Monday, June 14, 2010

The Post & Email’s Exclusive Interview with Eligibility Attorney Mario Apuzzo

The Post & Email’s Exclusive Interview with Eligibility Attorney Mario Apuzzo


(Jun. 9, 2010) — Mario Apuzzo was born on June 30, 1956. He graduated from Jamesburg High School in New Jersey in 1975. He obtained his undergraduate degree in Political Science from Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, PA. He then attended Temple University School of Law in Philadelphia, from which he graduated with a Juris Doctorate degree in 1982. He then continued his post-graduate legal studies at the University of the Pacific in Sacramento, CA, at its McGeorge School of Law and in Salzburg, Austria, which also included coursework in Milan, Italy, receiving a Diploma in Advanced International Legal Studies in 1983. He has also studied comparative international law at Temple University, in Rome, and has pursued a second law degree in the European civil law system at the University of Naples.
Mr. Apuzzo founded his law firm in 1983, at which time he went into private practice in New Jersey. He currently has his law offices at 185 Gatzmer Avenue, Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831. He is engaged in the general practice of law which includes trials and appellate work in both the state and federal courts.
Regarding the Obama eligibility controversy, Attorney Apuzzo published his first blog entry on December 20, 2008 after having followed and contributed to the postings on the websites of Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz.  Commander Charles Kerchner was put in touch with Attorney Apuzzo by an acquaintance who had known he had been seeking an attorney to challenge Congress and Obama regarding Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.

Read more of the interview here ...

Posted by: Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired), Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
Please if you can, see this site and help the cause:


Anonymous said...

Mario & Charles,

I have been studying Prentiss Webster's treatise on citizenship(1891). In it contains all the treaties between nations on citizenship from the revolution through the passing of the Expatriation Act. It is from the study of these treaties that I come with one question that I believe is at the core of the illegality of the rulings of the WKA case as well as lower court rulings in favor of the feudal definition of citizenship.

Does the US Constitution grant any court in the US, whether it be municipal, state, federal or supreme, the authority to supersede a treaty between nations or a subsequent act of congress pertaining to a treaty without wholly deeming the treaty to be unconstitutional and therefore declaring that the treaty holds no weight of law?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Treaties are part of "the Supreme Law of the Land" under Article VI, Clause 2. But in Wong Kim Ark, the Court declared Wong to be a "citizen of the United States" even though there existed a treaty between the United States and China which prohibited Wong's Chinese parents from becoming United States citizens. The Court was willing to overlook the fact that Wong's parents were subjects of a foreign power and always would be and granted United States citizenship (not "natural born Citizen" status) to their U.S. born son. But how could the Court reasonably distinguish the Chinese situation from that of the American Indians who even though born on U.S. soil were considered to be born subject to a foreign power and therefore not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and consequently not eligible to be U.S. citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment? Given that there did exist such a treaty, the Wong decision was also inconsistent with the Court's usual course of conduct whereby it usually rendered decisions which did not interfere with Congress's and the Executive's prerogative to keep the United States from becoming embroiled in some showdown with a foreign power.

Anonymous said...

Treaties are part of "the Supreme Law of the Land" under Article VI, Clause 2...keep the United States from becoming embroiled in some showdown with a foreign power.

That's my point. Did the Supreme Court as well as subsequent lower courts following that decision, by coming to the conclusion they did usurping the treaties & acts of Congress, aid in the power struggle and conflicts the US has had with China? Is this why China is still so hell bent on gaining military superiority over the US? Could this be at the root of a lot of the animosity of foreigners/Europeans towards the US? The continueing practice of the feudal definition of citizenship is not in compliance with the International law of Nations wherein children are first & foremost under the protection of the parent, thusly, their citizenship is that of the parent, not the state?

Dixhistory said...

Lets us say we have a person born in the States of two citizen parents. A true NBC and at age 35 he moves to China and let us say China grants hin citizenship. Let us say that China says he is now a NBC of China.

He lives there for let us say 5 years and then returns to the US.

Is this person still a NBC of the US and able to serve as POTUS?

I say yes he is and that is where the FF put in the "and been Fourteen Years a Resident of the US."

So should such a person return to the US and lived here for 14 years he could be POTUS.

I think a lot of people try and make things hard when in fact they are so simple most kids can undestand what was being written by the FF.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


The Framers made "natural born Citizen" status a bright-line test. Under that test, a person must have the status as of the time of birth. The status is acquired by being born in the country to U.S. citizen parents (mother and father).

This person was born in the U.S. to citizen parents which makes him or her a "natural born Citizen." If he or she satisfies the 35-year age and 14-year residency requirements, he or she is eligible to be President. The China travel and citizenship does not cause the person to lose his or her "natural born Citizen" status, unless the person affirmatively and unambigously renounced his or her U.S. citizenship. Hence, the person would be eligible to be President.

jimmy said...

A common question about citizenship is how a foreign nation can interfere with American citizenship laws. In this instance, I believe Obama was a dual-citizen at birth and therefore not a natural born citizen.

Mario, can you explain more fully why another nation has the right as a sovereign entity to establish their own citizenship laws despite how it may affect ours?

There is a misunderstanding that another country could tamper with our presidential elections by granting everyone citizenship and destroying natural born citizenship.

For example the argument goes: what if tomorrow Mexico granted citizenship to all newly born residents of California and Arizona citing these areas are really still part of historical Mexico? This will nullify any one of these babies from serving as president 35 years from now because Mexico would have a claim to them as citizens of their own nation and therefore not natural born American citizens.

Again, the idea here is since we are a sovereign nation how can another nation impose its citizenship laws on us? Can't we just ignore their rights to grant citizenship and only follow our own standards?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents (mother and father). In applying the Framers' "natural born Citizen" test, we are not allowing any foreign nation to interfere with American citizenship laws. In applying that test, we are applying the law of nations definition of a "natural born Citizen." The law of nations became part of the laws of the United States and so it is our law that we are applying and not some foreign law. It is that law and not the English common law that we look to for the definition.

Another nation can also grant citizenship status upon anyone by applying the law of nations or even its own municipal laws. Provided a person meets the "natural born Citizen" test as prescribed by the law of nations, such other nation’s "interference" would have no impact on that person's eligibility to be President.

You also asked that I "explain more fully why another nation has the right as a sovereign entity to establish their own citizenship laws despite how it may affect ours?" Please remember that we also grant U.S. citizenship to persons born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parent(s) under the right of jus sanguinis. Hence, these other nations are no more interfering with our sovereignty than we are interfering with theirs.

What is ironic is that many Obama supporters argue that using the law of nations definition of a "natural born Citizen" would be tantamount to applying foreign law to define U.S. citizenship. They add that we should use the English common law to define what a "natural born Citizen" is. Well, the United States at the national level never adopted the English common law as being any part of the laws of the United States. Hence, if we were to apply the English common law, we would, indeed, be applying foreign law to determine who could be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Dixhistory said...


I totally agree with you and what I said was what you said but here. This is what you said "unless the person affirmatively and unambiguously renounced his or her U.S. citizenship."

That is why I didn't say the NBC that moved to China did anything on his own. China does it no matter what the person wants.

What China might or can do does not effect the fact that this child is still a NBC and all ways will be in my opinion.

As you say out right and I said in a round about way nothing can change the facts in a true NBC birth.

Now if the person affirmatively and unambiguously renounced his or her U.S. citizenship. In my layman's opinion the person is still a NBC and I can see nothing to keep such person from being a legal POTUS. As long as he lives in the US 14 years before he offer up to be POTUS.

I would hope voter would take into account the fact that at one time he did affirmatively and unambiguously renounced his or her U.S. citizenship.

I would hope but doubt the MSM could get the facts out to the people.

cfkerchner said...


I would have to disagree with you a bit. To be eligible to be POTUS the person must be a special type of Citizen, that is a "natural born Citizen". The two adjectives in front of the word Citizen describe the circumstances by which he got his Citizenship. I believe that if the person later formally renounces his Citizenship or loses it by Treason against his country, he has lost the noun that the adjectives are further defining. He is no longer a Citizen and thus even though he was a "natural born Citizen" he is no longer even a Citizen at all ... since he/she renounced it, that person is not eligible to be POTUS and CINC. The founders and framers were saying in Article II that you not only must be a Citizen of the USA but a special type (the most populous subset group of all Citizens), ... a "natural born Citizen", those born in the country to two Citizen parents, i.e., you must have originally obtained your Citizenship via nature and natural law by the circumstances of your birth, not man-made law. But if you renounce the noun, your Citizenship entirely, the adjectives you gained at birth no longer qualify you for POTUS and CINC. JMHO.

CDR Kerchner

Dixhistory said...


I do see where you are coming from and will agree with you after looking at it from your view point.

Thanks for the more reasoned approach.