Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the Terry Lakin Action Fund Radio Hour

                         Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the Terry Lakin Action Fund Radio Hour


                                                         By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                           September 11, 2011





Please listen to David Moxley’s interview of Attorney Mario Apuzzo. Mr. Moxley’s interview was done for TLAF (Terry Lakin Action Fund) Radio Hour and pre-recorded on Friday, September 9, 2011. Attorney Apuzzo discusses Obama’s Article II eligibility, the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and the state of the political and legal battles to bring the issue of Obama’s eligibility to justice.

In the interview, Attorney Apuzzo also discusses the injustice suffered by LTC Terry Lakin, who most recently served as Chief of Primary Care and Flight Surgeon for the Pentagon's DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic. He was also the lead Flight Surgeon responsible for caring for Army Chief of Staff General Casey's pilots and air crew. LTC Lakin was also selected for promotion to Colonel. As a commissioned officer, LTC Lakin took an officer’s oath which provides:

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331, Oath of Office.

Note that the oath refers to “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” If a sitting President is not legitimately holding the power of his office, he can be considered a “domestic” enemy. The officer’s oath is also different from an enlisted person’s oath. While enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, an officer’s oath does not include any provision to obey orders. Officers are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. Hence, the officer’s oath calls for loyalty to the Constitution and the Constitutional Republic and not to the President. Another way to look at the oath is that it calls for allegiance to a political philosophy (republican government) and not to the President or Commander in Chief.

Consequently, LTC Lakin was faced with an ethical dilemma for which there is no precedent because it concerns on one side the question of whether the President and Commander in Chief is legitimately holding the power of that office and on the other side the legal requirement that an officer obey all legal orders and follow The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Ch.47. Pursuant to his oath, LTC Lakin attempted to make sure that Obama meets the Article II eligibility requirements of the Constitution and that he is therefore not a “domestic” enemy, a matter that for LTC Lakin could have been easily resolved by Obama himself. Instead of getting the truth, he was court-martialed without being given any right to meaningful discovery, was found guilty of disobeying orders, was sentenced to 6 months in federal prison (he served 5 of those months and then got released), was caused to forfeit all pay and allowances, and was dismissed from the Military.

The show will air Monday, September 12, 2011, at 3:00PM on http://www.americaswebradio.com/.  The following is the link to the podcast which will be posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011: http://www.radiosandysprings.com/showpages/TLAF.php.

Please note that the Terry Lakin Action Fund Show is changing its name to Officer’s Oath. Dr. Terry Lakin and friends will be hosting the new show.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 11, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

A Common Sense Definition of a "Citizen" and a "Natural Born Citizen"

                               A Common Sense Definition of a “Citizen” and a “Natural Born Citizen”

                                                                By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

                                                                    September 1, 2011

The Framers of the Constitution called all those who made up the citizenry of the new Constitutional Republic “Citizens of the United States.” We know this from reading the following constitutional Articles:  Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that, in addition to being at least 25 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 years. Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 provides that, in addition to being at least 30 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 years. The Framers provided in Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 the eligibility requirements for then and future Representatives and Senators, respectively, which were, among other things, that each had to be at least a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. We also know from Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 that a “Citizen of the United States” is a naturalized citizen, for those sections speak of the person being eligible for the offices of Representative and Senator if he or she is a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. Clearly, such requirements do not mandate U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth.

Regarding presidential eligibility, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.” So, these clauses together show that the Framers during the period that the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was in effect, allowed naturalized citizens to be eligible to be President. After the grandfather clause expired, it was no longer sufficient to be simply a “Citizen of the United States” to be eligible to be President, for such citizens also include naturalized citizens. Rather, one had to now show that one was a “natural born Citizen” which was not a naturalized citizen.

The problem with applying Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is that the Constitution as originally written defines neither a “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States.” Hence, we have to identify the sources to which the Founders and Framers would have looked for their definition of these terms. The historical record and early case law show that they probably would not have relied upon the English common law for these national definitions but rather on natural law and the law of nations to which they normally looked to solve problems of national proportions. This historical record and case law also show that Emer de Vattel was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite commentator on the law of nations. Vattel said “[t]he citizens are the members of civil society.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). He said that “each citizen on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.” Id. Other than explaining in Section 214 how a “foreigner” can become a “citizen” through “naturalisation,” Vattel did not explain how that membership or entrance into society is acquired. Incidentally, he said that in England, “the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Hence, historically, our nation has struggled with defining who is a “citizen,” which our Constitution and laws have called a “citizen of the United States.” On the other hand, Vattel clearly told us who is a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Id.

Hence, never in the history of our nation have we had any doubt as to what a “natural born Citizen” is. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875) (“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first”). Consequently, our national debate over citizenship has been over who is a “citizen.” This debate has involved former slaves and their descendents, Asians, American Indians, and even the children born in the United States to alien white European parents. But this debate has never been over who is a “natural born Citizen.”

Because of the doubts over who is a “citizen,” our nation has had to define a “citizen” in Acts of Congress, treaties, the Fourteenth Amendment, and through case law (e.g., U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)). Regarding a “natural born Citizen,” we have defined this class of citizen only through case law which has explicitly or impliedly relied upon Vattel’s Section 212 and which to this day has never changed (e.g., The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring and dissenting for other reasons-explicitly); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring-explicitly); Minor v. Happersett (1875) (impliedly); Wong Kim Ark (impliedly)).

This means that a “citizen” is defined by Acts of Congress, treaties, and the Fourteenth Amendment (e.g., a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents or a child born out of the United States to one or two United States citizen parents or a child born out of the United States to alien parents who naturalizes to be a “citizen” after birth) and a “natural born Citizen” is defined by American common law. And that American common law definition has been since the Founding and continues until today to be a child born in the United States to a United States citizen father and mother. Finally, we are to keep in mind that the only difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” who is not a “natural born Citizen” is that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President and Vice-President.

If putative President, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii, he can be a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States."  But because he was not born to a father and mother who were both U.S. citizens when he was born (he was born to a father who was a British citizen), he is not and cannot be a "natural born Citizen."  He is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.   

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

September 1, 2011

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

The Rule of Law and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause

                                           The Rule of Law and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause

                                                            By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

                                                                 August 21, 2011

 Watch this video of putative President Obama at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8712959/Barack-Obama-accuses-Congress-of-holding-back-recovery.html. His point, which was also made by George Washington in his Farewell Address of 1796, http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=15, is that we can bring our nation back to greatness if politicians would only put country before party. But what is Obama talking about? When we talk about putting country before party, are we not really saying that we should put first what is good for the country as a whole rather than what is good for a particular political party? But how could Obama pretend to promote and defend the greater good of the country without at the same time honoring and respecting the rule of law that keeps that country together? The answer is that the country and the rule of law are inseparable. We cannot have one without the other.

The rule of law is nothing more than intelligence and reason applied to produce a just and predictable result concerning the distribution to people of benefits and obligations offered by the society in which they live. It is a fundamental component of good government and its proper administration. The rule of law, joined with military might, has made our country great and will allow us to prevail in the future. The Founders and Framers, being passionate students of ancient history, recognized the vital importance of the rule of law. In fact, they saw the rule of law to be so critical to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that as a testament of that understanding they gave us a constitutional republic in which military power is subordinate to civilian power. Indeed, the rule of law, which picked up where the Roman Empire ( http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/08ROMFAL.htm) left off when it transitioned into the medieval ages, has brought both quantity and quality to world populations. It has given our lives order and civility, allowing Americans to freely study, pray, work, trade, and travel, and thereby to live healthy, prosperous, and peaceful lives.

There exists plenty of historical and legal evidence that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is therefore ineligible to be President. Since the Founding, a “natural born Citizen” has been understood to be a child born in the country to citizen parents. The Founders and Framers were particularly careful to keep out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military foreign and monarchial influence. They therefore demanded that future presidents be "natural born Citizen[s]." By demanding such birth status, they assured that future presidents would be born with no allegiance to any foreign power and therefore loyal and attached only to the United States from birth.

A "natural born Citizen" was well-defined in natural law and the law of nations upon which the Founders and Framers heavily relied in the early years of our Republic. Founder historian, David Ramsay (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html) who in his A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/33676461/Founder-and-Historian-David-Ramsay-Defined-Natural-Born-Citizenship-in-1789-by-Atty-Mario-Apuzzo) told us that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizens, making no mention of place of birth.  This definition surely came from natural law and the law of nations and not from the English common law which in defining a “natural born subject” made no reference to the nationality of the parents.  In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. As we can see, Ramsay put forth a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that only depended upon the child being born to U.S. citizen parents with no mention of place of birth.

Other relevant historical materials such as Emer de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_00.htm), tell us: “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.”

Then we have Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html), which providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80.  We can see from this American common law definition of a "natural-born citizen" that the Supreme Court did not rely upon the English common law for the definition, but rather on natural law and the law of nations as set forth by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations.  We can also see from the Minor decision that an American “natural born Citizen” is much different from a British “natural born subject,” for the latter did not consider the nationality of the parents and also included naturalized British subjects “at birth” and after birth.

Then there is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html), which cited and quoted Minor and its definition that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Wong then decided that a child born in the country to alien parents who were domiciled in the U.S. was a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did not nor did it have to rule that he was an Article II "natural born Citizen" which the Court told us was defined by Minor. Rather, the Court told us that he was a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment. So what the Court actually did was naturalize Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” like the Exchequer Chamber in Calvin’s Case (1608), creating the English rule of jus soli birthright citizenship, naturalized Calvin (the postnati) based on “procreation and birthright” to be a “natural born subject.” It is interesting to note that neither the British Parliament which started to debate the matter in 1604 nor the U.S. Congress prior to 1898 were willing to naturalize persons like Calvin and Wong, respectively, so the matter fell upon the courts of justice, and that those who were born prior to 1603 (the antenati), when James VI of Scotland inherited the throne of England as James I, could naturalize only by statute. Hence, the jus soli rule of Calvin’s Case is really a naturalization rule used to bestow citizenship or nationality at birth.  This is confirmed by Vattel who in Section 214 of The Law of Nations, entitled, Naturalisation, said: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Hence, the jus soli rule of Calvin’s Case, as applied by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, is a rule allowing person to become naturalized “at birth” and not a rule that can be used to establish “natural born Citizen” status in the new republic, for being naturalized “at birth” one cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Our courts have incorporated the jus soli rule of Calvin’s Case into the application of the Fourteenth Amendment. By doing so, they have declared children born in the United States to one or two alien parents to be “born” “citizens of the United States.” But these children, being naturalized “at birth” under jus soli are not “natural born" “citizens of the United States.” 

There are other historical sources and cases which inform on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” but for the sake of brevity, I will not include them here.

We know from Vattel and Minor that "citizens" can be the parents of "natural born Citizens" but are not necessarily "natural born Citizens" themselves. Being born in the country to citizen parents allows a child to be born with no foreign allegiance and with loyalty and attachment only to the country of his or her parents. Such birth circumstances allow a child to be born under the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States.

Obama's father, a British citizen, was never a U.S. citizen. Hence, Obama was not born in the country to citizen parents. Because Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama, even if born in Hawaii which he has yet to conclusively prove, was also born with allegiance to and citizenship in Great Britain. Consequently, Obama was not born with no foreign allegiance and with sole loyalty and attachment to the United States. He was not born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship in the United States at birth, a natural condition that the Founders and Framers wanted in future presidents and commanders in chief. He was not born under the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen." Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

But how can we expect to achieve and maintain greatness as a nation when our own president does not follow the rule of law as it pertains to his eligibility to be President? Being the putative President and Commander in Chief, Obama should be the first one to follow his own advice of putting country first. He and his enablers should put the Constitution (country) before his personal political ambitions (party). But up to now, Obama and his enablers are just saying "do as I say, not as I do."

A great number of Americans have come to understand these fundamental truths and are not happy with how Obama and political and legal institutions have turned a blind eye to Obama’s ineligibility to be President. These Americans are demanding justice on a daily basis. If Obama and his enablers were to follow Obama’s advice, these Americans, who have lost respect for their political and legal institutions, could once again get behind their political leaders and help them solve the many social and economic issues which are currently disrupting our nation. On the other hand, some Americans believe that the “natural born Citizen” issue is a “distraction” from the real issues pressing our country. But as we have seen, the "natural born Citizen" issue goes to the heart of our constitutional republic, the rule of law. Without the rule of law, we have no constitution or republic. I would not consider any of that a "distraction."

This state of affairs leaves Americans who truly care about their country and the rule of law with having to continue this fight on their own. Their fight will not go unrewarded, for as history has shown, those who persevere will in the end win.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

August 21, 2011

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/  

####

Copyright © 2011

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

All Rights Reserved

Jedi Pauly: The False Flag Obot

                                        Jedi Pauly: The False Flag Obot

                                              By:  Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

                                                   August 14, 2011

 Every once in a while, a “Jedi Pauly” (we do not know what his/her true name is; I will assume for sake of argument that the person is a male) makes himself alive. Every time he does he just cannot resist taking a shot at the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case. Now he is back with more of his pseudo law and his appeal to the revolutionary mantra of no taxation without representation. He has recently posted an article to The Post & Email entitled, “How ‘We The People’ Can Put An End To Taxation Without Representation,” accessed at http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/11/the-real-revolution/.  

Pauly starts his article by telling us there are “three political classes in the United States.” This is a preposterous statement, given that we have no political classes in the United States. The United States is a constitutional republic. The people enjoy a representative government which under the constitution is supposed to have limited powers. Any citizen, regardless of social, racial, cultural, ethnic, economic, religious, or physical condition or station, who is 18 years of age or older, can vote for his or her representative government (unless disqualified due to a criminal conviction). But yet, Pauly tells us that we have three political classes. The only reason that I can see for Pauly to put forth such an argument is to stir up division among Americans, claiming one class has some superior right over another class. He would just love for the “birthers” to run with such theories.

Being a covert Obot, Pauly loves to take shots at the Kerchner case and the undersigned, Mario Apuzzo, Esq., the attorney who filed that case and presented it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Pauly, as he has repeatedly attempted in the past, makes every effort to discredit both the Kerchner case and Apuzzo. There is no basis in Pauly’s argument that the court in Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010), denied Commander Kerchner standing because we did not allege that Kerchner was a “natural born Citizen.” He says that the Federal Court denied the Kerchner case standing because we alleged that Commander Kerchner is a “citizen of the United States” rather than saying that he is a “natural born Citizens.” I have seen many kooky arguments in my day but this one tops the cake. The only difference that exists between any of our citizens, whether “natural born Citizens” or naturalized citizens “at birth” or after birth, is in being eligible to be President and Vice President. Other than eligibility for these two high offices, our law simply does not favor or give any special privilege or right to one type of citizen over another. The privileges and immunities granted to citizens under Article IV and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are granted to all citizens and the due process protections given by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment are extended not only to all citizens but also to all persons.

Also, simply saying that one is a “citizen of the United States” does not rule out that that person is also a “natural born Citizen.” Just like saying that one is a “citizen of the United States,” which under the Fourteenth Amendment includes naturalized citizens, does not rule out that one is a “citizen of the United States” “at birth,” saying that someone is a “citizen of the United States” which also includes those citizens who are not “natural born Citizens,” does not rule out that one could be a “natural born Citizen.” To further make this point, Article I provides that a Representative and Senator must be a “Citizen of the United States” for a minimum of 7 and 9 years, respectively, to be eligible for office. We can all agree that it would be absurd to contend that a “natural born Citizen” cannot be a Senator or Representative because Article I calls for a “Citizen of the United States.” Article II’s grandfather clause also says that one could be a “Citizen of the United States” and be eligible to be President if born before the adoption of the Constitution, but that for one born thereafter, one has to be a “natural born Citizen.” From these provisions, we know that the Founders and Framers grouped all citizens, both “natural born” and naturalized, into “Citizens of the United States” and that they also told us that all “natural born Citizens” are “Citizens of the United States” but that not all “Citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizens.” Hence, Pauly’s argument that the Kerchner court denied Commander Kerchner standing because he alleged that he is a “citizen of the United States” rather than also alleging that he is a “natural born Citizen” is totally baseless.

Additionally, Pauly, like the courts that decided the Kerchner case, wants us to think that the only standing argument made in the Kerchner case was that of Commander Kerchner maybe being recalled to active military duty and having to report to a usurper acting as the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This argument is simply a total misstatement of the case, evades the real standing argument in the Kerchner case, and is designed to mislead the public on what was the real standing argument in the Kerchner case. In the Kerchner case, I raised legitimate claims of injury to the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment right to life, liberty, safety, security, and tranquility, caused by having an usurper, who does not meet the “natural born Citizen” eligibility requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, sitting in the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military and wielding the great and singular civil and military powers of those offices. In fact, no court in the Kerchner case even addressed the Fifth Amendment due process argument. The courts in Kerchner therefore evaded addressing this standing argument. But Pauly does not want the public to know that.

On January 2, 2009, I wrote an article stating that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, citing and explaining the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875). See http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor held:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Id. at 167-68.

This U.S. Supreme Court’s definition was stated in 1758 by Emer de Vattel, the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite writer on natural law and the law of nations, in his, The Law of Nations, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) where he said the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The virtually unanimous documented view that prevailed during the Founding, as confirmed by the views of the Founders and Framers, text and structure of the Constitution, and federal and state case law, was that the law of nations was considered universal common law that was binding on the people, the President, Congress, and the nation, and “part of the laws of the United States within the symmetric ambit of Article II, Section 3, III, Section 2, and VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.” As to this conclusion, see the exhaustive research paper of Jordan J. Paust, “In Their Own Words: Affirmations of the Founders, Framers, and Early Judiciary Concerning the Binding Nature of the Customary Law of Nations," University of Houston Public Law and Legal Theory Series 2009-A-27, which can be downloaded without charge at The University of Houston Accepted Paper Series Index.

Moreover, Vattel’s and Minor’s definition was also acknowledged by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the seminal case on U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, which clarified and established the meaning of a Fourteenth Amendment “born” “citizen” and again confirmed the meaning of an Article II “natural born” citizen, and by doing so informed that there are two birthright citizenships under the Constitution, one under Article II (“natural born”) and the other under the Fourteenth Amendment (“born” in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Under Article II of our Constitution, only a “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President, for only a “natural born” citizen is born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States which means being born with sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States and none to any foreign power. The Founders and Framers wanted to assure that the new constitutional republic would be lead both civilly and militarily by a person who from the moment of birth had sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States. It is only by being born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother that no foreign allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship attach to the child at the moment of birth or as Vattel put it, “if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Id. at Sec. 212. It is therefore inconceivable that the Founders and Framers, who went to great lengths to insulate the new republic from foreign influence and monarchial rule, would have countenanced a person born after the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military who did not meet the law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Pauly does not agree with this reasoning. Pauly argues that if one is born to a citizen father, no matter where born, he/she is a “natural born Citizen.” So, for him, “natural born Citizen” has only one factor, i.e., born to a U.S. citizen father. He does not recognize a child’s mother’s status or the effect that that status and birth on foreign soil has on a child’s natural allegiance to the United States from the moment of birth. His argument which recognizes only the father’s citizenship in creating citizenship in his children and denies the role of the mother in that regard fails for reasons of equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. His argument which does not recognize the effect on a child of being born to a non-U.S. citizen mother and on foreign soil also fails because it does not comport with the Founders’ and Framers’ understanding of natural allegiance. They were aware that in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 (1608), Coke called this natural allegiance, “ligeantia naturalis.” For Coke, it was this natural allegiance which made the “natural born subject.” “Ligeantia acquisita” created those who were subjects not by birth but rather by conquest, denization, or naturalization. They would have also known that in Calvin’s Case, Francis Bacon, who argued that Calvin (a postnati) was a “natural-born subject” in England, argued that allegiance was due not by the law of either England or Scotland alone, but by the law of nature, itself a part of the law of England and of all nations. Coke agreed, finding that “ligeance of the subjects of both kingdoms, is due to their sovereign by one law, and that is the law of nature.” Id. at 394. They were also aware that William Blackstone confirmed the existence of this natural allegiance in his hierarchies of allegiance. He considered “natural allegiance” a product of “universal law,” “intrinsic” and “primitive,” due “upon their birth.” See William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357-58, 361-62. From this background, it is understandable why the Founders and Framers demanded that citizenship be determined by natural law and the law of nations and not by the English common law. They demanded that the birth status of allegiance be inherited by nature and not by law. Hence, they chose “natural born” Citizen and not just “born” Citizen, which latter status could theoretically be bestowed by naturalization upon a person by positive law.

The Founders and Framers, when it came to prescribing the eligibility requirements for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, offices of great civil and military powers to be given to one person for the purpose of protecting the republic, put their faith in natural law and not the English common law. They knew that natural allegiance was inherited not only from the place of one’s birth (jus soli) but also from one’s parents (jus sanguinis). A child born under the limited circumstances espoused by Pauly (just born to a citizen father) would still inherit allegiance and therefore citizenship under jus soli (from being born in a foreign land) and jus sanguinis (from being born to a foreign mother). Hence, the child would not be born fully and completely under the allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States which disqualifies the child from being a “natural born Citizen,” for the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” includes all those who are born with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those who are.

Note that under Pauly’s argument of just being born to a citizen father, Obama could very well qualify as a “natural born Citizen.” He concedes that place of birth does not matter. He also concedes that just one parent’s citizenship is sufficient. Hence, Obama would only have to make the simple equal protection argument and prevail as a “natural born Citizen,” even if not born in the United States. On the other hand, if Pauly argued that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to a U.S. citizen father and mother, he knows that Obama could never meet that definition and would therefore be disqualified as being eligible to be President.

Pauly says that no criminal case could ever be made against Obama. He says that Obama could argue that he reasonably believed he was a “natural born Citizen,” causing no prosecutor to bring any criminal charges against him and no jury to ever convict him. But he totally avoids the issues of Obama creating a fraudulent birth certificate, using a fake social security number, and creating a false selective service registration record. If these latter allegations are true, Obama could easily be impeached for high crimes and subsequently tried and convicted for those same crimes in a criminal prosecution. Again, Pauly comes to the aid of Obama rather than to his downfall which further raises the suspicion of who Pauly really is.

Pauly argues that being a taxpayer (and a natural born Citizen) gives one automatic standing in an eligibility lawsuit against Obama. But he fails to recognize that our courts have repeatedly told us that the status of being a taxpayer without more does not establish standing. Again, Pauly hands Obama an easy victory.

We can also see that Pauly does not really believe what he writes. He tells us that he, unlike so many other people who filed an action against Obama, has figured out all the legal angles of pleading a cause of action that will guarantee the plaintiffs standing. He submits that any one filing a law suit against Obama needs only to allege that living under an ineligible Obama we are slaves who are taxed without representation. He tells us about how all the cases that have been filed against Obama so far have failed and that he is the only one who knows what should be done. But he himself can satisfy all the elements he identifies as necessary for a successful action against Obama. Yet he has not brought any legal action against Obama nor does he tell us that he intends to do so. Very simply, Pauly has not and will not bring any such action because then the whole world would learn who the real Jedi Pauly is. Rather, he needs to remain anonymous and just continue to feed us his pro-Obama tripe.

Not advocating a definition of “natural born Citizen” which gives the United States extra safety and protection from attack from both outside and within and putting forth legal theories which in the end can hand Obama an easy victory raises great doubts about who Pauly really is. I believe that Pauly Jedi is a “false flag” who has been planted within the “birther” movement. He is an Obot posing as a “birther” or constitutionalist. He is sent to us just to feed us crank legal and “scientific” theories that have a superficial appeal, like telling us that a “natural born Citizen” only needs a citizen father and that we have standing to sue Obama because we have to pay taxes to a government led by an ineligible Obama which makes us slaves, theories he hopes we will adopt and which in the end will only discredit our valid Obama eligibility arguments and waste our precious time. I recommend that everyone reading this article and who is pursuing getting at the truth regarding who Obama is also read the interesting explanation of the meaning of “false flag” found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag and other articles on “false flag” found on the internet. Pauly has every right to continue to print his positions, although it would be appreciated if he told us whose side is he really on.  In any event, those of us who are honestly working on the Obama eligibility issue should pay him no attention.    

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

August 14, 2011

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/  

####

Copyright © 2011

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

All Rights Reserved

The Most Stupid Story of the Year

                                                   The Most Stupid Story of the Year

                                                        By:  Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

                                                              August 13, 2011

This has got to be the most stupid story of the year.  When the Green Bay Packers visited the White House on Friday to celebrate the team's Super Bowl title, linebacker Desmond Bishop was not allowed to enter. He forgot his license on the team charter plane and without a license, White House security would not let him in. Read the story here: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Packers-linebacker-forgets-ID-can-8217-t-get-i?urn=nfl-wp5018

Needless to say, Desmond Bishop is a well-known football player.

Yet, Congress let Barack Obama, who is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," who has yet to show us a valid birth certificate, social security number, and selective service registration, and who was never properly vetted, not only to live in the White House, but also to assume the singular and great civil and military powers of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.  I guess a well-known professional football player entering the White House for a short social visit for the purpose of celebrating his team's Super Bowl victory without his license is a greater national security risk than allowing a person who has refused to properly identify himself to not only live in the White House but also to assume power over our nuclear arsenal and to learn our national military secrets.   

   

As the old saying goes, I could not make this stuff up.  

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

August 13, 2011

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

####

Copyright © 2011

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

All Rights Reserved