first being in MA in 1764 and the next in NYT a bit later.

It was not until the Gaspee Affair in 1772 that all the colonies formed together in a single committee of correspondence in response to King George's expressed desire to bring the "Gaspee Raiders" to England for trial and hanging (presumably in that order) and the King offered what was then a huge reward to uncover their identities. None were ever "outed" and many still to this day are not known.

Because of the forming of the colonies-wide committe due to the Gaspee Affair it is often referred to as "first blood of the American Revolution" (or, some say, "first shots of the American Revolution")as it was indeed the first time a British Officer performing his duty was shot by colonists. A couple of times perviously British vessels has been burned but there had been no bloodshed.

The formation of the colonys-wide Committee of Correspondence was formed to deal with counterfeiting in several colonies (yes, even then a problem) AND the Gaspee affair (to protect those involved therein) is documented here:

From this "common cause", the First Continental Congress was formed as you mention ... and the rest - as they say - is history!!!

Mick said...

Right jayjay but wouldn't the election of Washington been unconstitutional then (2nd CC was 5/10/1775)? I guess the logical date would then be the first shots of the Revolutionary War @ Lexington and Concord on 4/19/1775. Washington was inaugurated almost exactly 14 years later on 4/30/1775 (which was just short of 14 years from the 2nd CC). I would guess that intent to become a nation was solidified by the start of the war.

Slartibartfast said...

A question: In light of the facts that the founding fathers most likely read de Vattel's work in the original French and the term 'natural born citizen' didn't appear in an English translation of 'The Law of Nations' until AFTER the ratification of the Constitution, why didn't the founding fathers use the term 'indigenous' in Article II, Section I? (That being the obvious translation of the French.)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Before the Revolution, the American people had allegiance to the British Crown. Those who adhered to the Revolution transferred that allegiance through the declaration of independence to one of the new states. It was on July 4, 1776 that the American states became free and independent. At that point, the new nation began, which each citizen owing allegiance to his or her own state. Please note that the British recognized the transfer of allegiance from Great Britain to the new nation only through the Treaty of Peace of 1783.

The Articles of Confederation which were adopted on March 1, 1781, created a new confederation. Article I established the name of the confederation as "The United States of America." Under Article II, the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions which were not specifically relinquished to the central government. Article III established the United States as a new nation, a sovereign union of sovereign states. The Articles also spoke about "free citizens in the United States."

On June 21, 1788, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. Article II refers to a "Citizen of the United States." With the adoption of the Constitution, citizens transferred their allegiance to both the United States and to the state in which they resided. This dual allegiance concept was confirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Hence, the adoption of our governing documents (initially the Articles of Confederation and eventually the Constitution) did not create the new nation. Rather, the new nation was created by the transfer of allegiance which occurred on July 4, 1776, with each citizen becoming a member of a new community which the Declaration of Independece recognized as free and independent states. The Constitution then served to transfer allegiance to each state to the United States as a whole but at the same time also preserved state allegiance through Article IV (the privileges and immunities clause) and later through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Regardless of when the "United States" began, the Framers were careful to say in Article II that the President had to be a resident "within" the United States, not “of” the United States. Hence, from 1789 (when George Washington took office), we count back 14 years and we come to 1775. While there was no United States then, we do know that fighting with the British broke out in April 1775. In any event, surely this does not mean that in 1789 no one, including George Washington, qualified to be President. Rather, in 1775 there was a territory that eventually became a free and independent state which then joined with other like states to comprise the United States. Residence for 14 years in that specific territory would have satisfied Article II’s residency requirement.

cfkerchner said...


Brand new user ID just created. Hmmh. Do you know any of the team Mario wrote about.

To your question ...

You must read the whole of section 212 and it is very clear that "natural born Citizen" is the correct English translation of the subject of that sentence and that is exactly what John Jay wrote in his letter to General Washington in the summer of 1787 when the Constitution was written. John Jay was fluent in French and an ardent reader and believer in Vattel's Law of Nations. That is how John Jay conveyed in English to Washington the intent of putting that term in Article II as a "strong check" against foreign influence by requiring only a "natural born Citizen" be allowed to serve as the President and Commander of the military. To be born with no foreign claims and allegiances at birth and thus have not foreign influence on you at birth, you have unity of citizenship at birth, i.e., you must be born of two Citizen parents of a country, on the soil of that country ,,. a natural born Citizen.

You can twist and squirm in the face of the truth and choose not to recognize the writings of Vattel and a founder David Ramsay all you want about this, but if you read the entirety of Section 212 of Vattel, Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, in either French or English the message, meaning, and intent is the same. Vattel chose the words he did in French and then immediately defined those words. The corrected English translation of those words in 1797 were again immediately defined in the rest of the sentence and paragraph. It is clear as a bell to anyone with intellectual honesty and a seeker of the truth and a student of history and the founding of our Republic. SCOTUS case quote directly from Vattel and restate in English exactly what was meant by "natural born Citizen". Read the Venus case of 1814 and the Happersett case of 1875 for examples. See these links:

CDR Kerchner

Chief said...

We can readily identify the Liberals, Socialists, Marxists sitting our congress and the white house; but, can we identify the Progressives also there? Not readily, since they hide themselves most of the time behind their cloaks of conservative or moderate; but these are the most dangerous to our nation since they only exercise the Progressiveness when we are not looking or paying attention; I submit they are the people who have greated the mess we are in now; with the help of the others. when I see people like Senator Hatch, advocating changing our constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for president, which he did a few years ago, I cringe. He did so because it was the Modern thing to do; meaning our constitution was antiquated and out of touch with the "Modern World", which points directly to being Progressive. These are the people that we need to concentrate on; in addition to the other this coming November and in 2012. In the meantime we need to remove the Kenyan born person occupying the white house; God's Speed Mario!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

In my essay, I refer to the first English edition of Vattel's, The Law of Nations, as being printed in 1759. One of Dr. Conspiracy's toadies, Black Lion, an intellectual of great stature, ridicules me by saying that I have "gone over the edge" in claiming that there was a 1759 English edition of Vattel. Maybe Black Lion would like to read the two-volume 1759 edition, which was printed in London, for J. Coote. He can even go to James Brown Scott, The Classics of International Law (1916), at page lviii, and read all about it.

You see, I was right about Dr. Conspiracy's team. They are enamored with ridicule and personal attack. They even see themselves as justified in their attacks, believing that they are doing so in the name of defending the honor of their leader (I do not know where the honor is in a servant of the people refusing to show his birth certificate to the people he is supposed to serve).

Brianroy said...

Can a case be made for NBC instead of simply just 'Original Citizens"? Yes, if transmutation by being born jus soli and jus sanguinis via the citizen father can be established. Problem is, Barack still would NOT qualify because of his alien national father.

The TRANSMUTATION of natural-born citizenship to the United States was relegated to those who were born in the 13 State colonies before July 4, 1776, as well as those born before the writing and ratification of the US Constitution. We also can use entail to validate the act of transmutation of allegience while being attached to the same land.

Entail is that lineage of estates to a specific line of heirs, and relevant to many (but not all) the pre-Constition birthed US Presidents.

Only in the case of Andrew Jackson (though some may argue Van Buren), is there a question as to parental citizen status. In the case of Jackson, it is because of the death of his father, and the unknown length of immigration attachments to the Carolinas, and whether his parents had established citizenship in the Carolinas prior to his birth. That distinction would likely label Andrew Jackson as the ONLY "Born Citizen" via "jus soli", and under specified exemption listed in Article 2.1 of the US Constitution.

"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...."

Jackson only, it seems, and no one else born before the Adoption of the US Constitution, was able to avail himself of the clause: "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". ALL THE OTHERS WERE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS OF TRANSMUTED STATUS.

The Entail multi-generational "jus soli" attachment verifies the facts of what I say. A citizen born in France of two French national parents, is still a French natural born citizens when the land is liberated by the Americans in WW2. The land is the same, the parents are the same, and the transmutation into the citizenship of the New Government establishes this. Barack's father, born in Kenya to two Kenyan Citizen parents, when Kenya was transmuted from being a British Colony, and Barack Sr. stayed on to be a Kenyan national in the same lands he was previously adjoined to, was still called a Kenyan Natural Born Citizen, even though birthed in a British Colony (Kenya).

Thus, to be attached to the land their natural born Colonial status that was thereby merely transmuted into natural-born US Citizenship at the time the United States came into being. And in the case of James Madison, if I am not mistaken, Primogeniture (first-born rights to land inheritance) assists in aiding that veracity as well.

1) George Washington - A second generation Natural Born citizen of the American Colony of Virginia.
2) John Adams was a natural-born citizen of the Colony of Massachusetts via his father, who was a farmer, a tax collector, a Lt. in the local militia, and a Church Deacon.
3) Thomas Jefferson was a natural-born citizen of the colony of Virginia through both his father and mother.
4) James Madison was a natural-born citizen of the colony of Virginia through both father and mother.
5) James Monroe was a third generation natural-born citizen of the Colony of Virginia.
6) John Quincy Adams was a multi-generational natural-born citizen and son of John Adams (listed above).
7) William Harrison was natural-born citizen of the colony of Virginia.
8) Martin Van Buren was a natural-born citizen through 2 Dutch naturalized parents who attached themselves to Kinderhook, NY and the liberated "tentative State" of New York in 1782.
9)Zachary Taylor was a 1784 natural-born citizen of the "tentative State" of Virginia.

Something to consider. Peace.

Teo Bear said...

Mario, Being on the receiving end of Dr. Conspiros toadies and flying monkeys venom I can only say that your research is hurting their delusional egos deeply. Conspiro doesn't spin or even misrepresent the facts, his site simply lies. Of this I am quite sure.
Don’t look for anything from this bunch of cowards. Yes they are cowards for if they had any courage they would demand that their “fearless leader” produce the necessary documentation and shut us up.

Having the truth on Conspiro’s site has the same effect as garlic on a vampire. Your oral argument next month will be the equivalent as a stake through the heart.

cfkerchner said...

Doublee asks question:
Mr. Apuzzo:
Your response to my list of Presidents who were not natural born citizens by virtue of the "grandfather clause" surprised me.
The plain language of Article II says that a person is eligible to be president if he is a "citizen of the United States" at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
The words do not say "at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence." As I see it, it is not a question of when the new nation was formed; it is question of when the Constitution was adopted.
Are you saying that the demarcation date between citizen and natural born citizen is July 4, 1776?

CDR Kerchner replies:
Let me try to answer by laying down some factual premises and also explaining some different types of Citizenship existing in the founding time, which were subsets of the term Citizen of the United States. And then I present some examples as applied to several President. Atty Apuzzo can add to it later if he wishes. But I hope this will help clarify things for you.

Fact: The United States of America was created/begun on 4 Jul 1776 by the founders. I cite David Ramsay a founder per his dissertation on Citizenship.

Fact: All those who in 1776 when the nation of the USA was begun, who were loyal to the revolution and adhered to the new nation, became "Original Citizens of the USA" in 1776 and were eligible to use the "grandfather clause" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

Fact: The Constitution in 1789 when ratified was a new form of federal government for the already existing nation of the USA. The Constitution did not start a new nation or change the Citizenship status of those recognized as Citizens (of whatever type) in the several states in the nation under the Articles of Confederation when the Constitution was written or ratified.

Fact: The Constitution added the new eligibility requirements in Article II for those who would be permitted under the new system of federal government to be President and Commander of the military for the USA from that point forward. As to Citizenship they either had to be a "natural born Citizen of the USA" OR a "Citizen of the USA at the time of adoption of the Constitution".

Fact: "natural born Citizens" (NBC) are a subset of "Citizens of the USA". "natural born Citizens" are now the most populous group of "Citizens" in the USA.

Fact: Natural law tells us a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents (both) who are citizens of the country.

Lets look at some example Presidents:

George Washington born 1732 in VA was a "Citizen of the USA" in 1789 by virtue of his being an "Original Citizen of the USA" in 1776 when the nation was created.

Martin Van Buren was a "Citizen of the USA" in 1789 by virtue of his being a "natural born Citizen" (NBC) of the USA when he was born in 1782 in NY to parents who were "Original Citizens of the USA in 1776". Thus Van Buren WAS a "natural born Citizen" when he was elected and sworn in.

Zachary Taylor was a "Citizen of the USA" in 1789 by virtue of his being a NBC of the USA when he was born in 1784 in VA to parents who were both "Original Citizens of the USA in 1776". Thus Taylor WAS a "natural born Citizen" when he was elected and sworn in.

George W. Bush was a "Citizen of the USA" in 1946 when he was born in CT by virtue of his being a NBC of the USA when he was born in in 1946 in CT to parents who were "Citizens of the USA" and who also happened to be NBCs of the USA themselves. He was a NBC when elected and sworn in.

Narcissist Obama is an alien in the USA. We are living under "Alien Rule".

CDR Kerchner

Brianroy said...

NBC status is a transmutation by being born on the very same geographical soil as jus soli, and is by parents who were citizens of the land and that citizenship status is attached to the succeeding Government by themselves directly or by their child indirectly (who thereby directly as the natural-born citizen child attaches themself to the succeeding that case, jus sanguinis via the citizen father can be established and transmuted to the successive Governance.

In the Declaration of Independence, this transmutation reads as:
"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America...declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."

" assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

Thus, especially in this last quoted clause of the Declaration of Independence above, I would argue that a natural born citizen of the colony of Virginia in the Old Governance, remains and is transmuted as a natural born citizen of the State of Virginia (and its Government attachments; i.e., Federal) in the New Governance.

Hence, even though George Washington was born a British Natural born citizen, by being a natural born citizen of a specific and geographic colony state that was transmuted into the Government of the United States, the direct attachments can be made both jus soli and jus sanguinis for George Washington as well.
The transmutation is immediate to the lifetime of the one transmuting his citizenship from one Government to another on the same soil and territory to which he lives and has been permanently attached. The Laws and Governance changes, the geological location of the place of dwelling (with the citizen individual) does not change. He merely takes off one uniform, that of the governance which left, and puts on a new uniform of the governance which stays...and occupies the exact same plot of land as he did before.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Doublee's question:
"Mr. Apuzzo:

Your response to my list of Presidents who were not natural born citizens by virtue of the "grandfather clause" surprised me. The plain language of Article II says that a person is eligible to be president if he is a "citizen of the United States" at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
The words do not say "at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence." As I see it, it is not a question of when the new nation was formed; it is question of when the Constitution was adopted. Are you saying that the demarcation date between citizen and natural born citizen is July 4, 1776?"

Apuzzo Response: Again, the new nation of free and independent states and American citizenship began with the Declaration of Independence. Such an interpretation of our history does not find any obstacle in Article II.

Article II says that a person is eligible to be President if he/she is a "citizen of the United States" "at" the time of the adoption of the Constitution. It does not say "only at” the time, or "not before” the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Hence, if someone was a "citizen of the United States" starting from when the Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776, his/her status would have continued to the time the Constitution was adopted in September 17, 1787. That person would therefore be a "Citizen of the United States" "at" the time of the adoption of the Constitution. That person would therefore be eligible to be President under the grandfather clause.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

cfkerchner said...


You glossed over my factual premises and example Presidents with no real comment except to go after George Washington's status. The Obots in the blog that Mario addressed his post about started this argument that you too espouse for George Washington.

FACT: The founders wrote the Founding Documents including the Constitution using the concepts of Natural Law, particularly as codified by Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law.

Natural law (per Vattel's codification) says to be a "natural born Citizen" you must be born in the COUNTRY to parents (plural) who are citizens of the COUNTRY. Soli is in the sense of COUNTRY. The COUNTRY of the USA did not exist prior to 1776. To be a "natural born Citizen of the United States" you have to be born in the country of the United States. And it did not exist as a nation or country prior to 1776. Thus George Washington was not and could not be considered to be a "natural born Citizen" of the USA.

If the founders agreed with your rational, they would not have needed the Grandfather clause, would they?

All this new type arguments seems to me to be purposeful to confuse people as to what a "natural born Citizen" was and is in the USA.

And besides, the argument here is about Obama. Is Obama a "natural born Citizen" of the USA in your opinion?

CDR Kerchner

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Let us also not forget about allegiance. How could George Washington be born with sole and absolute allegiance to the United States if that nation did not exist at the time of his birth? Also, we know that when George Washington was born, he was born within the dominions of the King of England and his mother and father were both British subjects. Hence, when he was born, Washington was missing both jus soli and jus sanguinis. He only became a "Citizen of the United States" by naturalization through the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the Revolution. As a naturalized citizen, he could not be a "natural born Citizen."

Brianroy said...

Mr. Kerchner and Mr. Apuzzo,
I stand by my statement and GW example that a citizen of the Colony of Virginia who transmuted his citizenship to that of the United States at any time between July 4, 1776 and the Adoption of the US Constitution, is able to carry over the same citizen status he had prior to the transmutation, but under the new governance.

In Supreme Court Law, it is always the father who confers the natural born status, or the presumption of the father's citizenship (if absent or dead) through the mother. That falls within original intent. The ideal attachment in natural law is through both parents, and there is always a presumption of 100% legience to the US by the child (leaving open the interpretation of the preseumption of the mother's naturalization by marraige with the impregnation. In US Law (as with the Biblical genealogies) only the father passes on the natural born status (with Biblical emphasis ever being upon primogeniture and entail), even when exceptions allow marrying foreign women who attached themselves to their husbands and the nation of their husbands (Rahab, Ruth, etc.).

The US Supreme Court was often oblivious and unconcerned with the mother...therefore, stay 100% focused on the winning presentation of the FATHER's citizenship, and don't get hung up on the mother (whose citizen status was often irrelevant/not-cited, during the first century and a half from the Declaration of Independence, unless she married and transmuted citizenship such as to a British husband soldier loyal to a foreign power, for example).

The government of Virginia existed both before and after the signing of the Declaration. Follow the existence of Virginia in the reasoning. And because Virginia as a legislative body existed before, during, and after the American Revolution, its citizens carried over with them their birth status as it related to their State. If a person was born in Scotland, was emigrated to the US, and naturalized, but a citizen of the US in the relevant one-time only transitional period to the Constitution's ratification (as may be the case with Andrew Jackson), only such a person who lived and transmuted or became a citizen in that time, could avail himself of the grandfather clause. It applies to no other generations who were born later.

We could also argue the jus soli and jus sanguinis transmutation from Britain to the new Government of the soil as well, as is clear in International examples (hence, this is NOT merely a quirk of US Law never truly explored). I stand by my interpretation of the transmutation of citizenship, and I believe the US Supreme Court must majority agree with this as well.

NEVER, in any of these examples, does Barack ever become a "natural born citizen"...and transmutation of citizenship must only affect those who live from one governance to the next, being of the same exact soil and its attached citizenship to that exact soil, and who transfer 100% legience from the old to the new governance they live to see, and it is to those only.

Hence, if I, a US NBC chose not to be a citizen of a New Governance of a Communist Socialist USA replacing our Republic and moving its Capitol to Chicago or Atlanta, I become a transient alien, and do NOT transmute my NBC status. My decision does not affect someone 230 years from now, it only affects me.

cfkerchner said...

Well Brianroy, I stand with Vattel and the Law of Nations as to the definition of "natural born Citizen" and also with the founders of our nation and their intent and meaning when they put the natural born Citizen clause into Article II for the eligibility standards for the President and Commander of the military, i.e., that the person is to have no foreign influence via birth, i.e., that the person must be born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to only one country. In our case, that country is the USA which only came into existence in 1776. The only way that natural status at birth can be obtained is to be born in the country to two citizen parents of the country. The choice is not yours. You either have it at birth due to the facts of nature of your birth or you do not. No action of man's law or choice by you can change your birth natural law birth status. (John Jay's letter to George Washington in the summer of 1787 and Vattel, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212).

CDR Kerchner

Justin said...

My question for the Dr Conspiracy Obots is this.

"You hold that a child is a natural born citizen of the country of their birth regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. You base this on The English common law. Yet the British Nationality Act of 1981 denies any citizenship whatsoever to the children of non resident aliens born in Great Britain. How do you reconcile these opposing points?"

Brianroy said...

I'm sorry, but I believe you need to view the John Jay letter you quote in its proper context. In the time of Herodotus, when Croesus subdued the Lydians, Ionians, and others, did they politically lose their status as "natural born citizens" of their nation-states because they were conquered and to suddenly be called something else?

When the Romans conquered the Jews, did the Jews lose their natural born status in their own lands?

When Castro overthrew Cuba, and those of Cuba remained, are you calling Cubans who submited to Castro as no longer natural born Cubans because they submitted to Communism?

I submit to you, that like John Jay warned Washington, there is a "natural law" at work that transcends the political law of changing Governance.

You are attempting to say that when Germans under Kaiser became Democrats in the Weimar and then National Socialists under the Nazis, that in each change of Governance, there were no "natural born German citizens" of any type previously? The older generation by political law ceased to exist?

So, according to you, in any nation where there is no political stability, there are no natural born citizens every time a national people tied by familial ethnic blood and soil has a change of governance of any type? Is that correct?

I cannot concur, nor would John Jay, our first Supreme Court Chief Justice.

A natural law attachment requires either birth into or an adoption into a family to be part of the family. Nations, in old time natural law, were families, and often named after their patriarch. In politics, this legal requirement of attachment to the family and its patriarch is then either through a birth citizenship, or by a setling with and naturalization procedure into.

Since Virginia was in existence since 1624 as a political entity that could have become a country unto itself, and George Washington was a second-generation natural born citizen of Virginia, when Virginia changed governance and DID NOT DISSOLVE, GW maintained his Virginia Natural Born status to two Virginia Citizen Parents (under natural law) and that was recognized and incorporated into other State recognitions, as so inferred by the Founding signers in the previous quoted passage of the Declaration of Independence.
Even so, I wish you and Mario the best. Peace.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


I do not understand what the issue is. Please explain why you are arguing that someone did not lose their "natural born citizen" status? How does that relate to the John Jay letter?

With reference to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that person has to be a "natural born Citizen" of some nation. What nation are you suggesting the Framers had in mind?

Brianroy said...

MR. Apuzzo and Mr. Kerchner,
May I defer to Shanks v. DuPont 3 Pet. 242 1830? A natural born citizen is through the Citizen father to the child, and may transmute through citizenship via the State.

"Ann Scott was born in South Carolina, before the American Revolution; and her father adhered to the American cause, and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution, and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed, under the circumstances of this case, to hold the citizenship of her father; for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, (and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings,) has it ever been lost; or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us, that it was not lost; and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

…By an act of the state passed in 1712, the common law of Great Britain was incorporated into the jurisprudence of South Carolina. In the year 1782, when this descent was cast, it was the law of the land; and it becomes imperative upon these appellants, after admitting that their parent was a native born citizen of South Carolina, daughter of a native born citizen of South Carolina, to show on what ground they can escape from the operation of these leading maxims of common law. Nemo potest exuere patriam;--and proles sequitur sortem paternam.

…The decision of the state Court which we are now reviewing presents two propositions:
1. That Mrs. Shanks was in the year 1782, when the descent was cast, and continued to be in 1794, when the treaty was ratified, a citizen of South Carolina.

...It is the doctrine of the American Court, that the issue of the revolutionary war settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on the 4th of July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the state of South Carolina, as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was, that natural allegiance was unalienable; and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state, by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens.

...Upon the whole, I am of opinion, that Mrs. Shanks continued, as she was born, a citizen of South Carolina; and of course unprotected by the British treaty.

...With regard to state decisions upon this question, I would remark, that it is one so exclusively of state cognizance, that the Courts of the respective states must be held to be best acquainted with their own law upon it. Though every other state in the Union, therefore, should have decided differently from the state of South Carolina, their decisions could only determine their own respective law upon this subject, and could not weaken that of South Carolina with regard to her own law of allegiance and descents."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Under Article II, "natural born Citizen" status is determined at the moment of birth and occurs by birth in the country to citizen parents. With your "transmutation" theory, the status is not occuring then. Also, you call it "transmutation," but the Founders and Framers called it "dissolving" one allegiance and acquiring another through, for adults, affirmative acts demonstrating attachment and loyalty to the Revolution, and for minors, by those minors following or inheriting the condition of their parents. We and the Founders and Framers also called that "naturalization."