Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Standing Under Proposed State Presidential Vetting and Eligibility Laws

Standing Under Proposed State Presidential Vetting and Eligibility Laws

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 30, 2011

The Founders and Framers understood that under natural law and the law of nations, as explained by Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), a nation’s most fundamental duty is self-preservation. They therefore included the "natural born Citizen" clause in the Constitution so that each and every citizen would be protected by having someone assume and exercise the great and singular civil and military powers of the President and Commander in Chief with only their and the nation's values and safety at heart. To accomplish that end, the Founders and Framers required that anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution be born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.

We have seen with the many Obama eligibility law suits filed in our federal courts, citizens have attempted to protect themselves by enforcing the “natural born Citizen” clause. One of these law suits is Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13608 , cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010). In these legal actions, the federal courts have simply denied anyone the right to enforce the “natural born Citizen” clause and to challenge Obama’s eligibility because as they have said, no one had standing to bring any such lawsuits. Generally, one has standing to bring a legal action if one can show that one has suffered an injury in fact caused by the defendant’s conduct and for which the court can give one a remedy.

Several of our states are now working on drafting and passing presidential vetting and eligibility election statutes. As one example, Arizona H.B. 2177 and S.B. 1157 both have standing clauses. These clauses state: "A member of the House of Representatives, a member of the Senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section."

As we can see, unlike our judicial branch of government, Arizona legislators have rightfully recognized the right of a citizen to protect his or her life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property from a potentially illegal President sitting in the Office of President and Commander in Chief from which he or she would wield enormous power over that individual which would cause that person an injury in fact on a daily basis.

If one of these state laws passes, such a citizen would have standing to file a legal action in which he or she would be able to enforce the "natural born Citizen" clause by enforcing the state eligibility statute.

As I have already stated in my article entitled, “The States Have a Right and Duty to Assure Their Citizens That a Presidential Candidate Is an Article II ‘Natural Born Citizen,’” the states have every right and duty to pass presidential vetting and eligibility legislation. To give these laws any teeth and to avoid any possible political games by any Secretary of State, it is critical that such legislation include a standing clause. Without Congress, the courts, the political parties, and the media willing to enforce the “natural born Citizen” clause, how else are responsible Americans to make sure that their President is eligible for that office? Let us all give our states the support they need to enact such necessary and proper legislation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 30, 2011

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved


phil stone said...

Trump sked to be on O'reilly tomorrow (thurs) - need to prime him up on brit citizenship and remind him that Hawaii gov not able to find any documentation that Obama was born there. Keep stiring the pot - Trump may be the answer. old marine Phil Stone

MichaelIsGreat said...

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

Concerning Donald Trump's eligibility. His mother was born in Scotland but she became American before Donald Trump was born.
---Is this fine in relation to the natural born citizen criterion in such a case?
---Or should Donald Trump's mother have been born in the US in order to meet the second criterion to be a natural born citizen (both parents must be American citizens)?
I am not too clear on this issue related to Donald Trump.

I have the very strong feeling that Donald Trump is NOT going to give up on Obama's lack of proof on his eligibility until he is 100% sure. And I am convinced that he will force the issue to be resolved.

It is nothing less than scandalous that any American would not have standing to confront such a huge fraud committed by Obama in relation to his lack of eligibility to be President of the USA.
Where on earth are the rights of the American voters?!!!!!

Thanks for your efforts to fight against Obama's lack of eligibility to be president of the USA.

MichaelIsGreat said...

I was referring to the article "Now look who's getting grilled over eligibility" at

Jo said...

Sweeping explinations on NBC, tangible proofs on eligibility issues - it unfolds so far and wide; Atty the American population is in gratitude with you. Now for their screwing up the eligibility criterion the guilty perpetrators deserve disciplinary regimen - which justice complements them or will it prevails to them?

James said...

Donald Trump may be appearing on Reality Check Radio tonight. Some one needs to inform him that he should not appear and that it is simple trap to discredit him.

Zamas said...


Have you seen the Nebraska proposal? It looks like it might be the best. I think it was to be voted in committee in the last couple weeks, but I cannot find any updates on exactly where it stands now. These guys "get it" with respect to what has to be done.

If anybody has an update on where this stands, please let us know.

Bob Freeman said...

Nebraska's bill (LB 654) died in committee:

puzo1moderator said...

Breaking News ... more news to follow


CDR Kerchner (Ret)