Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Your welcome.

For the record, AKC records are easy to fake. Form integrity is based on the honor system and some people lie. A bunch of bull goes on even in the professional dog breeder circles.

So basically, your dog may not even be who you think he/she is.

Dixie

puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html

Friday, August 7, 2009

Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

It was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (underlying "born" in the original). Jay’s recommendation did make it into the Constitution. Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen." Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a "natural born Citizen." Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.

That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen." This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in, _The Law of Nations_ (1758 ), Vol.1, Section 212, Des Citoyens et Naturels, a "citizen" is a member of the civil society. To become a "citizen" is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, Vattel wrote that a native or indigenes (written in French as /les naturels/ or /indigenes/) or “natural born Citizen” as the term later became translated from French into English, is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.) With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only "citizens" who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898 ) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a "citizen." The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a "natural born Citizen" prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation).

The original definition of "natural born Citizen" gives our Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other foreign citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. Having all other means of acquiring other foreign citizenships or allegiances cut off is unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth. Additionally, by requiring the child’s parents to be U.S. citizens best assures that those parents most likely will have absorbed American customs and values which, in turn, they will transmit to their child.

The “natural born Citizen” clause serves a critical purpose today and must be enforced in every Presidential election. The President has immense power, both civil and military. The clause assures the American people that their President does not have any conflicting allegiances or loyalties. In our nuclear world, it will avoid having a President who may hesitate to act quickly and decisively in a moment of crisis due to some internal psychological conflict of allegiance or loyalty. It will avoid any foreign nation expecting and pressuring the President to act in their best interest instead of that of America. The clause gives the American people the best chance that they will not be attacked from within through the Office of President. Knowing the President is a “natural born Citizen,” the American people will trust their President with their lives. Finally, such a President can expect that the military will give him or her full trust and obedience.

When President Obama was born in 1961, under the British Nationality Act of 1948, both his father and he were British subjects/citizens. In 1963, they both became Kenyan citizens. In fact, Mr. Obama’s father was never even a legal resident or immigrant of America. Hence, regardless of where Mr. Obama was born or that he may be a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President. This ineligibility has absolutely nothing to do with his race or class but all to do with his being born with multiple citizenships and allegiances and not satisfying the strict eligibility requirements of Article II. If someone believes that today the “natural born Citizen” clause no longer serves any useful purpose, then the proper way to change or abandon it is by way of constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, not by usurpation.

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

####

For more about what Obama wants to hide about citizenship laws and his citizenship issues see:
puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html

Vattel was an 18th century philospher who was influential, but some of his thinking has been superceded. A lot of 18th century thinking has been modified over time. Nowadays, the state department typically only takes into account the deliberate actions of an adult as compromising the citizenship of someone who was born a citizen. If the despotic emperor of Hypothetical Land were to bestow citizenship upon you and me because he liked what we were wearing when we took the palace tour, we could still return to America and run for President, to give a whimsical example. I believe that the modern view is that a natural born citizen is someone who does not have to undergo the process of naturalization to become a citizen. In other words, he or she was born a citizen and no further action on their part is necessary to attain the rights of citizenship.

I believe that the issue of Obama Sr.'s citizen is moot, especially since he essentially abandoned Stanley Ann and their baby, choosing to take the academic post that would not provide funds for them to join him (when he had the choice of one that would). I am not aware of any custody battle for the baby, as some are describing.

Furthermore, if I were chosing and grooming a future president to carry out my nefarious plans, the next to last child I would have chosen in 1961 would be a African-appearing boy from a 'broken home" (which was a very big deal back then, I can testify from personal experience. People assumed you were inherently, irretrievably flawed, i.e. damaged goods). The only type of child even less likely for that role would be a African-appearing girl baby. That is why I find the birth announcements in the paper to be so reassuring that he really was born in Hawaii. While politics is inherently sinister, I don't get the feeling that anyone was up to anything concerning him back then.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Vattel was an 18th century philospher who was influential, but some of his thinking has been superceded. A lot of 18th century thinking has been modified over time. Nowadays, the state department typically only takes into account the deliberate actions of an adult as compromising the citizenship of someone who was born a citizen. If the despotic emperor of Hypothetical Land were to bestow citizenship upon you and me because he liked what we were wearing when we took the palace tour, we could still return to America and run for President, to give a whimsical example. I believe that the modern view is that a natural born citizen is someone who does not have to undergo the process of naturalization to become a citizen. In other words, he or she was born a citizen and no further action on their part is necessary to attain the rights of citizenship.

I believe that the issue of Obama Sr.'s citizen is moot, especially since he essentially abandoned Stanley Ann and their baby, choosing to take the academic post that would not provide funds for them to join him (when he had the choice of one that would). I am not aware of any custody battle for the baby, as some are describing.

Furthermore, if I were chosing and grooming a future president to carry out my nefarious plans, the next to last child I would have chosen in 1961 would be a African-appearing boy from a 'broken home" (which was a very big deal back then, I can testify from personal experience. People assumed you were inherently, irretrievably flawed, i.e. damaged goods). The only type of child even less likely for that role would be a African-appearing girl baby. That is why I find the birth announcements in the paper to be so reassuring that he really was born in Hawaii. While politics is inherently sinister, I don't get the feeling that anyone was up to anything concerning him back then.

I have no idea where you get your legal positions, but to my knowledge, Vattel has NOT been overruled legally, and if you interpret the law (in this case, the U.S. Constitution) according to the intent of the authors, Vattel is still valid legal thought.

Regarding grooming Obama from birth, that seems to be a rathole. Life is what happens while you're making plans, and there are NO guarantees that early life planning will ever happen.

And, finally regarding the newspaper birth announcements, I can't believe your comments. You must be joking.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Vattel was an 18th century philospher who was influential, but some of his thinking has been superceded. A lot of 18th century thinking has been modified over time. Nowadays, the state department typically only takes into account the deliberate actions of an adult as compromising the citizenship of someone who was born a citizen. If the despotic emperor of Hypothetical Land were to bestow citizenship upon you and me because he liked what we were wearing when we took the palace tour, we could still return to America and run for President, to give a whimsical example. I believe that the modern view is that a natural born citizen is someone who does not have to undergo the process of naturalization to become a citizen. In other words, he or she was born a citizen and no further action on their part is necessary to attain the rights of citizenship.

I believe that the issue of Obama Sr.'s citizen is moot, especially since he essentially abandoned Stanley Ann and their baby, choosing to take the academic post that would not provide funds for them to join him (when he had the choice of one that would). I am not aware of any custody battle for the baby, as some are describing.

Furthermore, if I were chosing and grooming a future president to carry out my nefarious plans, the next to last child I would have chosen in 1961 would be a African-appearing boy from a 'broken home" (which was a very big deal back then, I can testify from personal experience. People assumed you were inherently, irretrievably flawed, i.e. damaged goods). The only type of child even less likely for that role would be a African-appearing girl baby. That is why I find the birth announcements in the paper to be so reassuring that he really was born in Hawaii. While politics is inherently sinister, I don't get the feeling that anyone was up to anything concerning him back then.

Popular view and legal view are not always one and the same. Our founders warned us against popular view superseding the law.

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution."
Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833)

Vattel was a Swiss philosopher - a foreigner. Yes, his ideas were influential, like those of John Locke (another foreigner). But their writings and ideas are not some sort of scripture either. I don't believe that a modern court is going to give much weight to things done to a child by their parents as somehow tainting the loyalty of the adult that the child later becomes. If we still had to obey the 18th century way of viewing humankind, we'd still have slavery or at least indentured servitude. A wife who struck a husband could be tried for petty treason. Voting rights might be tied to property ownership.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Vattel was a Swiss philosopher - a foreigner. Yes, his ideas were influential, like those of John Locke (another foreigner). But their writings and ideas are not some sort of scripture either. I don't believe that a modern court is going to give much weight to things done to a child by their parents as somehow tainting the loyalty of the adult that the child later becomes. If we still had to obey the 18th century way of viewing humankind, we'd still have slavery or at least indentured servitude. A wife who struck a husband could be tried for petty treason. Voting rights might be tied to property ownership.

If one were to argue that a modern court wouldn't give much weight to things "done to a child" by their parents, that same court would have to argue the allegiance of said child who attended a muslim school in a foreign country as being of questionable loyalty and allegiance, would it not? In fact, loyalty and allegiance being a central focus of the intent of Article II would seem to me to carry the weight of this argument. To take another slant on a modern court interpretation...how could one possibly argue that a childs loyalty and allegiance was in fact NOT damaged or compromised by an act of the parents? This is the slippery slope when we attempt to apply modern opinions to our constitution. That's why the founders intended us to follow the most strict interpretation.

They would have to argue that there was something amiss in sending a child to a predominantly Muslim school in a predominantly Muslim nation, where the head of the house was a Muslim. It's like saying that there is something wrong per se with Islam. If it was a jihadi madrassa, maybe, and if he attended while older, maybe, but remember that little "Barry" was back in the US at the age of 10, to be raised by his American grandparents.

I read somewhere that there are now more Muslims in the US than there are Episcopalians.

It is pretty much undisputed that Alexander Hamilton is the father of our constitution. His views on how the constitution should be applied are as follows:

The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 33, January 3, 1788

The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 71, March 18, 1788

[T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes — rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments.
Alexander Hamilton, letter to James Bayard, April, 1802

Remember the fuss about JFK's loyalties when he was running? When my kids were young, we were Mormons, but I sent them to a Catholic school. I told them that the kids had Catholic relatives, so go ahead and involve them appropriately in religious exercises because I wanted them to learn respect and appreciation for that part of their heritage. Now, if my son were running for president, and if we were still back in the days when people worried about the loyalties of Catholics, would he be a valid target of criticism for having attended a Catholic elementary school for a number of years? His father was a lapsed Catholic, similar to the way Obama's father was a skeptical Muslim.