Where Is the Conspiracy?

A commentator recently stated:
"B]ut uh, until there is a link to some primary record of his mom being Kenya [sic] at or around the time of his birth then it's just a whack conspiracy theory."

The conspiracy motivation is also constantly repeated on various pro-Obama blogs, mainsteam media reports, political discourse at all levels, and even in at least one Federal Court decision dismissing a case filed against Obama. A conspiracy theory is fed by "facts" that are in dispute. That is why it is called a theory.

But these facts are not in dispute: under the British Nationality Act 1948(BNA 1948), Obama’s father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya. Obama’s father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father.

As applicable only to a Presidential Article II "natural born Citizen" (not an Article II grandfathered "Citizen [which of course has long expired]," not an Article I "Citizen" [for Representatives and Senators who are eligible even if naturalized], not a 14th Amendment "citizen" [who is one either born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or naturalized], not a U.S. Code born "citizen" [born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or in U.S. outlying possessions or foreign countries to one or two U.S. citizen parents or being of unknown parentage is found in the U.S. while under the age of 5], and not a Wong Kim Ark 14th Amendment "citizen" [born on U.S. soil to alien parents who are legal U.S. residents]), the individual must be born in the United States to a mother and father who are themselves United States citizens (by birth or naturalization). This is to assure that a would-be, all powerful President and Commander in Chief of the Military has sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States from the time of birth, for the sources of citizenship (jus soli and jus sanguinis) are all united at birth to give the child only U.S. citizenship from birth and thereby forever prevent any other nation from claiming that child's citizenship, allegiance, loyalty and demanding military service or political favors. Such unity of U.S. citizenship also prevents a would-be President from feeling conflicted as to his allegiance and loyalty between the United States and some other foreign country, whether done consciously or unconsciously. Finally, such unity of U.S. citizenship allows the American people to fully trust their President with protecting their nation and their and their families' very lives. The American people expect their President to make very tough decisions in a moment of crisis and they cannot risk that their President may be ambivalent about taking the proper course of action because of some allegiance and loyalty conflict acquired from birth and nurtured throughout his or her life.

It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. Hence, clearly, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen," regardless of where he may have been born, regardless of what his original long-form Birth Certificate may say, regardless of to which countries he may have travelled, regardless of how many passports he may have acquired and used, regardless of whether or not he registered for the military service, regardless of what any of his school or medical documents say, regardless of what foreign schools he attended, and regardless of whether he was ever adopted by some foreign national. The real operative facts are not in dispute. I fail to see where the conspiracy is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Obama & USA Request and Get Extension of Time to Respond

The attorney for two defendants in the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit, Barack Obama and the USA, has filed an "Entry of Appearance" and has requested and was granted a 15 day extension to the time allotted to them to respond. This is beyond the 60 days they were provided initially. When the government is the defendant, the government is normally given 60 days to respond. With the filing today, they asked for another 15 days and the court granted it. The response deadline date for the defendants thus has been moved from April 20th, 2009 to May 5th, 2009. For more details on this latest activity see the documents at SCRIBD.com or the court filing documents list in the right frame.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14204665/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Constitutional Radio Talk Show - BlogTalkRadio Network

I am pleased to announce that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Charles Kerchner, in the 'Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al' case, and I will be on the Constitutional Radio talk show Tuesday evening, 14 April 2009, a 10:00 p.m. EDT. The show is on the BlogTalkRadio.com network which is broadcast via the internet. I will be providing an update for the case. Mr. Kerchner and I will then take Q&A from the co-hosts, Marnie Delano (Dame Central) and Dr. Kate, and via phone calls from the listening audience. The call in number for the show will be: 347-202-0443. There is also a chat room which the listeners can participate in live while the show is on the air. Feel free to spread this announcement to people interested in this case. I hope to hear from you on the radio show.

To listen to the BlogTalkRadio.com show live or via the archives in the On Demand section after the show is broadcast, use the below link which will take you straight to the show. Listen to the lead in intro music for a few minutes after which the show starts:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/My-Two-Cents/2009/04/15/My-Two-Cents-Presents-Constitutional-Radio

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Please feel free to join the discussions and comments in this forum about the subject of the Natural Born Citizenship clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution by [Clicking Here].
####

Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen

See 29 July 2009 major update to this essay at this link:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html

Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States' right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.

The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:

"4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:

Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...."

Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.

Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama's 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.

Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that: “1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.” These provisions made Obama’s father and Obama citizens of Kenya, respectively. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain nor the Kenyan Constitution caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.

Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:

"97. Dual citizenship

1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament."

Hence, while the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.

The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:

"Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.

Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child's minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality."

Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.

"It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .

Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality."

British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.

Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning "declaration of renunciation" at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any "declaration of renunciation" of his British citizenship.

What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya's 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.

This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he would need to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

####

Read Atty Apuzzo's 29 July 2009 major update to this essay at this link:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html

####

More On What Is an Article II "Natural Born Citizen"

The error committed by those answering the question of what is an Article II "natural born Citizen" is when they equate such a Citizen with a "natural born subject" under English common law, a born "citizen" under the 14th Amendment, what our courts have declared to be a U.S. "citizen" during the pre- or post-14th Amendment period, and what Congress defines by statute to be a born "citizen" of the United States. Article II "natural born Citizen" is not the same as “natural born subject” or "citizen" as these terms are used in these contexts. Rather, it has a meaning that only applies to the Offices of President and Vice President and which has its origins in natural law and in the law of nations.

The Framers did not discuss the meaning of "natural born Citizen" during the Constitutional debates. Nor does the Constitution define the term. We know that for the future, the Framers did not permit just a "Citizen" to be eligible to be President, for they grandfathered a "Citizen" to be President only if alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Thereafter, the candidate would have to be a “natural born Citizen.”

Given the need to assure the survival of the new Constitutional Republic, "natural born Citizen" was a status that went well beyond what was found in ill-suited English common law regarding its definition of a "natural born subject." It was an uniform national standard that had always been recognized since time immemorial by the law of nature and nations, as confirmed and codified by Vattel in his monumental treatise, The Law of Nations. The Framers looked to this treatise in many ways when forming the new Constitutional Republic. They also looked to it for the definition of the type of citizen the President of the new nation would have to be to give it the best chance of survival. They read Vattel and saw how he distinguished between “citizens,” (“citoyens”) (members of the civil society) and the naturals, or indigenous (“naturels, ou indigenes”) (those born in the country, of parents who are citizens). Hence, the Framers chose “natural born Citizen” and not just “Citizen.” They knew that "natural born Citizen" is a status that no nation can question and which cuts off any nation from making any political or military claims upon that person. Unlike the contradictory and non-consensual results obtained for "natural born subjects" under English common law, it is a status that unites jus soli and jus sanguinis in the child and consequently carries with it the essence of sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States of America, a quality which is in the best interest of the United States and critical for a President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have. It is a status that only the all-powerful Offices of President and potentially that of Vice President (added by the 12th Amendment on June 15, 1804) of the United States require, offices which are filled by the will and consent of the people and which never had existed in the non-representative form of government in monarchical England.

The 14th Amendment does not define what a "natural born Citizen" is. Rather, the amendment only confirms that all persons who are either born in the United States or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are "citizens" of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Explicitly, the amendment does not in any way refer to a “natural born Citizen” or to Article II’s requirements to be President. Logically, the amendment's reference to "citizen" also does not refer to an Article II "natural born Citizen," for the amendment clearly declares that both persons born in the United States or persons who are naturalized are "citizens" of the United States. We know and generally accept that a naturalized citizen, even though the 14th Amendment declares such a person to be a “citizen,” is not eligible to be President. Hence, to be a born “citizen” under the 14th Amendment is a necessary but insufficient condition to be President. There is also no evidence that the Framers of the 14th Amendment in any way meant through the amendment itself to refer to let alone alter the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." Therefore, the term "natural born Citizen" under Article II, which has a life of its own and which has not been in any way altered, must be given Constitutional meaning as the Framers intended at the time they drafted it in 1787.

All case law produced during the pre- and post-14th Amendment period that defines what a born "citizen" is does not definitely answer what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is, for none of the courts that created this case law were asked to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is as applied to any specific individual running for or occupying the Office of President.

Except in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which Congress appropriately amended with the Naturalization Act of 1795 by removing the qualifier "natural born" from the citizenship status that it bestowed through a "naturalization" act on a child born overseas to two U.S. citizens, Congress has never used the term "natural born Citizen" in any of its statutes defining U.S. citizenship. A Congressional "born citizen" is made by the law of Congress. Historically, as the times changed so did Congressional laws and their requirements to be a Congressional "born citizen." The Framers could not have meant to allow the eligibility to be President to depend upon the whims of Congress which so often legislates based on its reaction to political pressures and conveniences of the times and the pressing need for political survival. Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress only the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization which during the Colonial period were discriminatory, in total disarrary, and used by the individual Colonies, who competed with each other, as a means to populate the new territory and attract coveted foreigners who were needed for labor and to increase the value of land.

Constitutional Article II "natural born Citizen" status requires no Constitutional or Congressional confirmation for its meaning. The status does not change with time or the political environment of the moment. It is a status bestowed by nature and the law of nations upon a child who is born in the United States to a mother and father who are also citizens of the United States (by birth or naturalization). Counter intuitively, it is a status that the majority of Americans have. It is the status that our Founding Fathers for the good of the Constitutional Republic meant our President to have. Historically and except for Chester Arthur, who hid his lack of "natural born Citizen" status from the American people when he ran for Vice President in 1880 and became such in 1881 and later that year became President by the assassination of President Garfield, it is the status that all our Article II post-grandfather-clause Presidents have had.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####