Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Bond v. United States and Standing to Challenge Putative President Obama on His Eligibility to be President

Bond v. United States and Standing to Challenge Putative President Obama on His Eligibility to be President

                                                      By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                              June 29, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 16, 2011 decided Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ____ (2011). The Bond decision does not say anything that has not been expected regarding filing a case which can establish standing to challenge Putative President Barack Obama on his legitimacy to be President.  It has always been my position that a criminal defendant or someone being compelled to pay money challenging an Obama-endorsed Congressional statute which is the basis for the criminal charge against him or her or the money payment requirement will have standing to attack that law and in so doing also to challenge Obama's legitimacy to be President.  This is not to say that this is the only way that our courts should recognize someone like the plaintiffs I represented in Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010), who raised legitimate claims of injury to their Fifth Amendment right to life, liberty, safety, security, and tranquility, to have standing to file an action challenging Obama’s eligibility to be President under the “natural born Citizen” clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

In the Bond case, Congress passed 18 U. S. C. §229, a law regulating the possession and/or use of certain chemicals and passed to implement a chemical weapons treaty ratified by the United States. Bond argued that Congress sought to regulate conduct that is strictly local in nature and should be left to the States to control. Bond therefore argued that the federal statute violated the 10th Amendment and that Congress therefore had no right to regulate the conduct which the statute prohibited. That was the basis for the attack against the charging statute.

Both the District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that Bond had no standing to challenge the statute because the State was not a party to the litigation. In the Supreme Court, the Government changed its position and conceded that Bond did have standing to challenge the criminal statute. The Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae attorney to defend the position of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that Bond did not have Article III standing. The U.S. Supreme Court, reversed, finding that Bond, a criminal defendant, has Article III standing to challenge that law in the District Court and on appeal to the Third Circuit. It said that "incarceration . . . constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction.'”

Amicus curiae also argued that Bond was raising the rights of third parties (the State), and therefore principles of prudential standing also prevented the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that Bond actually sought to protect her own constitutional rights. Hence, it found that, even if State's rights were involved, she raised her own constitutional rights and so prudential standing was satisfied. The Court said that the key is whether a litigant can show that he or she has suffered an "injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable," regardless of the context in which the challenge is raised (i.e. 10th Amendment federalism or even separation of powers doctrine). The Court's discussion of separation of powers as we shall see below becomes very important in the context of challenging a law signed by Obama and thereby Obama himself.

Applying the Bond decision to a case challenging Obama's eligibility, one would have to be criminally charged or be compelled to pay money under a statute passed by Congress when Obama was President. One would argue that under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, laws passed by Congress need the action or inaction of the President (the veto power) before they are allowed to become laws. This requirement satisfies separation of powers and checks and balances doctrine. One would argue that Congress passed the charging statute,  with the President's action or inaction. One would argue that a legitimate President must satisfy the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which contains the "natural born Citizen" clause. Then one would argue that the law is not valid because it never was presented to a legitimate President for consideration under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, arguing that Obama is not a legitimate President because he does not meet the requirements of the "natural born Citizen" clause. Hence, one would argue that separation of powers and checks and balances have been violated. Obama's eligibility to be President under the "natural born Citizen" clause would be the basis for the attack against the charging statute. Since the office of the President is a constitutional office, the de facto officer doctrine (that we should treat Obama as the President by fact even though he is not by law) should not be an obstacle to this argument.

Support for this argument is found in the Court's explanation of how a litigant can file an action under a separation of powers argument. The Court said:

"In the precedents of this Court, the claims of individuals—not of Government departments—have been the principal source of judicial decisions concerning separation of powers and checks and balances. For example, the requirement that a bill enacted by Congress be presented to the President for signature before it can become law gives the President a check over Congress’ exercise of legislative power. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §7. Yet individuals, too, are protected by the operations of separation of powers and checks and balances; and they are not disabled from relying on those principles in otherwise justiciable cases and controversies. In INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983), it was an individual who successfully challenged the so-called legislative veto—a procedure that Congress used in an attempt to invalidate an executive determination without presenting the measure to the President. The procedure diminished the role of the Executive, but the challenger sought to protect not the prerogatives of the Presidency as such but rather his own right to avoid deportation under an invalid order. Chadha’s challenge was sustained. A cardinal principle of separation of powers was vindicated at the insistence of an individual, indeed one who was not a citizen of the United States but who still was a person whose liberty was at risk."

It is important to understand that the Court is willing to grant standing in these situations because the litigant can show that he or she has otherwise suffered "justiciable injury." In the Bond case, the injury was the real potential for criminal conviction, incarceration, and the loss of liberty such government action brings.

But the Bond Court also cautioned so that its decision is not misinterpreted. It said:

"An individual who challenges federal action on these grounds is, of course, subject to the Article III requirements, as well as prudential rules, applicable to all litigants and claims. Individuals have “no standing to complain simply that their Government is violating the law.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 755 (1984). It is not enough that a litigant “suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.” Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923) (decided with Massachusetts v. Mellon). If, in connection with the claim being asserted, a litigant who commences suit fails to show actual or imminent harm that is concrete and particular, fairly traceable to the conduct complained of, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, the Federal Judiciary cannot hear the claim. Lujan, 504 U. S., at 560–561. These requirements must be satisfied before an individual may assert a constitutional claim; and in some instances, the result may be that a State is the only entity capable of demonstrating the requisite injury.

In this case, however, where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy, she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of our Government."

The Court also said that the ultimate issue of the statute’s validity turns in part on whether the law can be deemed “‘necessary and proper for carrying into Execution’” the President’s Article II, §2 Treaty Power and that the Court expressed no view on the merits of that argument which the Court of Appeals would address on remand.

So, in a Bond-like case, the law is attacked as invalid because Congress did not have constitutional power to pass it (relying on principles of federalism). In an Obama case, the law is attacked because it was never submitted to a legitimate President (relying on separation of powers and checks and balances principles). In both cases, the charging law is being attacked as unconstitutional. In both cases, the challenger, under threat of criminal indictment or having to pay money, being the basis of a threat to his or her individual constitutional rights, should have standing to attack the statute.

The point is that with Obama, one charged with a criminal offense or compelled to pay some money because of a law passed by Congress and allowed to pass into law by the action or inaction of Obama, acting as the President, would have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law based on the law lacking the action or inaction of a legitimate President which is needed under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution for laws to be passed. The standing argument would be made in the context of separation of powers and checks and balances.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 29, 2011

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved


MichaelN said...

Good one Mario

Maybe LTC Terry Lakin, M.D.?

Robert said...

I am wondering if I have standing under Article 2. Sec 8:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

The situation is that I have copyrighted and have filed a provisional patent (soon to be patent pending) and a registered trademark on a product that I am in the process of bringing to market. An international market is planned.

However, I have a much reduced confidence that Mr. Obama (as he is internationally known to be illegally in office) and our current congress (as they are also known to be willful participants in the fraud) will be able to or interested in providing the protection offered through the above constitutional provision. They have shown little respect for our laws and that they clearly do not believe in the principles of equal protection under the law. Instead, selective application seems to have become the norm. See bailouts, Black Panthers, etc. Chances are very high that I'm not one of his/their "favorites".

Just as Obama has undermined our oil industry and given favor to foreign producers, how can I NOT bring up the possibility that he might also steal my product as a pay off for foreign favors?

I have spent almost ten years developing my invention to get it to the market point. To lose it because its patent, copyright, and trademark are not defended according to the constitution would be a significant, unique, and personal loss.

How can an illegal president protect my invention?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Your alleged injury has to be concrete and not merely speculative.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Please be sure to view Dean Haskin's Natural Born Citizen for Dummies video here:

I also have a link at Useful Info, Docs, and Videos on this blog.

Anonymous said...

I disagree.

Unfortunately, until found illegitimate under Art II, Obama's Electoral Votes were Certified January 6, 2009, and he was Inaugurated in February.

John Marshall's comment in Cohen's vs. Virginia, that for a court to ignore a violation of the constitution amounts to treason . . . or Ashwander vs. TVA . . . they are more on point for standing in civil action.

Please do read WND's Zebest report on the WHBCPDF being a forgery. It mirrors my analysis of linked art, layers, and misuse of 'unsharp mask' or sharpening filters.

I plead, twice, to John McCain, via fax, to challenge Obama's electoral votes, as the Democrats tried against G.W. Bush.

Anonymous said...

This may be a rather juvenile sounding question, but when the putative president (and I have other names for Mr. Obama, aka Soetoro, that are likewise applicable)ordered 30,000 troops to engage in conflict overseas (the "surge") and any of those soldiers suffered injury or death, therefore causing injury to their surviving spouses or children, would that not satisfy the condition of standing, having been injured by an action or inaction of the individual acting as president?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Your response is tantamount to putting a criminal defendant or someone suffering economic damage in the context I discussed in the article in a catch 22.

That you have other ways to show standing is no basis to deny someone who otherwise has standing.

Cohen's vs. Virginia does not provide any standard for standing. It only says that if the court has jurisdiction then it must exercise it and if it does not have it, it must decline to do so.

What is your point regarding the TVA case?

Anonymous said...

In my notes, you first brought up the Cohen's case.

“[I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.”

Ashwander v TVA -- Ashwander held that when a case could be decided on statute or general law, the constitutional issue was secondary. Therefore, the converse must be true as well.

In that regard, there is no statute defining ‘natural born citizen,’ and case law only mentions natural born citizen circumspect to voting rights and naturalization law, not to Article II of the constitution.

Article II of the Constitution is the only U.S. law that relies on natural born citizenship.

Therefore, for congress to define ‘natural born citizen,’ or a court to rely on case law dicta to adduce its meaning, or leave it up to the electorate under the Political Questions Doctrine, is essentially an unconstitutional revision of Article II.

cfkerchner said...

Re. The Obot trolls peddling tripe on various blogs continue to regurgitate the absurd claim that a simple typo caused Obama to get a Connecticut SSN.

Hi all,

As I read the Social Security Administration's (SSA) official response and position, they state that the 042-68-4425 SSN that Obama has been using since 1986 (upon his arrival in Chicago IL) was never issued. So if the SSA says the number is invalid and never existed how could the Obots zip code typo error explain that. Let's see what the Obot answer is to that anomaly. The Obots keep reaching for the moon to explain away all the flaws in Obama's life narrative. But put all those flaws in a pile and the evidence is overwhelming that Obama is a total fraud. There is certainly enough evidence to warrant a congressional investigation being called for by Speaker John Boehner in the house of reps. But he is a coward and won't do it because he knows the answer. Boehner would rather see the constitution and our rule of law get totally flushed down the toilet forever rather than face up to some short term pain that the country might have to deal with in investigating and removing Obama from his usurpation of office. We can survive threats of violence and even violence that might occur if Obama is investigated. We cannot survive as a nation if we lose our Constitution and the rule of law.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

js said...

the case that a fraud was perpetrated on both the congress and the electoral college can be well founded...the DNC was an actor in that fraud and certified BHO's eligibility...

Mick said...

So if the Healthcare law was enacted, and I refused to pay, and was fined, I should have standing, Correct?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


I would surely make that argument. One would be compelled to make any payments based on the health care law. Being compelled to make any such payment is what gives the person standing. Given that it is one's personal rights that are at stake and an injury is shown, both Article III and prudential standing should be satisfied.

That health care law has to be passed pursuant to a constitutional process. If that process was not followed, then the law is not valid. That process calls for review by a President (the veto process) who without doubt must be legitimate. One could argue that since the President is not legitimate, neither is the law. Therefore, a collateral attack on Obama's legitimacy to hold his office becomes a defense to having to pay any fine under that law.

James said...

DEREK'S PDF AKA Obama's Long form Birth Certificate
Opening Obama’s long-form PDF file in Microsoft Word 2007 in US ASCII reveals the following:

%Derek’s PDF
...4 0 obj
x M ;n 1

Is Derek the name of the forger of Obama's long form Birth Certificate????

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Dean Haskins has written to South Carolina Senator, Lindsey Graham, asking him to help organize a "Birther Summit." Dean has asked the Senator to help organize the coming together of all the best minds and evidence of the Obama camp and of the "birther" camp so that we can have one grand debate. Everyone is to bring their best evidence and arguments. Let's see who wins.

Let's hope that the good Senator will stand up for the truth and let this summmit happen.

If Senator Graham does not support this idea, we will only look for another way to make it happen and make sure that Senator Graham is enrolled in the Hall of Shame.

It will be interesting to see the Obots attack this idea as a waste of time and with their sophomoric ridicule rather than say that they accept the challenge.

Dean's article can be read at:

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Dr. Conspiracy wrote an article on his blog that WND will lose its suit against Esquire magazine because of the 1st Amendment.
Here is what he wrote:

"In the United States we value freedom of speech, and we particularly value freedom of political speech. Sometimes there are attempts to stifle political speech through the courts, and one such attempt is labeled SLAPP.

'A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.'


The District of Columbia, where the WorldNetDaily lawsuit against Esquire Magazine was filed, has a new anti-SLAPP law. The DC law provides for expedited dismissal of SLAPP suits. Does it apply to this lawsuit?"

What is so hypocritical is that just earlier in the day on his same web site, Dr. Conspiracy threatened Dr. Corsi with a law suit for defamation should Dr. Corsi write an article about Dr. Conspiracy that is not factually correct.

This is the caliber of character of the people defending Obama.

NaturallyFreeMan said...

Dear Mr Puzzo, Thank you for your opinion and this very interesting and informative article. I am curious what you think about the question of standing in regards to challenging any prosecution of any federal law by the federal government whether it was passed under Obama or before him. For example, wouldn't any criminal prosecution by the federal government for any crime give a person standing to challenge the president's very apparent ineligibility? I've always understood that the entire power of the executive branch flows like water from the sovereign We The People through the instrument that is the constitution to the president, (the man, not the office), and this vested power then flows through him as its delegated to all the offices underneath him. Wouldn't anyone facing any kind of prosecution by any part of the executive branch of the federal government have standing to argue that there is no legitimate executive authority whatsoever to prosecute anyone without a legit president? I am not a lawyer so please forgive any basic misunderstanding that I may have.

essay said...

The post is absolutely great! Lots of great information and inspiration, both of which we all need! Also like to admire the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you offer! I will bookmark your site!
Term Papers

js said...

did BHO have anything to do with the advanced screending at airports...and the 11k fines that they give to folks who...refuse to comply with the pat down...

that would be a valid challenge...HR2200 passed in 2009...after that all this started popping up...with the enhanced pat downs...

Anonymous said...

Hello Cmdr
I have a downloaded copy of the LFFraudBC AND the Digistamp(like I admonished on this site) that I would like to send to you. It will irrefutably establish the content posted as of app 6:07PM on 4/27/2011. I look and did not see Derek on a cursory review.

Anonymous said...

Hello Cmdr
I have a downloaded copy of the LFFraudBC AND the Digistamp(like I admonished on this site) that I would like to send to you. It will irrefutably establish the content posted as of app 6:07PM on 4/27/2011. I look and did not see Derek on a cursory review.

cfkerchner said...


You can email me a message and therein point out what you wish to call to my attention, with attachments, via the link in my Contact page. Looking forward to reviewing what you send:

CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

What can we expect from members of Congress when it comes to Obama's ineligibility to be President? Not much. Here is Senator Durbin saying that he can envision an illegal alien to be our future President. Please remember that the Constitution as written does not allow for what Durbin sees, for under our Constitution only a "natural born Citizen" is eligible to be President. Maybe Senator Durbin has a secret plan to amend the Constitution so that what he said makes any sense.

You can hear and see Senator Durbin here:

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

A Birther Summmit is being planned. Be sure to visit the website for all the developing details.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Be sure to read the July 4th message from LTC Terry Lakin at Terry Lakin Action Fund:

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

At Dr. Conspiracy's website, he reports that there is a new video by "conservative computer expert John Woodman" which "debunks the long-form detractors." Be sure to view this video and please report your conclusions here. Here is the link:

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The new Obot approach to the question of the authenticity of Obama's internet imaged long-form birth certificate is as follows:

They argue that the "birthers" are just wasting their time focused on the internet image of the long-born Certificate of Live Birth. They say it does not matter what the internet image shows or does not show. They add that the image is irrelevant. They say that it does not even matter whether someone manipulated it. They add that what counts is the original long-form Certificate of Live Birth that is on file in Hawaii which if examined would prove that the basic information stated in the online image is correct.

They also add that Hawaii, through various public statements and press releases, has adequately certified to the public that it does have on file that original document and that it proves that Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.

Anonymous said...

I've opened the WHBCPDF in Illustrator and it just falls apart into layers and linked artwork of varying pixel modes.

A German graphics expert is lauded as the Debunker-in-Chief, linked in one of the comments above and lauded by Dr. Conspiracy.

I tried to re-create the links and frames (around non-text art) in Adobe and Caere OCR programs. Adobe allows you to Optimize only, and that will preserve artwork in frames and do a standard rotation/skew/transform to square up the document, and resize.

Caere created frames around the BC artwork and seals . . . but also framed text in OCR; it doesn't just optimize alone.

However, the WHBCPDF has weird 90 degree rotations, both left and right.

Now, a forged document can have the same links and frames as an optimized one, but only the forged document will have rotations of +90 deg as well as -90 deg in the same document.

You see, if one is scanning multiple documents for scraps of artwork to paste into a forgery, he may insert one document one way, and another the other . . . thus, some artwork requires rotation left, some right, and those scanned in the same direction as the main scan will only receive the standard skew/transform as the rest of the document.

Therefore, these 90 degree rotations are evidence distinguishing the German graphic expert's claim of mere optimization from a forgery. In fact, the German mentions the 90 degree rotations briefly, in passing, as an anomoly.

The Adobe expert, Zebest, goes into greater detail as well.


Let's not write off the forgery yet; no-one has taken the WHBCPDF and flattened it out in Photoshop, printed it out and re-scanned it in various Adobe licensed programs to reproduce the frames and links yet.

I tried. I just don't have the right program, which one expert says may be Quartz on an Apple computer.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The Huffington Post has a separate page devoted to "birther" news. By reading the titles and nature of of the articles, we can see that the Huffington Post is not really a "news" site, but rather a site with a political agenda. Here is the page:

Texoma said...


I have a few questions about Obama's citizenship and the time he was in Indonesia.

The ruling in the 1939 US Supreme Court case of Perkins v. Elg stated that US citizen children do not lose their citizenship on account of the actions of their parents. This same ruling applies to Obama, under the assumption that he was a citizen (but not a natural born citizen) before being taken to Indonesia by his mother at about the age of 5.

At about the age of 10, he was sent back to live with his grandparents in Hawaii. Since he never lost his US citizenship, did he have to do anything to retain his US citizenship upon his return to Hawaii or upon reaching the age of majority? When would his Indonesian citizenship have expired -- upon the age of majority or upon returning to reside in Hawaii?

Can you compare his situation to that of Marie Elg? She did not return to the US from Sweden until she reached the age of majority, upon which time she claimed to be a US citizen. Did Elg have to claim her US citizenship at the age of majority, or could she have returned to the US at any age and claimed her US citizenship? When would her Swedish citizenship have expired?

Anonymous said...

There is no reason to flatten the putative document. Actually that plays into their hands. Force the logic on them. "That document is a scan of the HI certified birth certificate", agreed, Yes. Okay then simply print out that document and scan it back in. It should produce a homogeneous flat bit map. It is an isotropic process if true.

First lets establish that, then we can dismember all the pieces and fully audit the fabrication.

I have not had a chance to review that Alinsky useful idiot "conservative" reasonable doubt, but your points on rotation being the standard technique of graphic artists composing final artwork with hetrogenous sourced parts is absolutely correct, as Mara could easily attest.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


For the sake of argument, let us assume that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore a "born" "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment, which does not equate to being a "natural born" "citizen of the United States" under Article II.

You are correct that under Perkins v. Elg, Obama did not lose his U.S. citizenship when his mother and step-father took him to Indonesia.

He returned to the U.S. at age 10. He did not have to do anything to retain his U.S. citizenship which he never lost.

As far as Indonesian citizenship, I have not seen any evidence that he was ever a citizen of Indonesia.

I also have not seen any evidence that Lolo Soetoro actually adopted him.

thalightguy said...


Is it accurate to say, All U.S. citizens born in 1787 after the Constitution was adopted were natural born citizens, since dual nationality did not exist in the U.S. at that time and If so, these would be the citizens that the Framers understood to be eligible for President; An act of Congress cannot change the definition of natural born citizen to so would make it unnatural?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Sun Yat-sen's U.S. birth certificate to be displayed

A birth certificate showing that the Republic of China's founding father, Sun Yat-sen, was born in the United States will be put on display

This article suggests that Sun Yat-sen's Hawaii birth certificate is authentic.

On the contrary, there has been much said about his birth certificate being a forgery.

So which one is it?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


After July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. was reserved only for the children born in the U.S. to U.S. citizens. Any other citizen was a naturalized citizen, either at birth (those born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents) or after birth (those born in or out of the U.S. to alien parents).

This changed with Wong Kim Ark which interpreted the 14th Amendment to allow a person born in the U.S. to domiciled alien parents to be a "born" "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment. A "born" "citizen of the United States" is not to be confounded with a "natural born" "citizen of the United States." It is only the latter that is born with sole allegiance to the U.S.

Anonymous said...

1) Yes. No need to flatten, only print. If the Optimize Only theory is true, someone should be able to duplicate it. There are few scan/graphics programs licensed to create Illustrator-friendly PDF.

2) When I advised Phil Berg Obama was, indeed, a citizen at birth back in October, 2008, I continued my research one more week to determine Obama was NOT a natural born citizen. Feb, 2009 I wrote this blog, citing naturalization laws governing Obama's many nationalities, and finally becoming a U.S. adult citizen at age 19.

thalightguy said...


We have a problem, the U.S. Goverment is listing false information about early citizenship in America.

Interpretation 301.1 United States citizenship.

(a) Birth in the United States . (1) Statutory development . Prior to 1866, absent any statutory or constitutional provision, it was generally held, under the common-law principle of jus soli (the law of the place), that a person born in the United States acquired citizenship at birth; this principle was incorporated in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, and, two years later, found expression in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that all persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


The government statement is false. If anything, the statement is probably based on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision where Justice Gray said that the English common law rule of jus soli continued to have application in the U.S. after July 4, 1776 and down to the time of the Court's decision in 1898. This is simply made up stuff.

On the contray, Congress starting in 1790 and continuing through before the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898 showed that jus soli no longer applied. Under its naturalization laws, a child born anywhere in the world (which included the U.S.) to alien parents became a U.S. citizen when the parents naturalized if done before the child's age of majority or upon he or she natualized on his or her own if done thereafter.

Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court had shown that jus soli no longer applied in the U.S. See The Venus (C.J. John Marshall concurring), Shanks, Inglis, Dred Scott (J. Daniels concurring), Minor, The Slaugterhouse Cases, and Elk.

Wong Kim Ark completely infected our citizenship law with incorrect information.

In any event, even Wong Kim Ark required that the child's alien parents be domiciled in the U.S. This is not jus soli.

atticus finch said...

Jus Soli is alive and well.

Jus Soli doctrine that citizenship follows place of birth has been the guiding principle of United States citizenship laws since the founding of this nation.

Justice Thompson in his majority opinion in Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbour, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), stated: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and IN THOSE OUF OUR OWN COUNTRY, that ALL PERSONS born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were NATURAL BORN BRITISH SUBJECTS" Id at 120 (emphasis added)

Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion the Dred Scott case noted: [W]e find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.” Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Curtis, J, dissenting)

Likewise, Justice Story in Levy v. McCartee 31 U.S. 102 (1832), observed the Jus Soli doctrine as enunciated by Lord Chief Justice Coke: "[I]f an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenæ, subjects born, because they are born within the realm. Id at 113. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99, 164(1830) (Story, J., concurring )(" Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are SUBJECTS BY BIRTH.")

Furthermore, Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927)observed:

"The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the JUS SOLI," Id at 660 (emphasis added)

Moreover, "United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

Finally, "[a]t common law and under the early judicial determinations in the United States it was established that birth in a country conferred citizenship. In re Reid, 6 F. Supp. 800, 802 (D. Or. 1934)

By the way, the language in the Slaughterhouse case wherein Justice Miller remarked " The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." Slaughterhouse cases,83 U.S. 36, 73(1873)
was repudiated later in the Wong Kim Ark case when Justice Gray observed "That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment." U.S. 169 U.S. 649, 679

Contrary to your assertion, Wong Kim Ark is the correct law of United States citizenship. As Chief Justice Taft noted above.

thalightguy said...


Who do we need to petition to have the verbage of 301.1 corrected?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Atticus finch at 7-5-11 at 12:07 p.m.,

You said: "Jus Soli doctrine that citizenship follows place of birth has been the guiding principle of United States citizenship laws since the founding of this nation."

I would like for you to prove that this statement is correct. Now, this is going to require some work and I hope you do not just give me some scambled cut and paste answer.

If you rely in Wong Kim Ark, provide for me in chronological order what authorities Wong Kim Ark relied upon to prove the truth of the statement.

Citing cases after Wong Kim Ark which only cite Wong Kim Ark without any analysis is not going to be very convincing.

Remember, I said that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark created a new type of "born" "citizen of the United States," one born in the U.S. to domiciled alien parents. I also said that Wong Kim Ark infected our citizenship jurisprudence with an untruth that after July 4, 1776, the English common law provided the rules of decision to define the new national citizenship in the U.S.

By the way, remember that Justice Gray was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur who was born in the U.S. to alien parents, a condition that was not brought to the attention of the electorate when he ran for Vice President. In our history, for post 1787 births, Arthur and Obama are the only two persons to sit as Vice-President and President who were not born in the U.S. to citizen parents.

So, please provide your list of sources that show that Justice Gray was correct in Wong Kim Ark when he said that after July 4, 1776, we followed the English common law to define our new national citizenship and therefore adopted jus soli as the basis for U.S. citizenship. This is a big chance for you so do a good job.

jayjay said...


Woodman's "analysis" is not at all convincing as he relies mainly upon an upspecified "optimization program" making many of the "oddities" in the presented image.

That, of course, begs te question of why optimize the image at all or scan it in amy way. Digital cameras are widely available everywhere and would obviate the need for ANY "scanning", OCR software (which has no purpose in this instance anyway), or performing ANY "optimization".

A simple *.jpg image would have served the purpose much better and would not be open to seeing the forgery.

Woodman obviously is an Obama fan and is trying hard to explain away the inexplicable by assuming "no one would reasonably do" and of the oddities observed. That's certainly not a valid part of his (or Constipato's) "scientific method".

I see nothing in the long-winded analysis that is convincing. Just political artifice.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Thank you so much for taking the time to look at the Woodman analysis. If we are to find the truth, we have to consider everyone's opinion.

I trust your good judgment. Maybe there are others that agree with your assessment.

cfkerchner said...


That video alleging that optimization caused the observed anomalies is another far left attempt just like their efforts to blame "they left the OCR function turned on on the scanner". Optimization does not explain how some objects in some layers are rotated 90 degrees. That is a clear sign of imported objects from other documents and the sign of a manufactured, assembled document and forgery. This video does not even address many of the observed anomalies pointed out by Mara Zebest, Paul Irey, and Doug Vogt. It is just another attempt at disinformation and misinformation and half the story.

Obama owns this forged document ... both the PDF file and the scans of paper handed out copies put on the internet by AP. Both images show obvious signs of the Obama long form BC document being a forgery, and a very poor one at that.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)

jayjay said...

Puzzo1 & cfkerchner:

This isn't even the first afterbirter guy to try the "there's no reason to do it that way therefore it must not be a forgery" defense. Shortly after it was posted another guy was using that the layers make no sense argument.

Nobody ever said that they needed to except, perhaps in the mind/eye of the forger. Claiming they make no sense is merely the analyst believing he knew what the forger was aiming at it doing his stunt.

A good digicam *.jpeg would have been much better to minimize the forgern aspect.

And you're right, the Bookman effort leaves several obvious "holes" open and his comment that the AP image was "fatal" to any forgery is nonsense. He doesn't even know te origin of that image.

I'm not convinced, certainly - quite the opposite in fact. the more of these politically-motivated explanations show up, the more likely that it truly IS a forgery. So far none of the defenders have been too good.

Anonymous said...

I do professional photography as well as a little paralegal work.

My image from Adobe Illustrator showing how Obama's birth certificate 'falls apart' into layers and artwork leads the latest WND article at

It was first posted on my Wordpress blog, but I sent a copy to Corsi.

The putative birth certificate is not just altered, but shows signs of graphics fabrication (forgery) and lacks the State Seal, a legal requirement for certified copies.

Its release was a tortious fraud and possible intentional interference with contractual relations, as major media dropped Corsi interviews for his book release because of the so-called birth certificate.

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:
"So, please provide your list of sources that show that Justice Gray was correct in Wong Kim Ark when he said that after July 4, 1776, we followed the English common law to define our new national citizenship and therefore adopted jus soli as the basis for U.S. citizenship. This is a big chance for you so do a good job."


Why do you insist that Jus Soli doctrine is not part of our Anglo-American jurisprudence in face of overwhelming case law, and legal treatises (William Rawle's "A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825); George Washington Paschel's "Constitution of the United States (1868); Alexander Porter Morse,” A Treatise of Citizenship” (1881); Samuel Fox Mordecai, Dean of the Law School, Trinity College. “Law Notes –Brief Summaries of the Law (1911) that support the concept that Jus Soli is indeed a part of our Anglo-American jurispurdence.

The cases you do cite that a child's citizenship follows that of his or her parent has never been cited with approval by later courts (Shank v. Dupont) or that the the language was in a concurring opinion that doesn't have binding precedent (Venus Case Marshall, C.J. concurring); (Dred Scott,Daniels, J., concurring) or that the language was dicta ( Minor) or that the language was questioned by a later case (Slaughterhouse Cases questioned by Wong Kim Ark)

bdwilcox said...

In regards to Woodman's "analysis":

First, I'm sending Mario a bill for two hours of my time wasted listening to that rambling hack. :)

If this is the best Dr. Complacency can pit against Mara Zebest, well, the war is over. Woodman is about as much a graphics "expert" as Lou Ferrigno is a master orator. As soon as I saw JASC Paint Shop Pro the BS detector was firing on all cylinders; I should have listened to it. Real professionals use Photoshop; accept no substitutes, kiddies.

Woodsman's analysis lies on what I call "the theory of the machine". When my grandparents saw a personal computer for the first time, they thought it was magical and could do anything. They referred to it as "the machine" and would always say things like "can't your machine tell you?" or "can't your machine figure it out?" Whereas a generation or two ago the shoemaker's elves filled in for the unexplained, the computer does so today.

So when Woodsman doesn't understand something, he basically echoes my grandparents: "the machine must have done it." Rather than trying to understand why certain things were done, it's easier to blame the magic box with all its mysterious workings. Perhaps the shoemaker's elves moved their operation into the machine...

As it stands, I'm a master forger. Not a forger of money or signatures, but a forger of reality. My forgeries are the hardest because I take pictures and documents that are half eaten away by time and recreate them whole in such a way that the viewer cannot tell a forgery has taken place.

To reach such a place, I often use techniques and tricks that seem counter intuitive or nonsensical to the casual observer. With Woodman's truncated understanding, I'm sure he would blame many anomalies in my work to "the machine" rather than to my style and method of manipulation. And that's assuming I'm someone who knows what they're doing. Often, nonsensical moves in Photoshop are the result of kludges employed by amateurs because they don't know what they're doing.

So here we have two reasons that Woodman would blame something on "the machine". In the first, he can't comprehend why a forger would do something outside the scope of his understanding and in the second, he doesn't recognize a neophyte stumbling their way through a job.

bdwilcox said...

I'll give one example where an anomaly in the LFBC could be from an amateur mistake or from a pro using a non-traditional technique.

Woodman says he doesn't understand why or how a human being would put a white halo around the text in the document, so it must have been done by "the machine". I can think of quite a few reasons for the white halo, both from a pro aspect as well as from an amateur one.

From the pro aspect, if the forger was told the final result was just going to be printed (not distributed in digital form), the white halo wouldn't have been much of an issue, especially if it was going to be copied to white paper like in the AP's copy. So why use a halo like that? Because it would obliterate any stray pixels that might be there from the original text you've overwritten. And how would one do it? Easy. Copy all text layers, flatten them to a single layer, select all, grow selection by 3 pixels then feather by 2 pixels or so (you'd have to play with these depending on original's resolution), select the green background layer and hit delete. Voila, white halos.

Or, as I've said before, if a desperate amateur forger (probably rushed for time) was trying to resurrect crappy text, they would probably scale the text, then unsharp mask the hell out of it, resulting in deep black text and white halos around it.

Woodman is also fact challenged. First, the links in the document are not only rotated 90 degrees, they're scaled to varying degrees as well. Oh, that pesky machine with all its tricks! And his magic bullet, the AP "hi-res" copy he says debunks all claims of forgery is nothing more than a high res scan of a photocopy of a printout of the crappy low-res PDF. Garbage in, garbage out. Kind of like Woodman's "analysis"

I also find it funny how he tried to blame "the machine" for pixel perfect duplicates of elements in the PDF. "The machine" strikes again. Since he seems to like logic puzzles, I was wondering why the machine only duplicated some elements but not other elements that were near exact. (Three checkboxes in a row, all similar, but only two made identical) If "the machine" was magically deduplicating graphical elements it would have done it to all similar elements, no? Here's a hint. Compression doesn't work that way but forgers do.

In my final analysis, Woodman's "analysis" is a perfect fit for Dr. Complacency's blog: "it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


You want to charge me for two hours of your time in reviewing the Dr. Conspiracy-promoted Woodman video which I asked that we collectively analyze. You have been well compensated for your work in knowing that as you say, "[i]f this is the best Dr. Complacency can pit against Mara Zebest, well, the war is over.

On a more serious note, thank you for your valuable contribution to our collective intelligence analysis of the Obama on-line image of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth.

There are so many experts in various fields who have documented their opinions that the image is a forgery. I have not seen any reasonable challenge to these opinions. Rather, all I see now from Dr. Conspiracy and his followers is pseudo psychological analysis on what birtherism is, claiming that its driving force is racism and hate. As we have known since time immemorial, if you have no valid argument against someone's position, then resort to fallacies, whether its done consciously or unconsciously.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Atticus finch, at July 5, 2011 10:28 PM

Thank you for your reply. There are several problems with your answer:

1. You do not cite any U.S. Supreme Court case law that supports Justice Gray's and your statement that "Jus Soli doctrine that citizenship follows place of birth has been the guiding principle of United States citizenship laws since the founding of this nation."

2. You cite various authorities who you claim support your position. But you do not tell us what those authorities said that in fact supports your thesis. We do not even know what other sources these authorities relied upon for their conclusions.

3. The authorities that you cite pre Minor v. Happersett were acknowledged by Minor. But the Court simply said that even though those authorities argued that jus soli was the rule of citizenship, the Court said that “there have been doubts” that the rule was correct. The Court was not willing to declare a child born in the U.S. to alien parents a “citizen,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” The “citizen” question was answered by Wong Kim Ark, which again was not the “natural born Citizen” question which had been previously adequately handled by Minor.

4. Citing authorities post Wong Kim Ark does not count because by then our jurisprudence had been infected with the incorrect statement that jus soli was our basis for U.S. citizenship. If you want to cite such post Wong Kim Ark authorities, then you will have to provide works that actually analyze the question of jus soli vs. jus sanguinis rather than just tell us the question was beautifully handled by Justice Gray without more.

5. You did not cite for us what post July 4, 1776 authorities Wong Kim Ark relied upon to come to its jus soli conclusion.

6. You fail to recognize that the cases that I cited have to be considered as part of the totality of our jurisprudence on the issue. That legal analysis points to jus sanguinis and not jus soli.

7. You claim that Minor v. Happersett's definition of a "natural born Citizen" is dicta. This is not correct. I have shown in my essays on this blog that Minor's proclaiming Virginia Minor to be a "natural born Citizen" was central to the Court's decision. The Court was compelled to address that question given that Minor argued that as a citizen she was entitled to the privilege of voting under Article IV, Section 2. So, the Court had to first decide whether she was a citizen and hence, provide us with a definition of what a citizen is. In fact, the Court gave us a well-written explanation of the historical development of citizenship in the U.S., relying on concepts of natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Then the court had to decide whether voting was part of the privileges and immunities under the Constitution. We know that the Court said "no" to this last question. Hence, since the Court had to address the citizenship issue, the Court analyzed that issue thoroughly, its definition of a "natural born Citizen" is central to the Court's decision and binding precedent on later courts. Additionally, Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Minor for that same exact definition. So you are also wrong in saying that the cases that I cite have "never been cited with approval by later court."

Try again.

Anonymous said...

Jus soli was the sole operation of citizenship at birth for one-hundred years of colonial America.

That part of English nationality law applied because the colonies were under a monarchy and had limited jurisdiction.

March 26, 1790, the first Uniform Naturalization Act was enacted and jus soli became history.

The Case of Mr. Smith was determined ten months prior to the 1790 Act, and Madison argued for jus soli while Dr. Ramsay relied on jus sanguinis, as did the 1790 Act.

English common law is the basis for our judicial process; we rely on many common law and latin terms of art. However, old English statutes and case law were only precedential if pari material to the issue at hand.

In addition, English statutes were only adopted by the colonial states if listed as valid laws by the state's supreme court.

English case law and statutes could not superseded U.S. legislated Act. Although firmly committed jus solers such as Atticus Finch can find judges wedging wishful thinking between the lines of the 1790 Act, et seq, our Uniform Naturalization Act, per Art I, Sec, is purely jus sanguinis.

Proof is that when jus soli is introduced, it creates conflict with the Naturalization Acts . . . not a characteristic of Uniformity.

One of those conflicts is dual nationality. Another is the need for additional statutes to 'fix' the dual nationalty upon the jus soli citizen reaching the age of majority.

The introduction of jus soli by the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has created a crisis in the United States. 8% of newborn citizens by soil birthright are of aliens. In some areas, like Los Angeles, the numbers are higher.

The result has been the bankrupting of municipalities and hospitals because of social services, and the loss of sovereignty of entire states. For example, it has been determined that 10% of the electorate in New Mexico are non-citizens, enough to flip an election.

Some call this an invasion, and it is. Vattel wrote that a nation replenishes itself with children of its citizens; the converse is also true, that a nation DILUTES itself with the children of aliens.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I think that Dr. Conspiracy and his Obot followers are losing all sense of political and social reality. They are withdrawing into a role of providing discriminatory forces explanations for the opposition that exists against putative President Obama. They have stopped debating about the definition of a "natural born Citizen" and about the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. They just cannot image that a person such as Obama could actually have people who do not like him and who are not racists and bigots. For these sick folks, either you worship Obama, or you are a racist.

The only thing they talk about now is the phenomenon and role of "birtherism" and their claim that the birthers are basically all racists and bigots.

Bob said...

Justice Gray was obviously using Horace Binney's work Alienigenae, which he quotes.

A famous Philadelphia lawyer, Binney was both surprised and pleasantly pleased with President Millard Fillmore in 1855 revised the naturalization laws to correct a flaw pointed out by Binney which made all children born to American citizens 'transmare' into aliens-- which was a great surprise to many.

The law was effective back to Jefferson's naturalization law, which allegedly contained the error. However, Jefferson did not make an 'error,' since he intended the law to read that way and saw to it that was enforced for more than 40 years, requiring children of American citizens born overseas to live on American soil for 14 years, before they were 'naturalized.'

Binney's grandchild just happened to be one of them.

John Sydney McCain, therefore, remains to this day a 'naturalized citizen,' despite Attorney Puzo's strong arguments to the contrary.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The signature of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama's mother, on the White House released long-form birth certificate provides mathematically certain proof of forgery, according to a prominent software engineer who works as a high-level programmer for a state government.

Read the story at WND: Mathematical 'proof' Obama birth certificate a forgery
Prominent software engineer presents 'self-evident' analysis

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:
". You claim that Minor v. Happersett's definition of a "natural born Citizen" is dicta. This is not correct. I have shown in my essays on this blog that Minor's proclaiming Virginia Minor to be a "natural born Citizen" was central to the Court's decision. The Court was compelled to address that question given that Minor argued that as a citizen she was entitled to the privilege of voting under Article IV, Section 2. So, the Court had to first decide whether she was a citizen and hence, provide us with a definition of what a citizen is. In fact, the Court gave us a well-written explanation of the historical development of citizenship in the U.S., relying on concepts of natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Then the court had to decide whether voting was part of the privileges and immunities under the Constitution. We know that the Court said "no" to this last question. Hence, since the Court had to address the citizenship issue, the Court analyzed that issue thoroughly, its definition of a "natural born Citizen" is central to the Court's decision and binding precedent on later courts. Additionally, Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Minor for that same exact definition. So you are also wrong in saying that the cases that I cite have "never been cited with approval by later court."


Let's revisit Minor case.

Justice Waite tells us that Minor has standing to sue under the 14th Amendment as a citizen of the United States. Nowhere in the opinion did Justice Waite declare Ms. Minor to be a natural born citizen; in fact, he mentioned Ms. Minor as a citizen several times. He mentioned "natural born citizen" four times in the opinion but none in reference to Ms. Minor.

He mentioned natural born citizen in reference to Constitution wherein he quotes "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President" and when he quotes the section of Naturalization Act of 1790 that "that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens."

He mentioned "natural born citizen" in the following paragraph
in which he defines who is natural born citizen:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. Id at 167-168.(emphasis added)

Notice in this paragraph he does not preclude the idea that citizen children of aliens could be considered natural born citizens but there were doubts and he further stressed that for purposes of this case it was not necessary for the court to address these doubts.

The reason that Justice Waite’s language regarding natural-born citizen is dicta is that he never mentioned that Ms. Minor was natural born citizen; in fact, he never discussed the citizenship status of Ms. Minor’s parents. Moreover, Justice Waite recognized that Ms. Minor as a citizen had standing under the 14th Amendment to sue but that the Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

We adopted the law of nations after July 7, 1776. Under the law of nations, a child born physically out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the armies of the state was not deemed to be born "transmare," but rather reputed born in the U.S.

No Congressional Act abrogated this law of nations rule.

Hence, McCain was born in the country to citizen parents and is therefore a "natural born Citizen."

Anonymous said...


Binney has some positions on naturalization and citizenship that are in conflict with legislated act.

Under your reading, the fourteen year requirement made McCain 'stateless' as a child.

That is as ridiculous as the adoption of jus soli, which created dual citizenship at birth.

The 14th Amendment was part of the Reconstruction era, designed to guarantee equal rights . . . permanently and with the power of supreme law . . . to those born to non-citizens, i.e. freed slaves.

To apply the 'born in the U.S.' globally, to children of parents with alienage, i.e., foreign jurisdiction, is a fallacy and a conflict of existing law and legislative history and intent.

bdwilcox said...

Some good research done here about the intent of the 14th Amendment in its authors' words, sourced from the Congressional record.

Bob said...

Mario --

I am not arguing as a lawyer, but as a historian --

It is crystal clear that if a matter of citizenship status is addressed by Congress (as was McCain's), then the citizen is NOT a 'natural born citizen,' a status about which Congress can take no action whatsoever without amending the Constitution.

I understand your argument about McCain, but as an historian I see that the Framers deliberately rejected Vattel on the military status, when they also rejected standing armies.

That is the point of history that your arguments do not address.

QED -- McCain is a 'naturalized citizen!'

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:
"We adopted the law of nations after July 7, 1776. Under the law of nations, a child born physically out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the armies of the state was not deemed to be born "transmare," but rather reputed born in the U.S.

No Congressional Act abrogated this law of nations rule.

Hence, McCain was born in the country to citizen parents and is therefore a "natural born Citizen."


The drafters of the Constitution acknowledged that the law of nations was part of English Common Law as far as dealing with foreign nations. "During the eighteenth century, it was taken for granted on both sides of the Atlantic that the law of nations forms a part of the common law. 1 Blackstone, Commentaries 263-64 (1st Ed. 1765-69); 4 id. at 67. Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876, 666 (2nd Cir. 1980)"

Furthermore, "[when the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement." Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.).

Moreover, "Upon ratification of the Constitution, the thirteen former colonies were fused into a single nation, one which, in its relations with foreign states, is bound both to observe and construe the accepted norms of international law, formerly known as the law of nations. Under the Articles of Confederation, the several states had interpreted and applied this body of doctrine as a part of their common law, but with the founding of the "more perfect Union" of 1789, the law of nations became preeminently a federal concern." Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 , 878 (2nd Cir. 1980)

However as to nationality or citizenship laws of the United States, municipal laws rather than law of nations governs. “Citizenship is established by the laws of each individual country. Those laws are generally classified into two types: jus soli, in which citizenship is based on the place of birth, and jus sanguinis, in which citizenship is based on the citizenship of one (or both) parents.” Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 756 F. Supp. 1277, 1283 (N.D. Cal 1991), affirmed , Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 985 F. 2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993). See also Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166 , 169 (DC 1951)("Citizenship depends, however, entirely on municipal law and is not regulated by international law.")

As such, the United States doesn't recognized law of nations as controlling its citizenship laws.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Atticus finch at 7-7-11, 6:01 p.m.,

So you do agree with me that the United States adopted the law of nations as part of its laws. This occured after July 4, 1776.

You err in stating that the law of nations became part of "our" English common law. There were two types of common law, one based on English common law and another based on the law of nations. The correct statement is that it became part of American common law.

When it came to citizenship, we relied upon common law when the Constitution itself or a statute or treaty (positive or municipal laws) did not provide a rule of decision to define that citizenship. But that common law was based on the law of nations and not the English common law. See Minor v. Happersett (paraphrasing natural law and the law of nations as explicated by Emer de Vattel in Sec. 212 of The Law of Nations when telling us that the "common law" defined a "natural-born citizen" and defining one as a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Hence, positive law or municipal law could, indeed, abrogate the law of nations and common law. But if there was no positive law to do so, the law of nations and common law applied. The definition of a "natural born Citizen" was provided by the law of nations and American common law. In our history, no positive law has ever abrogated that definition. Hence, it is the law of nations and American common law which provide the definition of a "natural born Citizen" and that definition is a child born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen father and mother.

daddynoz said...

Sir, I found the article interesting on the nature of standing. Incarceration, and I assume the strong likelihood, equates to injury. I have been working for some time to discover on what element of standing I might as an active duty Soldier challenge the lack of legitimate authority of my commander in chief based on the precedent established in Minor. I think the Lakin verdict might be the historical example for the risk to "injury" in this vein. Your thoughts are appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Puzo1 & Atticus;

In spite of the convoluted machinations by Justice Gray undoubtedly intended to pay homage to his sponsors 'Home Country' the Opinion in WKA did manage a few passages of clarity.

One being the Justice's statement that "...The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, ......contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization...." as cited below.

In that statement it is clear that the Justice is confining the remainder of his opinion to what the 14th ACTUALLY provides for and no longer is looking at the 3rd form of Citizenship contemplated by the Constitution in A2S1C5.

It also makes clear that prior to the 14th 'jus soli' was subject to the status that the Congress placed upon the parents, i.e., they either had jurisdiction based on the parents status based on naturalization laws or they had NO jurisdiction because the parents were ALREADY CITIZENS, who provided Jus sanguines citizenship upon the prodigy as a birthright.

But in the end the WKA Opinion is fatally flawed given that it violated the Constitutional Supremacy of the Burlingame Treaty at Article VI.

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,

becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.

Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship."