tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post5565115163370868924..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-7803552841807367162012-12-05T22:16:17.631-05:002012-12-05T22:16:17.631-05:00Cephas Atheos,
The "natural born Citizen&quo...Cephas Atheos,<br /><br />The "natural born Citizen" clause is not what you in your idealized world wish it to mean. Rather, it means what the Founders and Framers meant it to mean. If we as a society do not like it, then we can change it by constitutional amendment. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-68484202951932611582012-12-05T20:45:38.568-05:002012-12-05T20:45:38.568-05:00I'm so glad I found this quiet, dusty corner o...I'm so glad I found this quiet, dusty corner of the internet.<br /><br />Your post made great reading, BTW. Very erudite, and well-reasoned and argued. Please don't let the fact that you're factually wrong about pretty much everything that counts get you down.<br /><br />I'd be interested to see how much better America could do, in reality and in world opinion, if everyone spending so much time and effort to repeat their already refuted anti-American arguments instead spent some time working for the America you all claim to love so much.<br /><br />The problem as the world sees it, is that while the US has so many reasons to be proud of itself, Truthers, Birthers, and other people incorrectly calling themselves "patriots" are detracting from that united front, by continually repeating themselves, to themselves, using those oft-refuted arguments that no-one listens to any more.<br /><br />It's truly embarrassing for international readers and thinkers to see so many intelligent, reasonable American people taking up a cause belittling their beloved country; and it's even more embarrassing (if that were possible) to hear those people calling themselves "patriots", when all they're doing is working against the name and strength of the country they purport to love!<br /><br />I'm incredibly glad I'm not an American, because then I'd be ashamed by these attacks on the dignity and cohesiveness of the country. Instead, like pretty much everyone in the rest of the world who even bothers to listen to the dissent, I'm just embarrassed for the real patriots who have to put up with the BS you guys generate and perpetrate.<br /><br />Quick question : what does it say about a cause when the cause has been soundly, irrefutably, and completely refuted by the best minds in the rest of the country, yet the followers of that cause continue to offer the same identical arguments without consideration of their truth or value?<br /><br />Remember what is said when someone does the same thing over and over, expecting different results.<br /><br />If you guys used your intelligence and knowledge and passion to work for your country instead of against it, imagine what you could achieve!<br /><br />In fact, I dare you!<br /><br />Good luck with your self-examination, and I hope you get with the program and work for your country instead of always against it. The opportunity is yours for the taking! Go to it!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00673729814006432059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-6427052676996151662012-11-17T19:47:40.700-05:002012-11-17T19:47:40.700-05:004zoltan,
The "natural born citizens," ...4zoltan, <br /><br />The "natural born citizens," “[a]t common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar” were “all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens.” Minor; Wong Kim Ark. <br /><br />Cruz was born in Canada to a non-U.S. "citizen" father. He therefore fails both the place of birth and citizen parents requirements. He can be a "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth under a Congressional act (not under the Fourteenth Amendment, for he was neither born nor naturalized in the United States), but he cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen." <br /><br />Peter Spiro, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University, argues: "'He [Cruz] almost certainly was a citizen at birth. I think that he would be eligible for the presidency.'" This is fallacious reasoning called the fallacy of affirming the consequent. We know from Minor’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” that satisfying the definition means that one is a “citizen” from the moment of birth. But being a citizen from the moment of birth is a necessary condition of being a “natural born Citizen.” It is not a sufficient condition, for according to Minor, the definition also contains the two requirements of being born in the country to “citizen” parents. Hence, just showing that one was “a citizen at birth” only satisfies part of the definition which by the very nature of the definition is necessary but not sufficient. Here is an example of this fallacy committed by Professor Spiro: If someone is smart, then someone is a professor. Someone is a professor. Therefore someone is smart. This argument is not valid. It demonstrates the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The first premise does not state that if one is a professor one is smart. Rather, it states that being a professor is the consequence of or follows from being smart. So, being a professor does not necessarily mean that one is smart. So likewise, the definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not state that being “a citizen at birth” makes one a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, being “a citizen at birth” is the consequent of or follows from being a “natural born Citizen.” Being “a citizen at birth” does not prove that one is a “natural born Citizen,” for the other two conditions of being a “natural born Citizen” must also be proven. There is also case law and statutes which prove that simply being “a citizen at birth” does not make one a “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) said that children born out of the United States to “citizen” parents are citizens at birth, but are made such by naturalization statutes of Congress and not the common law or even the Fourteenth Amendment. We know from a plain reading of these statutes that they only define “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.” <br /><br />Barack Obama, like Cruz, is also not a “natural born Citizen.” He may have been born in Hawaii, but he was not born to a U.S. “citizen” father, a necessary element of being a “natural born Citizen.” Contrary to Spiro’s belief that Obama Sr. was an “immigrant,” he was not, for he was in the U.S. only with a student visa on a temporary basis for university studies. U.S. immigration eventually required that he return to Kenya which he did. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he would be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />John McCain, regardless of where he was born, is a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to two U.S. “citizen” parents who were serving “the armies of the states” at the time of his birth. Under these birth circumstances, he is “reputed born in the country” and born to two U.S. “citizen” parents. Hence, he satisfies the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” by being born in the country to “citizen” parents. See Vattel, Section 217 in The Law of Nations. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-86598701837118945882012-11-16T21:56:34.075-05:002012-11-16T21:56:34.075-05:00The Framers of the USC wisely sought to protect th...The Framers of the USC wisely sought to protect the office of president of the USA from foreign influence and allegiance, to the best possible extent.<br /><br />The framers of the USC were familiar with English common law AND Vattel, where in both instances, the qualities required for a child to be a natural born subject/citizen, were for a child to be born native to parents who were subject/citizen thereof.<br /><br />It is an absurd notion that the Framers of the USC were derelict in their duty and imperative, to accept or propose USC Article II "natural born Citizen" to mean anything less than born native to citizen parents.<br /><br />Time for the SCOTUS to deliver.<br /><br />MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-19627938398615993402012-11-16T18:53:59.077-05:002012-11-16T18:53:59.077-05:00Mr. Apuzzo,
The flood gates are opening:
"C...Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />The flood gates are opening:<br /><br />"Cruz was born in the Canadian city of Calgary, Alberta, on Dec. 22, 1970. He is the son of a Cuban-immigrant father and an Irish-American mother from Delaware."<br /><br />[skip]<br /><br />"Both Cruz and Obama are the sons of American mothers and immigrant fathers. Like McCain, Cruz was born outside of the United States. (McCain was born in the unincorporated Panama Canal Zone in 1936.)"<br /><br />[skip]<br /><br />"'He [Cruz]almost certainly was a citizen at birth. I think that he would be eligible for the presidency,' said Peter Spiro, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University."<br /><br />http://www.texastribune.org/texas-local-news/texplainer/texplainer-could-canadian-born-ted-cruz-be-preside/<br /><br />Didn't you go to Temple?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-91387755210882477922012-11-16T16:44:40.215-05:002012-11-16T16:44:40.215-05:00Mr. Apuzzo,
Any comments on the opinion in Paige ...Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />Any comments on the opinion in Paige v. Obama?<br /><br />https://docs.google.com/file/d/0By9w3awDuyAUd2FGeDk3MVVsWW8/edit?pli=1<br /><br />The court mentions you and your "scholarly article". But still uses Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny to decide the case, saying that in light of those decisions your article is only academic.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-68048500269307934502012-11-15T16:51:54.688-05:002012-11-15T16:51:54.688-05:00A petition someone started: https://petitions.whit...A petition someone started: <a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ask-united-states-supreme-court-define-term-natural-born-citizen-presented-our-us-constitution/C7FrWk8G?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl" rel="nofollow">https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ask-united-states-supreme-court-define-term-natural-born-citizen-presented-our-us-constitution/C7FrWk8G?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-6546869709986150462012-11-15T16:07:38.731-05:002012-11-15T16:07:38.731-05:00Hello Mr. Apuzzo,
And now Obama is there for anot...Hello Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />And now Obama is there for another four years!!! At a cost very likely of $1 TRILLION OF US DEFICIT EACH YEAR!!!<br /><br />Obama has already bankrupted the US but he nevertheless cons for four more years the American people and the Constitution of the USA and nobody cares and no one has been able so far to hear a case based on merits with full discovery of ALL the documents related to Obama!!!<br /><br />Keep fighting, Mr. Apuzzo, and let us pray that there is at least one honest judge in the entire US who is ready to apply true Justice in relation to the non-eligibility of Obama to be Presidency of the USA, not to mention the following:<br />1) Sheriff Arpaio has proven that Obama's long form birth certificate as well as Obama's selective service card are all forgeries!!!<br />2) Obama's Connecticut social security number that Obama uses is fraudulent, as it belongs to a deceased person and Obama never lived regularly in Connecticut!<br />3) Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen", an INDISPENSABLE requirement of the Constitution of the USA, as BOTH Obama's parents were NOT American citizens at the time of his birth (his father was Kenyan).MichaelIsGreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12020964848057963778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-75722203581203478772012-11-15T13:45:43.614-05:002012-11-15T13:45:43.614-05:00In all this talk of National Security, even the li...In all this talk of National Security, even the liberal pundits have started to grasp that any sort of secret (especially in someone of international significance) is an irresistible target for blackmail. How they fail to connect the dots to the biggest secret of all is incomprehensible. Perhaps they will?<br /><br />What is really weird is that even if The Obama were to be pure as the driven snow, the fact that he is trying mightily to hide many things is INSTANT CAUSE FOR GRAVE CONCERN - not the facts of what he is hiding, but just that the hiding is taking place.<br /><br />Regardless if any of you agree or not, or think this is all a tempest in a teapot, I can guarantee you that any halfway competent espionage master would look at this whole situation as low hanging fruit.<br />Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-9047600823301183912012-11-15T09:50:57.831-05:002012-11-15T09:50:57.831-05:00Mr. Apuzzo,
I agree. In fact, a simple bill revis...Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />I agree. In fact, a simple bill revising 8 USC 1401 adding a definition of 'under the jurisdiction' and citing legislative history referencing both the preamble to the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would 'fix' immigration law, and make it more apparent Obama is not eligible to the president, as he would not be a citizen at birth, as such our laws were from 1790 to 1898.<br /><br />The Hispanics would scream bloody murder. However, those South of the Border are the primary offenders. Must we kowtow to them? Moderate Republicans say we do.<br /><br />Here is an interesting case, citing 'case and controversy,' and calling communism a 'freedom of thought' issue, although it is specifically denied in the Aliens and Nationality Act, specifically 8 USC 1424. <br /><br />SCHNEIDERMAN v. UNITED STATES<br />320 U.S. 118; 63 S. Ct. 1333; 87 L. Ed. 1796; 1943 U.S. LEXIS 1110<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-66190491243866574632012-11-15T00:05:42.114-05:002012-11-15T00:05:42.114-05:00paraleaglenm,
"Case and Controversy" ap...paraleaglenm,<br /><br />"Case and Controversy" applies to judicial power, not legislative power. <br /><br />Also, you do not need to give Congress the power to define a "natural born Citizen" to accomplish what you seek to accomplish. Simply, Congress has the power to define what is both a statutory and constitutional "citizen of the United States." As to the Fourteenth Amendment, it can define such a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" by "enforcing" under Section 5 what is meant by "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-70501826335178156342012-11-14T21:20:47.375-05:002012-11-14T21:20:47.375-05:00Mr. Apuzzo,
You and radio pundit and constitutio...Mr. Apuzzo, <br /><br />You and radio pundit and constitutional scholar, Mar Levin, share Temple University Law School. <br /><br />Mr. Levin concurs, that Congress does not have plenary power over the definition of 'natural born citizen' under 'Case and Controversy.'<br /><br />I disagree. <br /><br />Congress was empowered in Art I, Sec 8 to legislate 'uniform' naturalization law. The conflicts of law created by Wong Kim Ark et seq violated AIS8.<br /><br />Congress has the power to reverse Wong Kim Ark by defining 'under the jurisdiction thereof' as being the analog and derivative of 'not subject to any foreign power.' 1866 Civil Rights Act.<br /><br />This will negate the judicial liberalization and undermining of the original meaning and intent of the Acts and subsuquent Amendment, and liberalization of the law to such an extent as allowing citizenship rights and visas to communists, Muslims, and illegal aliens. <br /><br />Of course, the court will be challenged, however, the role of the judiciary is to apply law, not subvert or create it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46470513414287577052012-11-14T20:19:59.036-05:002012-11-14T20:19:59.036-05:00Maybe it's time to launch a national drive to ...Maybe it's time to launch a national drive to gather a huge number of US citizens (at least in excess of 25,000) and with such a list of signatories, move to partition members of the US Congress and/or the SCOTUS to rule on precisely who would qualify as an Article II "natural born Citizen".MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-44090388089839572652012-11-14T18:24:14.229-05:002012-11-14T18:24:14.229-05:00“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Cit...“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.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. <br /><br />“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.” Article III, Section 2. <br /><br />The question of whether candidate Barack Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” raised in a case or controversy, is a “Case, in Law . . . arising under this Constitution.” <br /><br />The Constitution does not give to Congress the power to be the final arbiter on who is eligible to be President. While the 12th Amendment gives the House the power to “choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them,” this power does not include the power to have the final say on the question of whether the President is constitutionally eligible. Additionally, the question of what is a “natural born Citizen” does not fall under Congress’s “legislative powers” (Article I, Section 1), including its naturalization power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Despite these limitations, under the 20th Amendment, Congress can have an opinion on whether a “President elect” qualifies for that office as called for by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which includes the requirement that he/she be a “natural born Citizen.” But, by analogy under the 12th Amendment which prohibits Congress from choosing an unconstitutional Vice-President, Congress does not have constitutional power to confirm a President elect under the 20th Amendment who is not a “natural born Citizen.” Since Congress can express an opinion, but does not have the final say on whether a President elect is constitutionally eligible for that office, does not have constitutional power to confirm a President elect who is not constitutionally eligible, and the question arises under the Constitution, the question of whether a President elect is a “natural born Citizen” ultimately falls within the judicial power to resolve, with the U.S. Supreme Court having the final word. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-39815584954855924332012-11-14T11:39:21.563-05:002012-11-14T11:39:21.563-05:00I just posted this comment at Dr. Conspiracy's...I just posted this comment at Dr. Conspiracy's blog, http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/11/the-docs-skyrocketing-legal-career/#comment-224600<br /><br />"The childish nonsense on this blog thread all together does not amount to a minuscule of truth, reason, and logic. <br /><br />You incessantly and vengefully attack me personally. You call me names, have changed my name, mock my family origins, keep trying to mislead the public by attempting to get it to believe that I was sanctioned in any court, and even attack the fine law school that I went to, Temple University School of Law in Philadelphia. You spend inordinate time and resources on pseudo-psychology and parody rather than making legal arguments based on historical sources and case law. You are personality fixated rather than truth and reason oriented. You paint all those who question government activity as conspiracy theorists and view the world through race-colored glasses, but only when it suits your end. I do not see how any of that is rational and supposed to prove that you are correct on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />You keep repeating what some lower administrative and law courts have said regarding, among other things, the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” You continue to argue that this issue has been finally and authoritatively decided and that therefore I have no reasonable grounds to persist with my position. Yet, you know darn well that I do not agree with these lower court decisions. My disagreement is perfectly acceptable under our legal system given the propensity of mankind to err, the existence of appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, and the constitutional requirements of due process. <br /><br />We have not yet received any written opinion from either any State or U.S. Supreme Court on the matter. Should it decide the question, the U.S. Supreme Court would have the final say on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and its application to any particular presidential candidate. As far as the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned, it has turned down all Obama petitions for certification without comment. As you should know, because of limitation of resources and for policy reasons, the Supreme Court only takes for review and decision a very small percentage of cases, regardless of whether the parties correctly believe those cases were rightly or wrongly decided. <br /><br />I am therefore here to debate you on how the U.S. Supreme Court should rule on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and its application to presidential candidate Barack Obama or any other such candidate should it ever decide to review the issue, and not what a lower court has done or not done or to deal with your personal attacks on me. Unfortunately, I doubt that any of that fits well into your political agenda. <br /><br />Regarding my argument on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and what my analysis of Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is, apart from the briefs that I have filed in the courts and other articles that I have written on my blog, you can read it in my latest article entitled, "Barack Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen” Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” accessed at my blog <br />http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/10/barack-obama-is-ineligible-to-be.html ." <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-57151454477501191552012-11-11T12:46:08.914-05:002012-11-11T12:46:08.914-05:00Chris Strunk,
"or such as were Citizens on o...Chris Strunk,<br /><br />"or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six"<br /><br />Who were the "Citizens" before July 4th, 1776?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-41276208213924391482012-11-11T11:49:16.808-05:002012-11-11T11:49:16.808-05:00Cetan,
Rubio and Jindal are like Obama not "...Cetan, <br /><br />Rubio and Jindal are like Obama not "natural born Citizens." <br /><br />What happens to everyone's fate in this regard depends upon what enough people who make a difference under our constitutional structure are willing to do about it. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-81968544523643653282012-11-11T06:30:39.855-05:002012-11-11T06:30:39.855-05:00To add insult to injury, Every single senator, rep...To add insult to injury, Every single senator, rep, supreme court and virtually all citizens know he is illegal. If we can't depend on our own representatives to enforce the law, we are doomed. <br /><br />Mario, does the fact that Obama has stolen yet another election as an illegal alien, will it set precedent for future usurpers, i.e., Rubio and Jindal, neither of whom are constitutionally qualified? Perhaps that is why the Republicans remain silent.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222427400496151245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-44710543656087084812012-11-10T20:07:45.106-05:002012-11-10T20:07:45.106-05:00Now that the Fraud has stolen another election, he...Now that the Fraud has stolen another election, he will add 3 more Obots to the Supreme Ct and change the Constitution to legalize himself. Only hope is Benghazi coverup. High crimes and Misdemeanors. <br /><br />It's a sad day in America when a Marxist is running what was the greatest country.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13222427400496151245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-74010207441059306292012-11-09T06:33:05.317-05:002012-11-09T06:33:05.317-05:00Summary of Rogers v Bellei;
"Congress has th...Summary of Rogers v Bellei;<br /><br />"Congress has the power to impose conditions subsequent regarding residence upon the citizenship of those born outside the United States. The plaintiff is not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment which defines “citizen” as one who is “born or naturalized in the United States”.<br /><br />The central factor in our weighing of the plaintiff’s claim to United States citizenship is that he was neither born nor naturalized in the United States and has not been subject to its jurisdiction. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment therefore does not apply to Bellei. The plaintiff’s claim must therefore rest on some restriction of the power of Congress other than the Fourteenth Amendment.<br /><br />Our law in this area follows the English concept of jus soli; the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute. Congress has an appropriate concern regarding dual nationality. The provisions of the Act imposing conditions subsequent on citizenship are not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. The Act is not an unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress."<br /><br />So, if illegal immigrant parents give birth to a child on US soil that child is eligible for the presidency? Yet, a child born abroad to military parents is not. Wow.<br /><br />If this juxtaposition were brought before the USSC, I find it hard for them to affirm mere jus soli as the intent of Art II eligibility for the office.<br /><br />The WKA reflection on the 14th Amendment makes it impossible to include the foreign born of US citizens. Those born in such circumstance are Americans at birth through statutory naturalization.<br /><br />If the nature of the Art II eligibility requirement is exclusive in nature, how is that we even consider the anchor babies of law breakers who are dual citizens?<br /><br />WKA did not answer the "doubts" described in MvH. daddynozhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10080097353519892214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-81751029527527068182012-11-08T21:17:01.700-05:002012-11-08T21:17:01.700-05:00Don't anyone be fooled that Obama is eligible ...Don't anyone be fooled that Obama is eligible to be prez because of claims Obama looks so much like Frank Marshall Davis that that is his daddy. Obama looks so much like his mama's daddy there's no room left to tell who his bio dad is by looking at him.<br /><br />http://peacecorpsonline.typepad.com/poncacityweloveyou/2009/02/barack-obamas-mother-lived-in-ponca-city-for-two-years.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18674515537205244502012-11-08T19:33:06.778-05:002012-11-08T19:33:06.778-05:00As for the New York Ratification of the present Co...As for the New York Ratification of the present Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788 see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp the legislature as for the definition of NBC clearly was unhappy also with the final version that left out the requirement as to Congress and stated in the document:<br /><br />quote:<br /><br />"That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States. "<br /><br />New York was right everyone else was wrong!Chris Strunkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02337733159961233163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-70887627117478140862012-11-08T10:50:11.747-05:002012-11-08T10:50:11.747-05:00EDIT
I can't believe the error.
The second b...EDIT<br /><br />I can't believe the error.<br /><br />The second bullet point should read that the 1772 British Nationality Act made a U.S. born child of a British subject a 'natural born British subject,' not a U.S. subject. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-55026976859440545202012-11-08T10:47:59.017-05:002012-11-08T10:47:59.017-05:00@ Ray,
My studies of the 'natural born citize...@ Ray,<br /><br />My studies of the 'natural born citizen' birther issue found Wong Kim Ark to be the cusp, or turning point. It opened the door for the 'liberalization' of nationality law, resulting in rampant illegal immigration and an unconstitutional president.<br /><br />The Schneiderman case (1944) explicitly expressed the court's usurpation of nationality law, claiming constitutional right under 'case and controversy.' <br /><br />However, the court is limited to the consitution, which makes nationality law a matter of legislated act!<br /><br />The Republicans hold the House, but from my experience are hypnotized/programmed that the Supreme Court reigns supreme. <br /><br />Therefore, from Wong Kim Ark to Plyler, and lower court holdings misinterpreting or wrongly applying 'natural born citizen' reviewed in this post by Mr. Apuzzo, are considered the law of the land!<br /><br />So, the Natural Born Citizen issue extends to illegal immigration, which may be the reason for Obama winning. FACT--The number of drivers licenses issued to illegal aliens in New Mexico alone was 82,000 . . . 10% of the NM electorate voting in the 2008 election.<br /><br />Others estimate the number of illegals in the U.S. to be from 10 to 30 million!<br /><br />That is an invasion, e.g., Arizona SB1070.<br /><br />Rubio wants the Republican Party to embrace 'minorities,' i.e., Hispanics. <br /><br />Balderdash . . . all we want is for every citizen and immigrant to abide by the law, EQUALLY, not as a 'minority.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-62709440363373280502012-11-07T23:33:10.448-05:002012-11-07T23:33:10.448-05:00paraleaglenm said...
"The electoral votes mu...paraleaglenm said... <br />"The electoral votes must now be counted and certified, and a simple letter signed by one Senator and one House Member can halt the proceedings to examine the following:"<br /><br />That may be true but it will not happen because the Rs are complicit.<br /><br />Obama's minions say his eligibility is a "political question", ie one decided by a branch of government in the course of its Constitutional duty (see R.I. v. Mass). However the SCOTUS has held that the Presidential Electors are NOT members of the goverment, but are on the same level as state voters voting for representatives of Congress (see Mcpherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1, 35; also see Fitzgerald v. Green p. 179, and Ray v. Blair).<br />Further Ray v. Blair holds that Presidential Electors may pledge their vote to their party candidate as a condition of being an elector--- so how would they be impatial, and choose only a natural born Citizen? Ray v. Blair also holds that the President elect "may have become disqualified" prior to the Electoral college.<br /><br />Nothing in US Code 3 s. 15 says that the Electors will qualify the President elect, only that "objections" may be submitted. Nothing is stated about what those "objections" may be.It only becomes a political question after members of Congress may "sponsor" an "objection" to Obama's eligibility, if their is one.<br /><br />The 20th Amendment is only about succession after the President is deemed not to qualify, and says nothing about who disqualifies him.<br /><br />A2S1C4 is a self executing Constitutional provision. No law or statute is required for it to take effect. Since electors are NOT members of Government, then the issue of Obama's eligibility cannot be a "political question", and is instead a judicial question. It only becomes "political" AFTER Congress sponsors an objection by a Presidential elector, if there is one.Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.com