Donate

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A "Natural Born Citizen"




           Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-
              Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A “Natural Born Citizen”

                                         By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                               January 21, 2013



The U.S. Constitution
       


Barack Obama eligibility supporters maintain that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. But to do so, they have blended together, through ignorance or intent, “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen,” and denied that there is a critical constitutional distinction between these phrases. These supporters and enablers, who I call the citizen/born citizen/natural born citizen conflationists, in constitutionally supporting Barack Obama to be president, have allowed our Constitution, the rule of law, and our nation to be violated. Allow me to explain.

In order to understand the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” we have to understand the constitutional distinction between a “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen.” The first constitutional distinction is between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” In Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 the Framers provided in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Here, we see the Framers distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” There is no other type of “citizen” mentioned. So, our Constitution, Acts of Congress, and treaties, call “citizens,” or members of the United States, either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.” As we shall see, the former are defined by American common law (the definition being based on natural law and the law of nations) and the latter by the Fourteenth Amendment (the definition being in part based on colonial English common law), Congressional Acts, or treaties. From this we can see that a “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” Because of the requirement of having to be born in the country to citizen parents, a “natural born Citizen” will necessarily also qualify under these sources as a “citizen of the United States.”

Article II refers to a “natural born Citizen,” but does not define it. In fact, the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not found anywhere in the original or amended Constitution or any Act of Congress. Rather, it is found in the common law upon which the Founders and Framers relied at the time of the adoption and ratification of the Constitution. Under this common law, the three constituent elements of being a “natural-born citizen” are time (at the moment of birth), birth place (in the country), and birth parents (U.S. citizen parents), what I will call birth time, birth country, and birth parents. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution and confirmed that “[a]t 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”); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (the majority and dissent agreed on the Minor definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but they disagreed as to the definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth). Given this settled common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” these elements are both necessary and sufficient to make a “natural born Citizen.” In the definition, the parents have to have as a minimum the status of a “citizen” (“born citizen” or “natural born Citizen” is not necessary) in order to produce a “natural born Citizen.” Note that Minor said that at common law, if one was not a “natural-born citizen,” one was an alien or foreigner. This means that if these persons qualified, the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty could make them a “citizen of the United States.”

These historical and legal developments inform that at common law there is a critical distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” In fact, natural law and the law of nations have always recognized this distinction. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm ). At common law, if one was a “citizen” but not a “natural born citizen,” then, except for the original “citizens” who became such by the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution, one had to have been alien born and become a “citizen” by naturalization statute. Natural law and the law of nations, along with both English and American common law, have also always recognized that a child gains allegiance and citizenship by either being born on the soil of a country (jus soli) or by being born to parents of that country (jus sanguinis). The Founders and Framers accepted the distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” and understood that birth country and birth parents produce in the child allegiance from the moment of birth. Because they expected the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have absolute allegiance from birth only to the United States, they applied the distinction to the Office of President. In fact, they used it when they made the “natural born Citizen” clause a requirement of eligibility for the Office of President (the XII Amendment extends it to the Office of Vice-President) and for no other office, requiring, for those to born after the adoption of the Constitution and who would aspire to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, that they be not only a “citizen,” but a “natural born Citizen.” (The grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 allowed “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President, provided they had that status “at the time of Adoption of this Constitution.”) The English did not nor did they have to demand such allegiance from their would-be Kings, for their Kings did not have to qualify from among the people. Rather, they lay their claim to the throne by royal blood. Rejecting as a requisite to be President royal blood, the Founders and Framers instead settled with the natural elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, and made their distinction between a “citizen” who was also a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen” who was not. And it was the combination of these three elements at the time of birth which assured them that all means of inheriting allegiance and citizenship (birth country and birth parents) were united at the moment of birth to produce in the child absolute allegiance only to the United States.

The next constitutional distinction is between “born citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” These same Obama eligibility supporters add the word “born” to the word “citizen” and want us to accept that combination as the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” But those who assert that a “natural born Citizen” is just any “born citizen” commit two errors: a textual error of missing the point (or by refusing to see the point) that the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born citizen” and a definitional error of not understanding (or refusing to accept) that “born citizen” is neither a definition nor a description of the clause “natural born Citizen.”

First, regarding the textual error, as I have already explained in other articles such as Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html , we cannot define a clause by merely repeating parts of the clause itself. For example, if we wanted to know what the definition of a “natural born German Shepherd” is, we would not accept as a correct definition the answer that it is a “born German Shepherd.” To argue that a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born German Shepherd” is tautological, for it only repeats part of the form of the clause and does not define the clause. Such an argument does nothing more than to state the obvious that a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born German Shepherd.” Likewise, a “natural born Citizen,” is, of course, a “born citizen,” but saying so does not define the clause.

Second, in this “born German Shepherd” definition example, a rational person should also want to know what happened to the qualifier “natural” and its meaning. Does not that word tell us something about under what conditions the “born German shepherd” must come into existence? Likewise, those rational persons who want to know the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” should want to know what happened to the qualifier “natural,” and whether that qualifier also requires that certain conditions be met in order to have a “natural born Citizen.” Actually, these persons would be correct in raising such questions. Given the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” with its three constituent elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, we know that the word “natural” when combined with “born citizen” demands that all three elements be satisfied in order to have a “natural born Citizen.” We might be willing to include others as “born citizens” and Congress has the naturalization powers to do so and has done so throughout our history. But that we are willing to tolerate by the application of some law certain persons as “born citizens” does not, given the applicable common law definition of the clause and its requirements, make them “natural born Citizens”

Regarding the definitional error, the clauses “natural born Citizen” and “born Citizen” are conclusions, birth statuses that do not provide sufficient factual information as to how one arrives at the conclusions or statuses themselves. Rather, to know if one satisfies the status of being a “natural born Citizen,” one must start with the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” identifying its constituent elements. If one satisfies those elements, then one is a “natural born Citizen.” And to know if one satisfies the status of being a “born citizen,” one must also start with the available definitions, however many there are and whether provided by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Acts, of a “born citizen,” identifying their constituent elements. If one satisfies those elements, then one is a “born citizen.” But obviously, we are defining two different clauses which necessarily contain different definitions and requirements. The clause does not tell us how one arrives at being a “born citizen,” which process must be equivalent to the process by which one arrives at being a “natural born Citizen” if the two clauses are to mean the same thing. Hence, to simply use other legal mechanisms of citizenship which produce a “born citizen” and proclaim that they too produce a “natural born Citizen,” simply because they, like “natural born Citizens,” are “born citizens,” is to err. It is to err because being a “born citizen” is only a necessary consequent (a conclusion or status) of being a “natural born Citizen” and by itself, because it is based on a different definition, represents a different class of citizen, one produced by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act and not by American common law.

There is only one process or means by which one can be a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., by satisfying the necessary and sufficient conditions of birth time (at the moment of birth), birth country (born in the United States), and birth parents (born to U.S. citizen parents). Simply stated, any “born citizen” who does not satisfy these three conditions, while still being a “born citizen” under some legal mechanism (e.g., under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act), is not a “natural born Citizen” under American common law which is the natural law/law of nations-based law that provides the constitutional definition of the clause.

Minor v. Happersett confirms all this and United States v. Wong Kim Ark changes none of it.

Barack Obama maintains that he was born in Hawaii. With a dispute involving whether his birth certificate, social security number, and military draft registration are authentic still continuing and not having been definitively resolved through any legal process, we have yet to see conclusive legal proof of his place of birth. But even assuming for sake of argument that he was born in Hawaii, he is still not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that the three elements of being a “natural born Citizen” are birth time, birth country, and birth parents. Minor; Wong Kim Ark. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he satisfies the birth country requirement. But while Obama was born to a U.S. “citizen” mother, his father never became nor did he strive to become a U.S. “citizen.” Rather, his father was born in the English colony of Kenya, was born a British citizen, and remained such until his death. Hence, Obama was not born to a U.S. “citizen” father. He therefore fails to satisfy the elements of being born to citizen parents at the moment of birth. This means that he can be a “born citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act, which provide a more relaxed allegiance standard , but he cannot be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, which provides a more exacting allegiance standard for would-be Presidents and Commanders of the Military. This also means that because he is neither “a natural born Citizen” nor “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” he is not eligible to be President.

On January 20, 2013, Barack Obama was again sworn in as the President of the United States. But because he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he is at best a de facto President of the United States, not a constitutionally legitimate one.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 21, 2013
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2013
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

450 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 450 of 450   Newer›   Newest»
Unknown said...

I totally disagree with Chief, Article 2 will not be enforced and his fake bc, draft card and bogus ss number will be swept under the rug. Politicians run this country and judges answer to them in something this explosive. If a no name had gone before masin and shown no evidence of citizenship then there wouldve been consequences.

Doublee said...

4zoltan @ March 7, 4:35 P.M.
Try removing this passage from the decision - "These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Does the opinion change? Is there any effect on the opinion?


Yes. There would be no opinion at all! That’s why I had concluded that the definition of natural born citizen was not dicta.

Then I began to think that whether Mrs. Minor had a right to vote was a separate issue and that the mere fact that she had to be a citizen was not strictly speaking part of the reasoning the court applied to the voting rights issue.

I placed a very high fence between the two issues in the case, and that fence has been removed thanks to Mr. Apuzzo’s response.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here is the latest Obot spin on Minor v. Happersett: "The simple fact remains that the Court in Happersett was simply presenting the history and logic leading up to and supporting their decision when they wrote . . ."

What is meaningless about this statement is that we Constitutionalists can say the same to them when they attempt to convince us that Wong Kim Ark defined a "natural born Citizen," rather than just a "citizen."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

For the Constitutionalists, the issue is what is the Founding generation definition of a “natural born Citizen” and whether any given candidate for president or vice president satisfies it. That question involves finding the definition of the clause as it existed when the Constitution was adopted and ratified and, if the definition does not violate today’s morals and standards of equality, applying that definition to the given candidate to determine whether the candidate satisfies it. Such an inquiry and application does not rely upon color, race, religion, sex, handicap, or any other such discriminatory factor. The definition does not violate our present day morals or standards of equality as applied to determining who is eligible to be President or Vice-President. Hence, our position on the “natural born Citizen” is constitutional.

On the other hand, the Anti-Constitutionalists would allow race, color, or partisan politics to distort the truth about the real meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause. Their position is not constitutional.

thalightguy said...

KNIGHT'S BOOKS OF REFERENCE. POLITICAL DICTIONARY. Volume I - Charles Knight 1845

Page 104:

"Kent defines an alien to be " a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States ;" but this definition is not sufficiently strict, for the son of an alien, which son is born in the United States, is also an alien."

Page 511:

"is here understood as only applying to those States in which the constitution, whether written or unwritten, gives to those who are members of such States, or to some considerable number of them, some share of the sovereign power. The usual form in which citizenship is acquired is by birth ; by being born of citizens"

http://books.google.com/books?id=6XpIAAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_slider_user_shelves_7_homepage

Unknown said...

seems to me many people willingly overlook NBC just to get the candidate they want in place. Next up is Rubio and/or Cruz.
we have lost our way as a country :(

MichaelN said...

Join in and counter the deceivers' lie-fest.

http://www.politicalforum.com/other-miscellaneous/189004-english-common-law-requires-jus-sanguinis-essential-natural-born-52.html#post1062385124

Unknown said...

Mario, breitbart has a article saying cruz is likely eligible if you need a few laughs. I left about 20 replys saying why he wasnt. Just amend article 2 to make a citizen eligible now instead of doing contortions on Framers meaning of a nbc. What is scary is that obama may not even be a citizen and yet he is still allowed to be CiC. He probably isnt considering his secrecy on past records

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

For anyone interpreting and applying the Constitution, what should control is what is says, not what it ought to say. If what it says is not adequate or correct given changing conditions of time, then let the people amend it by constitutional process.

MichaelN said...

There's an on going debate at....

http://www.politicalforum.com/other-miscellaneous/189004-english-common-law-requires-jus-sanguinis-essential-natural-born-54.html

Here's what I have recently posted to that thread.....

"Originally Posted by Shiva
The founders of the United States were highly articulate and very well educated and they knew the difference between "citizen" and "subject" in the creation of the United States. The statement, "If "subject" and "citizen" were understood to mean the same thing in 1787" attempts to establish a false foundation because "subject" and "citizen" did not mean the same thing in 1787.
-----------------------
They also knew the difference between, "born citizen", "native-born citizen" and "natural born citizen".

They also knew that it was a high priority imperative to protect the presidential office from the least amount of foreign allegiance, loyalty, coercion, persuasion and claim, as possible.

They also knew the best way to do this was to restrict eligibility for the office of president to those with the highest possible allegiance to the United States which can only bee one who is born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country.

They also used Vattel's Law of Nations as a guide in their nation building and Vattel's writings were very popular amongst the Framers and other players in the framing period.
-------------------
Posted by Shiva
They also knew the the foundation for a "natural born subject" in Britian which was based upon jus soli.
-----------------
Wrong!

In the benchmark English common law case , i.e. Calvin's case, Lord Coke clearly rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject and emphasized this point by stating that if a child was native- born to a father who was not a subject then the child could not be a subject, be cause "he was not born under the ligeance of a subject"

A "natural born subject" in 17th century England merely defined a person as a member of the subjects of the king who had property rights, inheritable rights, etc, it was not qualification for high office as leader of a national republic.

A USC Article II "natural born Citizen" was eligibility for highest office of a national republic as leader and commander in chief and it was not an eligibility requirement for citizenship nor to qualify for property and inheritance rights.

"natural born Citizen" describes a native-born citizen with the extra quality of being born to citizen parents; it is not a means to US citizenship, it is a means for a born citizen to qualify for the high office of president with the highest possible allegiance as being the imperative.

MichaelN said...

Here's another post I put on the thread at....
http://www.politicalforum.com/other-miscellaneous/189004-english-common-law-requires-jus-sanguinis-essential-natural-born-54.html

"Posted by Shiva_TD
But we do know what the criteria is for a natural born citizen as that was established in the United States v Kim Wong Ark by the Supreme Court.

---------------------
Wrong again.

The criteria for a natural born citizen was recognized by the US Supreme Court in the Minor v Happersett case, way before the Wong Kim Ark case and was established prior to adoption of the US Constitution.

The Wong Kim Ark case cited to the Minor v Happersett case without any objection to the opinion in the Minor v Happersett case, and further added the comment from Horace Binney, again without objection, where Binney pointed out the difference between TWO types of born citizens, one being "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and the other being "the natural born child of a citizen".

Horace Binney in the Wong Kim Ark case.....
"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. "

The SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett case were not so generous, where they virtually rejected the notion that native-birth to an alien sufficed to make a citizen at all, and thus such a child would be alien-born until that matter was resolved.

It was the Wong Kim Ark case which solved the doubts mentioned and given merit in the Minor v Happersett case, i.e. if native-birth sufficed the make a "citizen of the United States", the matter of highest allegiance, "natural born citizen" had already been recognized in the prior Minor v Happersett case and was left unchanged.

Therefore it is impossible for the SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett case to have believed that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born citizen.

The Wong Kim Ark case made no objection and did not overrule the Minor v Happersett case and it's decision was consistent with the Minor v Happersett court's opinion on the principle of natural born citizen, where Wong was ruled to be a citizen and NOT a natural born citizen, obviously because he was NOT(as Horace Binney put it) "the natural born child of a citizen", rather he was The child of an alien, if born in the country " as he was clearly not "born under the ligeance" of a US citizen.

It's really simple stuff.

thalightguy said...

The Constitution at adoption did not say who should be admitted as citizens of the United States, it only gave Congress the ability to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

So, right after adoption there was only one way to be admitted as a citizen of the U.S., the second came later after Congress established their uniform Rules of Naturalization.

1.Inheriting your citizenship by being born in the U.S. to parents who were the original citizens [members] of the U.S., "natural born citizen".

2. Made a citizen under the authority of Congress., "Naturalized citizen".

Persons born abroad to citizen parents are not "natural born Citizen's", they do not inherit their citizenship from their parents, if they did, Congress would not of needed to use their Congressional Naturalization Authority to establish them as citizens.

Teo Bear said...

Mario,

I just seen the video of Orly being snubbed by Breitbart. I was hardly surprised as Orly has always been obsessed with being the lawyer to bring Obama down, and she has concentrated her efforts to proving a Kenyan birth. But you have been the only lawyer in this battle to fight using the Constitution, the law, and the original intent of the natural born citizen clause.

There is a discussion that we as nation need to have which is to whom do we as a nation give the title of a natural born citizen too. The Supreme Court has said many times that the people of the United States are the sovereigns and that it was the people of the United States that ratified the Constitution. It was not congress, the several states or the judiciary. The real arbitrators of the term natural born citizen is the people, and your work has helped many to look at this term in a new light.




Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Teo Bear,

Thank you for those words. It was, indeed, the people, who fought and won a war with Great Britain which they fought because they believed that “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” gave to them “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” who ratified the Constitution and the “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, the people were the “real arbiters of the term natural born citizen.”

And Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) confirmed that those same people decided that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. That definition is the supreme law of the land and part of Article III “the Laws of the United States.” That definition can only be changed again by the people by duly passed constitutional amendment under Article V or by an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court which justly demonstrates that the definition is otherwise.

But with Barack Obama, and now with Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, and Ted Cruz, we can see that some people, failing to appreciate the sacrifice of the Founders and Framers which they made to create a better and stronger nation and their effort to best assure the preservation of that new nation, have decided to change the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” not through any such constitutional amendment or U.S. Supreme Court decision, but rather through appeal to race, color, ridicule, self-interest, and partisan politics.

Unknown said...

Teo Bear, I find your comment about Orly very wrong. Your wrote that she has concentrated her efforts to proving a Kenyan birth, well, that my friend is a lie. You should go to her website and check out her evidence, pleadings and other documents, to inform yourself, and stop spreading nonsense.
I admire Mario, for his continuous efforts to educate patriots as well as sheeple, but Orly has really tried hard and she is fighting the courts which are unbelievably unfair, and quick to dismiss cases without hearing them on merits, so that evidence can be put on the table so to say. I admire all the people, private citizens, or attorneys who stand up and do something, even if its difficult with all the Media Bias and disinformation by them, character assassination, and ridicule of patriots who stand up to any fraud committed by the regime and their followers. It is just said that a conservative website, like Breitbart, which I enjoy reading, doesn't follow what they write about and preach, because no matter what the subject, nobody needs to be put down, or shut out of expressing it, and this is what Bannon did, and for this he lost respect in my eyes.

Unknown said...

Orly is focusing on his 2 forgerys and fake social. She talked to gohmert, al west, meese, governors etc at cpac. Mario shouldve gone too and shown the evidence of what the Framers considered a NBC. Breitbart died just before he was going to meet orly and he had just talked corsi... The editors now at bb wont touch his forgerys and eligibilty but the commenters are catching on

MichaelN said...

@dickhead

I agree with all the excellent research and logical reasoning to date on Mario's part, it's time a "memo" was sent to each and every member of the US Congress and Senate to show how wrong the advice from Jack Maskell was.

I can't see any of the members of US Congress or US Senate doing anything about the matter of presidential eligibility at this point, because to them there is no issue........ they believe what Maskell has said and they will hide behind it.

There must be another "resolution" just like the 511 Resolution, but not particular to a person, but rather POTUS eligibility meaning of Article II "natural born Citizen", and it needs to be based on a full and comprehensive study like Mario has done and already produced.

Time is of the essence as the sneaky, stealth de-fanging of the US Constitution's security measure for presidential office is well advanced, to the point that as at 2003 the US Standard Form for live birth reporting has no requirement on the form to record the nationality or citizenship of the parents of the children born in the US.

MichaelN said...

@dickhead

I agree with all the excellent research and logical reasoning to date on Mario's part, it's time a "memo" was sent to each and every member of the US Congress and Senate to show how wrong the advice from Jack Maskell was.

I can't see any of the members of US Congress or US Senate doing anything about the matter of presidential eligibility at this point, because to them there is no issue........ they believe what Maskell has said and they will hide behind it.

There must be another "resolution" just like the 511 Resolution, but not particular to a person, but rather POTUS eligibility meaning of Article II "natural born Citizen", and it needs to be based on a full and comprehensive study like Mario has done and already produced.

Time is of the essence as the sneaky, stealth de-fanging of the US Constitution's security measure for presidential office is well advanced, to the point that as at 2003 the US Standard Form for live birth reporting has no requirement on the form to record the nationality or citizenship of the parents of the children born in the US.

Teo Bear said...

These are my words, not Mario's and if he sees fit to print them do not hold him responsible as I am only replying to being called a liar, i.e. one who spreads lies.

Not many people know who I am, because I never wanted to make a name for myself, but I have been involved with the Obama eligibility since April of 2008. It was me who suggested in August of 2008 that we challenge the Secretaries of State to keep Obama off the ballots. And it was me who grabbed the name birthers.org to stop the left from using the name birthers as a tool of ridicule.

I was there when Orly got punked by Obots and self serving individuals and I remember intimately the disappointment many good people had when forgery after forgery was dumped on her. It was me who tried to get Orly from getting into a pissing contest with Phil Berg, I called her and told her we needed unity and she told me to piss off because she was right, and after Phil filed the lawsuit against her, she called me up to see if I could get Phil to drop it.

So please don't pom-poh me about Orly.

Why didn't Mario go to CPAC. Hey Dickhead do you see a donation box for paypal on Mario's website? Do you see ads to advertise here on Mario's site? Mario has not asked for one dime for himself and only asked his clients to pay for the filing fees, and that is a fact.

Mitzi, you say go to her site. For what her self promotion press releases? No thank you, I just go to the birtherreport.com to get all the information I need.

The fact is Orly has contributed nothing to advancing the national debate that our BIRTHRIGHT is being stolen from us. The simple truth is there has only been two attorneys who have contributed to this debate. Leo Donofrio and Mario and unfortunately Leo didn't have the strength to see this fight to the end.

Teo Bear said...

One last note on Orly and the Birth Certificate issue.

We all know it is a forgery, it is our country's dirty little secret. It will be covered up at the highest levels, and if necessary I would not be surprised if there was a terrorist incident at Hawaii's DoH that destroyed all the vital records. If it ever got to the point Hawaii HAD to open the vault. The crime committed is so high I would put nothing past the conspirators. And Orly runs around make an ass out of those who are trying to convince the American people of a greater theft, their heritage and legacy

Perhaps the only place a foreign birth could be discovered is in the British Archives. See http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/07/obamas-kenyan-birth-records-discovered.html

I wonder if Orly is going to hit her supporters up for donations so she can go there and serve the Queen a subpoena to force the ol'girl to produce the record?

Unknown said...

Breitbart had a short article on media matters calling them birthers like this has been settled and only a fool would question obamas birthplace and bonafides. I was happy to see many of the comments support orly and question his forgerys, fake social and not being a nbc. They also mentioned m v h so i think more people are learning what a NBC actually is " in the nomenclature of the Framers". BB had some propaganda articles on ted cruz and rubio being NBCs so i think they have been threatened. They know how breitbart himself ended up.

Unknown said...

Teo, it is very sad that you use the same ways of obots to ridicule others who don't agree with you. I did not mean the Press releases, but I meant all the acquired evidence of fraud Orly has on her website for everbody to check out. It has nothing to do where Obama was born, but about the fake documentation provided by him. I read Leos blog with total awe as well as Marios, from which I learned so much, I did not know, and also am a strong believer that NBC is only a person born on US soil to US citizens. But I also like Orly, because no matter what the Obots do or say to her, she keeps on fighting, brings cases to the courts and that is another way I admire and never would ridicule. Nobody is perfect, and through our life we make mistakes, which we don't repeat if we are smart and from which we learn. I believe you are also one of the patriots doing his part, but please, do not ridicule, badmouth, or oppose anybody who is fighting the good fight on our site, you never know which flank gets hit hard enough to brake the reign of the evil.

Carlyle said...

@ MichaelN - "it's really simple stuff".

----------------------

Indeed. It IS very simple IF you stand back, take an objective view, distance yourself from the present situation, and simply ask (and then research, if necessary) "What does this mean exactly".

But if you embrace the current situation and ask a different question (i.e. "How can we make this confirm Obamessiah is eligible?") then it gets VERY complicated.

All of that is in itself a kind of proof that something squirrelly is afoot.

thalightguy said...

Mario,

I have been having quite a debate over at the Tucson Citizen with a person calling himself Charlie Hughes.

Website here: http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-lincoln-republican/2013/03/14/natural-born-citizen-pretzel-logic/

After pointing out, William Loughton Smith defended himself against Ramsay's citizenship challenge by quoting Vatel. And, providing your explanation as to why Madison's quote rearding Mr. Smith should not be relied upon as to the definition of a "natural born Citizen".

Charlie Hughes has replied with: "Read the court decisions in Purpura v. Obama and Paige v. Obama, they both specifically reject Mario Apuzzo's arguments.".

I'll let you defend yourseld as you see fit.

Unknown said...

We have never gotten a straight answer from congress on how the son of a foreign father would be considered a NBC by the Framers probably because that would be impossible. Orly has been a pitbull on forger in chief and mario has more than done his part as well but the game is rigged

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Thalightguy,

I of II

This is what I just left at Café Con Leche Republicans (Birther Madness) for “Cehughes” who is probably Charlie Hughes:

Cehughes,

You said that “Judge Bent from Paige v. Obama says “Vattel’s ‘natives or natural born citizens’ statement has no Constitutional significance.”

Would you care to explain for us:

1. By what coincidence these statements appear to be quite similar:

(a) Emer de Vattel, the Founders and Framers favorite commentator on the law of nations, said in Section 212 of his world-renowned treatise, The Law of Nations:

”The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).

(b) In The Venus case, Chief Justice John Marshall, who was the fourth Chief Justice of the United States and whose court opinions helped lay the basis for American constitutional law, joined by Justice Livingston, said:

“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring as to this part of his decision).

(c) Justice Joseph Story, who historians agree reshaped American law as much or more than Marshall or anyone else, providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, stated in Shanks v. Dupont: “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.” Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245(1830).

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

(d) Justice Daniels concurring in Dred Scott cited Vattel and The Law of Nations and provided his definition of natural born citizens and took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, and stated: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .”).

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring).

(e) The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett said: “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.”

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875).

Please explain how it is that all these statements coming from members of our U.S. Supreme Court seem to repeat the basic premise found in Vattel’s Section 212, i.e., that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

2. If these statements are quite similar and appear to have their basis in what Vattel said in Section 212, by what principle can we agree with Judge Bent that Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” has no constitutional significance?


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Thalightguy,

I of II

Here is something else that I just left at Café Con Leche Republicans (Birther Madness) for “Cehughes,” who is probably Charlie Hughes:

Cehughes,

Thank you for finally telling us what you believe is the rationale of the recent lower courts which you say supports their position. You said that those lower courts do not have to “reinvent the wheel” and rather just pointed to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as providing all the legal support they need for their position that a person born in the United States to alien parents is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

The U.S. Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), which discussed and applied various factors as aids in its quest to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” informs as to what factors a court is to look to when searching for the meaning of clauses in the Constitution. Many of these factors are found in the following list. What is most lacking about these lower court decisions is that they did not even use one of these factors: The factors are:

(1) the intellectual mindset existing at the time of the American Revolution,

(2) natural law and the law of nations and Cicero, John Locke, Emer de Vattel and so many more natural law and law of nations commentators as bearing any relevance upon the “natural born Citizen” clause,

(3) the happenings of the constitutional drafting convention and state ratifying conventions,

(4) the Framers rejection of the English common law as part of national law (not to be confounded with selective adoption of the English common law by the states until abrogated by their legislatures) and adoption of the law of nations as national law,

(5) the text and structure of the Constitution as its relates to the “natural born Citizen” clause,

(6) the Framers’ purpose for inserting the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution as part of the presidential eligibility requirements,

(7) the words of Founders and Framers bearing upon the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,”

(8) founding era Congressional naturalization Acts and others that followed,

(9) other historical sources,

(10) the text and structure of the Fourteenth Amendment and the purpose for which it was passed,

(11) U.S. Supreme Court cases that were decided before the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, and

(12) any other pertinent materials like old dictionaries, etc.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

So now we know upon what foundation those lower court decisions rest. That foundation is the Fourteenth Amendment 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Wong Kim Ark and nothing more. What is most distressful about these lower court decisions and their sole reliance upon Wong Kim Ark is that Wong Kim Ark is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” case, not an Article II “natural born Citizen” one. In contrast, Minor v. Happersett (1875) is the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision that specifically confirmed the age-old definition of a “natural-born citizen” and said that at common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. All of the above-listed factors support this definition. Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Minor, and even quoted this very exact definition of a “natural-born citizen,” not taking issue with it. It then concluded, through the aid of the colonial English common law and its broad allegiance, that a child "‘if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle’" (citing and quoting Horace Binney). Id. at 693. The “same principle” referred to “birth in the country.” It therefore held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” But Wong Kim Ark itself cautioned that children born out of the United States to “citizen” parents, while becoming at the time of their birth “citizens of the United States,” were still naturalized “citizens” made so through Congress’s naturalization powers. It follows from what the Court said that these children, even though becoming at the time of their birth “citizens of the United States,” were not “natural born Citizens.”

Wong Kim Ark did not engage in this Heller-type analysis with respect to defining a “natural-born citizen.” So, it surely did not “invent any wheel” when it comes to defining a “natural-born citizen.” It can therefore be said that Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “born” citizen. But it did not hold that he was an Article II “natural born” citizen.” So, all of this evidence, including the Wong Kim Ark decision itself, amply demonstrates that reliance upon Wong Kim Ark, to define a “natural born Citizen” other than how Minor defined one, is highly misplaced. With all due respect, I must therefore strongly disagree with these lower court cases that you and others like you keep citing.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Examining whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” so that it could then decide whether she was entitled under Article IV as a “citizen” to privileges and immunities that included the right to vote which no state could abridge because of the Fourteenth Amendment, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 searched for the definition of a “natural-born citizen.” It said that the Fourteenth Amendment did not define a “natural-born citizen.” It also said that Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to show that she was a “citizen.” Relying upon what it said was the common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, Minor said that any child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth was not only a “citizen” like his or her parents, but also a “natural-born citizen.” This was the same definition of a “natural-born citizen” put forth by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758). So Minor showed how it did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to demonstrate that a person could not only be a “citizen,” but also be a “natural-born citizen.” Virtually the same judges that made up the Minor Court had earlier stated in dicta in The Slaughterhouse Cases: “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." The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73(1873). If the Court did not consider children born in the United States to alien parents to be not even “citizens,” which was consistent with Congress’s naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, they surely could not be “natural born Citizens.” Hence, again referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, Minor also said that “there have been doubts” whether a child “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents was even a “citizen.” Since Virginia Minor was born in the United States to “citizen” parents which made her a “natural-born citizen,” and because she therefore did not need the aid of the Fourteenth Amendment to establish her birthright citizenship, Minor ruled that it was not necessary for it to resolve these doubts.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Addressing the question raised by The Slaughterhouse Cases and left open by Minor, Wong Kim Ark, through the aid of the colonial English common law and its doctrine of broad allegiance, repudiated The Slaughterhouse Cases Fourteenth Amendment dicta and said “[t]hat 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." Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 679. Wong Kim Ark then ruled that a child "‘if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle’" (citing and quoting Horace Binney). Id. at 693. The “same principle” referred to “birth in the country.” Indeed, according to the Court, a child born in the country to alien parents was as much a “citizen” as the “natural born” child of citizen parents, but only that “natural born” child born in the country to “citizen” parents could be a “natural-born citizen.” It therefore held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” But Wong Kim Ark itself cautioned that a child born out of the United States to “citizen” parents, who “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States,” was still a naturalized “citizen” so made by Congress through its naturalization powers. It follows from what the Court said that this child, even though he “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States,” was not a “natural-born citizen.” So, Wong Kim Ark specifically told us that anyone needing the Fourteenth Amendment for birthright citizenship status, can be “at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States,” but cannot be a “natural born Citizen.”

thalightguy said...

I found the following very interesting:

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=A1JHAAAAYAAJ&rdid=book-A1JHAAAAYAAJ&rdot=1

A Digest of the Laws of England: v. 1 by Sir John Comyns, Stewart Kyd – 1793

Page 421 and 422

“ALIEN. (A.) Who shall be an Alien. AN alien is one who is born out of the ligeancc of the king. Lit.feEt. 198. 7 Co. 16. a. Calvin. If he be born out of the ligeancc of the king, he is an alien, though the place of his birth afterwards comes within his ligeancc. 7 Co. 18. b. Calvin. As, the antenati in Scotland, before the union of the kingdoms under King James I. 7 Co. 18. b. Calvin. Vide Vau. 279. -So, if his parents are not in the actual obedience to the king, he is an alien, though he be born within the dominion of the king : as, a man born in France, Normandy, &c. is an alien, though the king has dominion there dejure ; because they are not in actual obedience to the king. ' 7 Co. 18. a. Calvin. So, if the king's enemies invade the kingdom, and any one is born here, such issue is an alien. 7 Co. 6. a. 1 8- a, b. Calvin. So, if an alien has issue by an English woman out of the king's ligcance, the issue shall be alien, though she is a natural subject ; for (lie is sub polejlalc viri. i Vent. 422. And, though an alien friend comes into England when he is an infant, and always after continues there, and is sworn to the king, yet he continues an alien. 1 Rol. 195. C.

(B.) Who is not an alien. (B. I.) Any born within the Ligeance of the King. BUT no one is an alien, who is born in a place, then within the king's ligeance, of parents in actual obedience to the king. 7 Co. 18. Calvin. Vau. 279. So the children of the king's ambassadors, born of English parents in a place out of the king's ligeance, are not aliens by the common law. 7 Co. 18. a. Cahin.”

MichaelN said...

Here's a link to another forum, where the treasonous liars are in action.

www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1408855-birther-brigade-going-after-rubio-now-174.html#post28711919

thalightguy said...

Mario,

I thought you might find this very interesting:

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=8340AQAAMAAJ&rdid=book-8340AQAAMAAJ&rdot=1

A Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court, Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force, in Pennsylvania…

By Samuel Roberts, President of the Courts of Common Pleas, of the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania – 1817

Page 19

“The natives or indigines,” says Vattel, 1. “are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” These become citizens, it is believed in ever community merely by their tacit consent.

[Footnote 1] 1. Law of nations, book 1, c. 19.

Page 26

The children of aliens, born within the U. S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth; 12. but remain in the condition of their parents; however, the naturalization of the father naturalizes all his children, who are in their minority and dwelling within the United States.

[Footnote 12] 12. In this particular our laws differ from the English laws; but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature. “It is presumed,” says Vattel, “that every citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of their becoming members. The country of the fathers is that of the children; and they become true citizens by their tacit consent."—“ In order to be of the country it is necessary, that a person be born of a Father who is a citizen, for if he is born there of a stranger, it will be the place of his birth, and not his country.” “ By the laws of nature alone children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter in to all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.” Law of Nations, B. 1. c. XIX…

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Thalightguy,

Thank you for sharing with us this great Samuel Roberts find. The source is important because it dates to 1817, the early period of our nation. It will serve us well in our continuing battle for the truth about the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Here is another source that I would like to share with you and the readers of this blog. John Bouvier, in his highly-renowned law dictionary, defined a “native” or “native citizen,” both under the English common law (giving Blackstone as the root source) and the American common law (giving Morse as the root source), thus:

“Native, Native Citizen. A natural-born subject. 1 Bla. Com. 366. Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens. Morse, Citizenship 12. See CITIZEN. There is no distinction between 'native born' as used in the French Extradition treaty and 'natural born' as used in the extradition act; 37 W.R. 269” (emphasis in the original).

2 John Bouvier, BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY AND CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA 2297 (3rd revision, 8th ed., by Francis Rawle, Kansas City, Mo., Vernon Law Book Co., St. Paul, Minn., West Pub., 1914. 3 vols).

This edition of Bouvier’s dictionary was published after the landmark citizenship case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898. Hence, editor Francis Rawle would have had the benefit of that decision when providing the definition of “native, native citizen.” We can readily see in Bouvier’s definitions how he gave one definition for the English common law and another for the American common law. Calling the citizen class “native” or “native citizen,” under the English common law he referred to a “natural born subject.” Under the American common law, like Vattel, he defined a “natural-born citizen.” Note that Bouvier, when providing the American common law definition, gave the same definition to “native” and “native citizen” that Vattel gave to “native’ and “natural-born citizen” in his Section 212 of The Law of Nations. Bouvier even said that there was no difference between “native born” and “natural born.” In other words, the word “native” and “natural-born citizen” had the same definition for both Vattel and Bouvier.

Bouvier’s dictionary has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court as one of the best dictionaries ever published in the United States on American law. See these examples:

“The word ‘procedure,’ as a law term, is not well understood, and is not found at all in Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the best work of the kind in this country.” Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221, 231 (1883).

“That suit related to a Maine attachment law which, of course, is governed by the same rule as garnishment law. See ‘garnishment,’ Bouvier's Law Dictionary.” Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337, 348 (1969)

“1 J. Bouvier, A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America 318-319 (11th ed. 1866) (‘In this extensive sense the United States may be termed a corporation’).” Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, 495 U.S. 182, 206 (1990).

"’Jury box’" customarily means ‘A place set apart for the jury to sit in during the trial of a cause.’ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Unabridged, Rawles Third Edition, Vol. I.” Anderson v. Johnson, 371 F. 2d 84, 102 (6th. Cir. 1966)

The Samuel Roberts and John Bouvier works are critically important. They prove that we have been right about the correct American common law (not English common law) definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” from day one. And that American common law definition, as confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), is a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

William said...

I was wondering if you had the chance to review the video/audio over at the ORYR website whereby 2 U.S. Supreme Court Justices commented on the Presidential eligibility of a Puerto Rican citizen? I am somewhat lost on this legal issue as I understand, All (after early 1900’s) Puerto Ricans are born as U.S. Citizens, thus of born when parents are also U.S. Citizens, then child would be eligible under Article II?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

William,

I of II

You asked me about a story at Huffington Post regarding whether a person born in Puerto Rico is eligible to be President. The story with recorded committee statements is covered at ORYR at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/03/shock-audio-us-supreme-court-justice.html .
The question that Puerto Rican-born Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) posed to U.S. Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer during the budget hearings (not during an active court case) is whether someone born in Puerto Rico and elected to the Office of President can qualify for that high office given the Constitution’s presidential eligibility requirements.

The eligibility requirements under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be President are “natural born Citizen,” minimum of 35 years of age, and a minimum of 14 years a resident “within the United States.”

A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizen” at the time of the child’s birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (explained that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm.; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (“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”); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80(1898) (same).

The age requirement needs no explanation. The residency requirement depends upon how we interpret “within the United States.”

One issue that arises under the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is what is considered “in a country.” Vattel in Section 211 of The Law of Nations defines “our country” as “the whole of our countries possessed by a nation and subject to its laws, forms, as we have already said, its territory, and is the common country of all the individuals of the nation.” Puerto Rico is a territory possessed by the United States. It is subject to the laws of the United States. It is part of the “common country” making up the greater United States. As part of the common country of the United States, it is part of “the common country of all the individuals of the nation” called the United States of America. Justice Breyer asked: “Isn’t Puerto Rico a part, an important part of this country?” He answered, “yes.” I agree with Justice Breyer that Puerto Rico, being a U.S. territory, is a part of “the country” called the United States of America. Under U.S. law, someone born in Puerto Rico is the citizen of no other country. Rather, that person is a “citizen of the United States” at birth. But that is not what makes a Puerto-Rican-born person a “natural born Citizen.” What makes that person a “natural born Citizen” is that someone born in Puerto Rico is equivalent to being born in the country called the United States, and if that person is born in Puerto Rico to parents who were U.S. “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth, that person would be a “natural born Citizen.” Vattel; Minor; Wong Kim Ark.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

The manner in which we have answered the question of whether Puerto Rico is considered a part of the country known as the United States also provides the answer to the question of whether someone residing in Puerto Rico for over 14 years can be considered as satisfying a minimum of 14 years a resident “within the United States.” Puerto Rico, being a part of “the country,” is “within the United States.” Hence, such a residency period would satisfy the third element.

So, if our Puerto Rican person were born in Puerto Rico to U.S. citizen parents, was at least 35 years old, and resided there or any other part of the United States for at least 14 years, that person is eligible not only to be elected President, but is also “eligible to the Office of President.” That person at the moment of birth is born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States. He or she is therefore fully and completely subject to the political, military, and legal jurisdiction of the United States. No other nation can lay any claim on that person’s allegiance and citizenship.

Birth in the country is a necessary condition to being a “natural born Citizen.” It is not a sufficient one. Hence, the fact that the Justices did not mention anything about someone born in Puerto Rico needing “citizen” parents does not mean that the high Court would not consider that factor relevant to the question of whether someone is a “natural born Citizen.” The Justices were clear in stating that they had not rendered a decision on the matter. Rather, they only answered the question posed to them by Rep. Serrano which was whether someone born there (addressing the necessary condition of birth in the country) could be eligible to be President.

I also want to comment on one other point. Justice Kennedy noted that the “likely explanation” for the natural-born citizen clause of the constitution was that the founding fathers were trying to prevent European royalty from occupying the White House. The historical record shows that the Founders and Framers were most concerned about foreign influence invading the administration of our new government. So, while they did have a concern with royalty occupying the office of President, the purpose for using the “natural born Citizen” clause was broader. As John Jay stated in his famous July 25, 1787 letter to then-General George Washington, he proposed that the Commander in Chief of the Military be a “natural born Citizen” so as to provide a “strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.” The historical record contains statements from other Founders, Framers, and commentators as to the need to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief. Moreover, even assuming that the purpose was only to keep royalty out of the White House, the Founders and Framers would have required that a child be born to parents who were U.S. citizens to make sure that their child at the moment of birth did not inherit from either one of his parents titles of royalty or nobility.

So, we can see that the “natural born Citizen” clause, by requiring birth in the country to citizen parents, served a great purpose for the Founders and Framers. It not only was designed to keep foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief. But it was also designed to make sure that those high and powerful civil and military offices would never end up in the hands of royalty or nobility. In short, the Founders and Framers through the clause sought to preserve the new constitutional republic not only for the present, but also for Posterity.

Anonymous said...

We can stipulate that numerous authorities have opinions on both sides of the issue. Rawles, the preamble of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, Madison in the Case of Mr. Smith, to the Commentaries of Justice Story and others cited in Fuller's Dissent.

The question of birth allegiance is either that of Vattel's opinion or Blackstone's analysis of the Gothic sources of Feudal lordship. In the latter, the king demands allegiance from the child birth onwards based on his protections of a helpless infant, not the protections of the father and nurturing mother.

There is a caveat; even Blackstone recognized that a denizen alien could exercise a right that his child be of the father's allegiance, through natural flow of blood.

When Mr. Smith argued that birth in colonial Virginia didn't make him an English subject, but obligated the newly formed state admit him as a citizen, the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act had not yet passed.

From 1790 through 1855, and until the ill-reasoned majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark (1898), both British and U.S. statutes governing and ultimate authority over citizenship deemed a child the nationality of the father, regardless of place of birth.

The question of law revolves around the definition of 'allegiance,' 'fealty,' 'subjection,' and 'jurisdiction.'

Read the preamble to the 1866 Act and compare to that of the subsequent and immediately following 14th Amendment, the preamble to the British Nationality Act of 1772, and the Uniform Naturalization Acts from 1790 to 1855, and it is the nationality of the father that determines nationality, not place of birth.

Place of birth does play a role, but only if the nationality of the father is absent, e.g., a bastard son of unknown parentage, a freed negro slave, and arguably the child born to a father rendered stateless in the U.S. under asylum, e.g., Marco Rubio.

Indeed, the nationality of the father is the first determination; place of birth only a factor when the first is unknown or missing.

This argument over natural born citizen, and even birthright citizenship in the current system of laws created by Assoc. Justice Gray's misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, is reflected in the battle over the 10th Amendment Rights of States versus Federal power.

Arizona fought to protect its border from Mexican violations, but the Federal government with Mexico as co-plaintiff sued Arizona. This even itself illustrates the problem: Our Federal Government is assuming rights and powers of a Feudal King, subjecting citizens and the states, i.e., a Tyranny.

As of now, only a minority of citizens have pierced the myth of feudal lordship of the state when it assumes a superior power over a child, versus that of the father, similar to that of the Feds over State's rights.

The fruit of Gray's Error is the proof. Our naturalization system is broken, illegal immigration 20 times that of legal, and undesirables entering en masse while those benefitting the constitutional republic and our economy denied and/or delayed.

Enemies of the state are given visas for school and work, in violation of 8 USC 1424 and 1135, and conspire to kill and mass murder U.S. citizens.

In California, births to illegal aliens outnumber that of citizens, and citizens are fleeing California.

It is an invasion. That is how Vattel would describe it. And it is a defeat and surrender, now that we have a Communist son of an alien father, a hater of Western Civilization, a Muslim, in the White House as President.

Robert Laity said...

A "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the NY State Court of Appeals" in Laity v NY which seeks the invalidation of the NY State 2008 and 2012 Presidential ballots and the removal of Barack Obama from office on the grounds that he is Constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States and that he has usurped the Presidency during time of war which makes him a Spy,was filed on Wednesday, January 22,2014 at the United States Supreme Court. Read my brief on Scribd.

Robert Laity said...

"There is no 'President' Obama" by Me. http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

SENT 8-24-14

I of IV

From Café Con Leche Republicans:
Slartibartfast,

You, like Bob, are a talker and a bad one at that. You like to hear yourself talk and you believe that you are really saying something that is smart. You want the world to give you acclaims on how smart you are. But the reality is that as much as you want that old back slap,what you spout out is nonsense.

I demonstrated the errors in what you wrote and you made your corrections with the use of brackets thus [ ]. After making your corrections you continue with more errors.

You keep repeating that Minor v. Happersett (1875) allowed for the possibility that persons born under different birth circumstances other than what it had stated for natural born citizens (i.e., born in a country to parents who were its citizens) could also be natural born citizens. It did no such thing. It gave one and only one definition of the clause which existed under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. That was a child born in a country to parents who were it citizens at the time of the child's birth. It added that all the rest of the people who did not meet that definition were "aliens or foreigners" who could by positive law be naturalized at birth or after birth. With such an explanation as to how the common law defined a natural born citizen, there was no possibility that there existed at common law any other class of persons who could also be natural born citizens. Minor left open the Fourteenth Amendment question of whether a child born “within the jurisdiction” to alien parents was a citizen under that amendment. But that someone who was not a natural born citizen by the very definition that the Court provided of the clause could theoretically be a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment 81 years after the adoption of the Constitution did not mean that that person was also a natural born citizen in the eyes of the Framers. On the contrary, that person could not be a natural born citizen if he or she did not satisfy the Framers’ common law definition of that clause. So, for you to continue to maintain that Minor allowed such other persons to be natural born citizens is false.

Before Congress passed its naturalization laws, the only way one could be a citizen of the United States was through the common law. Under the English common law, any person born out of the King's dominion was an alien. The Framers followed the same rule and so they gave Congress the exclusive power (for the sake of national uniformity, states could no longer naturalize aliens) to naturalize persons who were not born as natural born citizens. Understanding what a natural born citizen was, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens, Congress set out in the Naturalization Act of 1790 to act upon all children who were not born as natural born citizens. It therefore provided for the naturalization of children born in the United States to alien parents (acting upon them both retrospectively and prospectively) and children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen (acting upon them only retrospectively) and alien parents (acting upon them prospectively). Of all these children, which did not include the natural born citizens, Congress was willing to naturalize them at birth only if they were born to U.S. citizen parents (applied only retrospectively and to children born out of the United States, for those born in the United States to citizen parents were under the common law natural born citizens and therefore did not need any Act of Congress to be citizens).

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of IV

Through the years, Congress changed its naturalization laws pertaining to who could be a naturalized citizen at birth and after birth and the conditions to be satisfied to acquire that status. One big change was that the Acts of 1790, 1705, and 1802 were all retrospective as to
children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Starting with the Naturalization Act of 1855, Congress made its laws both retrospective and prospective. The Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by Wong Kim Ark, for the first time in our nation provided a
federal law that allowed children born in the United States to qualifying alien parents (who were permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders) to be "citizens of the United States" from the moment of birth.

You and those lower courts to which you referred as ruling against me misinterpret Minor v. Happersett (187) and Wong Kim Ark (1898). Minor did not allow for the possibility that persons born under different birth circumstances other than what it had stated for natural born citizens (i.e., born in a country to parents who were its citizens) could also be natural born citizens. It did no such thing. It gave one and only one definition of the clause which existed under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. That was a child born in a country to parents who were it citizens at the time of the child's birth. It added that all the rest of the people who did not meet that definition were "aliens or foreigners" who could by positive law be naturalized at birth or after birth. With such an explanation as to how the common law defined a natural born citizen, there was no possibility that there existed at common law any other class of persons who could also be natural born citizens. Minor left open the Fourteenth Amendment question of whether a child born “within the jurisdiction” to alien parents was a citizen under that amendment. But that someone who was not a natural born citizen by the very definition that the Court provided of the clause could theoretically be a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment 81 years after the adoption of the Constitution did not mean that that person was also a natural born citizen in the eyes of the Framers. On the contrary, that person could not be a natural born citizen if he or she did not satisfy the Framers’ common law definition of that clause. So, for anyone to maintain that Minor allowed such other persons to be natural born citizens is false.

You and those lower courts also err as to Wong Kim Ark. You maintain that Wong held that by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment a child born in the United States to those qualifying alien parents is not only a citizen of the United States at birth, but also an Article II natural born citizen. First, our courts have long ago settled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. Second, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark said that the Constitution, which then already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a natural born citizen. Third, our courts have also in recent years confirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II's natural born citizen clause. Fourth, Wong's holding is not so broad. Rather, it is limited to interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment which both Minor and Wong Kim Ark clearly stated did not define a natural born citizen. The text of the Amendment is clear that it only defines a “citizen of the United States,” (consider that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 included both “natural born citizens” and “citizen of the United States”) which is no different from the citizen of the United States found in Congress's naturalization Acts who are not necessarily natural born citizens. When

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of IV

Wong Kim Ark analyzed if the law of nations had any impact on U.S. citizenship, it looked at it in reference to the time during which the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and ratified and not in reference to reliance upon it by the Framers when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Fifth, it is absurd to think we would have to say that one is a natural born citizen if one were born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents or to parents who were permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders. Is not a natural born citizen beyond doubt a citizen? Minor said there has never been any doubts that a natural born citizen is a citizen. If a child were born in the country to citizen parents, would there be any need to condition his or her birthright citizenship status on his or her parents not being foreign diplomats or foreign military invaders? The question is pregnant with the answer. What Wong meant to do was give Fourteenth Amendment grace to children born in the United States to alien parents, provided their parents were at least not foreign diplomats or foreign military invaders. The natural born citizens have never needed nor do they need such indulgence. Hence, under Minor and Wong Kim Ark, children born in the United States to parents who are both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth are Article II natural born citizens by virtue of national common law, and children born in the United States to alien parents who are permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders are not Article II natural born citizens, but rather are citizens of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You argue that "[a]ny citizen at birth by virtue of the 14th Amendment would also have been a citizen at birth under the Constitution as originally ratified (excepting the former slaves and their children)." This is incorrect. A Wong citizen (born in the United States to qualifying alien parents) is a citizen at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. But Minor said that "there have been doubts" whether such a citizen was a citizen under the common law with which the Framers were familiar and which was the source of their definition of a natural born citizen. The United States and Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan (in dissent) argued in Wong that such a child was an alien. It was only through the majority Court in Wong Kim Ark that such a child was recognized as a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth. Again, with such doubts existing regarding whether that child was a citizen, there is no way that such a child was a natural born citizen. In any event, that Wong citizen did not meet Minor's common law definition of a natural born citizen and so under the definition confirmed by Minor was not a natural born citizen.

You argue that I "cannot find a single example of Congress discussing (or the courts ruling) that the status of a white person of European descent was dependent on the 14th Amendment (i.e. would have changed with its passing)." First, The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) explained that a child born in the United States to alien parents was not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did not limit its exclusion to slaves or their descendants, but included all children of alien parents. Second, Minor clearly explained that "there have been doubts" whether a child "born within the jurisdiction" to alien parents was a citizen. The Court did not limit its statement to slaves or their descendants. Hence, its statement also included the children of white

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

IV of IV

Europeans. See also Benny v. O’Brien, 29 Vroom (58 N.J. Law) 36 (1895) (the New Jersey Supreme Court found a child born in the United States to alien parents a citizen of the United States at birth only because of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, but only after admitting that the then-current government turned a blind eye to the law's requirement that such child be born “not subject to any foreign power”).

You state that you will not address my "nonsense regarding the Naturalization Act of 1802." The reason you do not want to address it is that both the text of the statute and our U.S. Supreme Court have been very clear that the act, along with those of 1790 and 1795, were only retroactive. Additionally from 1802 to 1855, such children born to parents who obtained their U.S. citizenship status after 1802 were aliens. Hence, there is no way that in the future a child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents could be a natural born citizen. If a person like Cruz, later born in December 22, 1970, would have been an alien under the retroactive Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802 (all Acts in which many Founders and Framers were involved), there simply is no way that the Framers would have viewed him as a natural born citizen. More importantly, the early naturalization acts inform on the meaning of a natural born citizen, for they all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and in need of naturalization. Hence, the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the early naturalization acts, given how they treated children born in and out of the United States, is that in the minds of the Framers, a natural born citizen was a child born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

You argue that de facto President Chester Arthur was a natural born citizen. This is also incorrect. Arthur was most likely born in Canada. In any event, regardless of where he was born (like Obama), he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. He therefore was not a natural born citizen.

You continue to state that everybody was aware that Chester Arthur was born to alien parents and that such birth circumstances did not mean anything in Arthur's time. You maintain that the citizenship status of Chester Arthur's father (he was an alien when Arthur was born probably in Canada and naturalized to be a citizen of the United States when Arthur was 14 years old) was well known at the time that he ran for Vice-President. You fail to tell us who knew it, when did they know it, and how did they come to know it. You say that Hinman knew about it and so stated in his book. I have asked you to provide a quote from the book that so demonstrates and to this day you have never provided that quote. Again, please provide any evidence that the public knew of and when they knew that circumstance. Era newspapers, other publications, or any evidence at all would be appreciated.

Both de facto Barack Obama and Senator Ted Cruz are not natural born citizens. Both were not born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of their births.

If you have any other arguments, I will be more than happy to address them.

Robert Laity said...

Even if Obama was born in the Lincoln bedroom he would still be ineligible given the fact that Senior was never naturalized. McCain was born of two American Parents but was not born in the United States. The PCZ was not incorporated territory and the place in which McCain was born,Colon,Panama was expressly excluded from the PCZ Treaty. McCain is a Statutory "Citizen" and not an NBC. Now comes Cruz,Rubio and Jindal as well as Swarzenegger and Santorum. Cruz was born in Canada and his renunciation of Canadian citizenship has no effect on his conditions at birth. He also was born of a Cuban Father. Both of Rubio's Parents were still Cubans when Rubio was born. None of the people mentioned are NBC's. Santorum's Parent's status is in dispute. Italian citizens both. What,pray tell are persons who are born in a country of parents who are themselves citizens of said country at the time of birth of the child,BUT Natural-Born Citizens. John Jay,First Chief Justice of SCOTUS would concur. Obama is NOT the bona-fides POTUS and thusly does not have to be impeached in order to remove him.
According to what USDC Magistrate Leslie Foschio,WDNY,told me when I went to swear out charges against Obama,a usurper of the Presidency can be arrested by any duly authorized law enforcement officer in DC and the proper venue for trial would be the USDC in DC and not the Senate. Note: The DC Police once arrested U.S. Grant for speeding in DC. Also see Clinton v Jones, SCOTUS."A sitting president is NOT immune from prosecution for acts committed before he took office". Obama is not the "sitting President". In arguendo,even if he were, usurpation and election fraud occurred when he first proffered fraudulent ID in order to get on the ballot and "before he took office". A usurper,BTW, has NO immunities or privileges normally attributed to a President.
-Robert C. Laity
Founder and President
Society for the Preservation
of our American Republic

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Robert,

Why do you maintain that there is a chance that Rick Santorum is not a natural born citizen? What is the problem with his parents' citizenship when he was born?

Robert Laity said...

From what I understand there was a question regarding Santorum's Parents.,that they may not have been Naturalized when Rick Santorum was born in the U.S. To my knowledge and understanding he refused to submit evidence of his parents citizenship at the time of his birth. I find it noteworthy that Congress has been trying for several years to change the law affecting Natural-Born Citizenship. That, as you know, can only be done by Amendment pursuant to Article V. If they are of the mind that Rubio,Cruz,Jindal and Swarzenegger, whom they have proffered, are actually covered under existing law then why would they be attempting to change Art.II,Sec 1 and making unbinding Senate Resolutions such as the one that errantly ruled McCain to be an NBC but did not touch Obama? Obama signed that resolution knowing that he was ineligible as well as McCain. The 2008 election was stacked with two ineligible candidates. Arthur was our first usurper.Obama is our Second. Are we going to allow a third person to usurp the Presidency,by fraud, during time of war? I filed criminal charges in DC against Obama for usurpation. DC Police# T14002751 (Rejected)I have CC'd the Chief Judge of the USDC-DC.,Ronald Machen,U.S.Attorney for DC.,the FBI and the Secret Service. I was told by a SS agent that my complaint was "above" his "pay grade".The FBI once told me "We don't take complaints,we only investigate them".

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Robert,

You said:

"From what I understand there was a question regarding Santorum's Parents.,that they may not have been Naturalized when Rick Santorum was born in the U.S. To my knowledge and understanding he refused to submit evidence of his parents citizenship at the time of his birth."

Do you have any evidence and legal argument that Santorum's parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born?

Robert Laity said...

I have sent links to your email.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 450 of 450   Newer› Newest»