Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Jeff Winston; Rides3
"I'll let 4zoltan speak to that question if he wants, since he's just read the case."

In Purpura v. Obama, Mario Apuzzo argued that a natural born citizen required two citizen parents, that the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark only deal with "citizens of the United States" and not NBCs and that Minor v. Happersett provides binding precedent for the definition of NBC. And he included all the birth certificate and Sheriff Arpaio stuff.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88210044/Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Objection-to-Obama-Nominating-Petition-Filed-in-NJ-on-5-Apr-2012

Judge Masin decided that,

"The second objection involves the meaning of the Constitutional phrase, “natural born Citizen.” Discussion and consideration of this issue is of course relevant only on the understanding that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. This issue has been the subject of litigation concerning Mr. Obama’s candidacy in several jurisdictions. No court,federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obamais not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here. While there are several decisions that could be cited, the decision issued by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2009 inAnkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. As the court therein noted, and as the petitioners here have contended, the thrust of the argument against Obama’s status as natural born is that there is a “clear distinction between being a ‘citizen of the United states’ and a ‘natural born Citizen.’”Id. at 685. The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position. In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born” and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, . . . every child born in England of alien parents wasa natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26,40, 41 (1860).

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all person born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

The Wong Kim Ark Court then stated

We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions [children ofambassadors, etc.], since as before the Revolution.[Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at462].

The Georgia Secretary of State recently denied a similar challenge to Mr. Obama’s status as a natural born citizen in Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MAHIHI, where Georgia State Administrative Law Judge Mahili relied upon Arkeny and Wong Kim Ark for his ruling that the President was indeed a natural born Citizen. Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue. This is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of the subject, but there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position. The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88910250/Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin

It was this decison by Judge Masin that the New Jersey Court of Appeals called "thorough and thoughtful".

The New Jersey Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105509744/NJ-Supreme-Court-Appeal-Denied

BTW, Mario Apuzzo help Brook Paige file a ballot challenge in Vermont. In the challenge, Paige conceded that Obama was born in Hawaii but was not a NBC because of the reasons that Mario used in New Jersey. The Vermont court ruled as follows:

"While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase – “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”- has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decisions have adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), examines the historical basis at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.

Although not a case deciding eligibility for president, the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), discussed the common law of citizenship extensively. Justice Gray, writing for the court, held:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

Id. at 658. While the term used in Wong Kim Ark in relation to the English common law is “natural-born subject,” there is no apparent distinction between it and “natural born citizen.”

Mr. Paige has tendered a scholarly article authored by Attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey (see below). Mr. Apuzzo argues that originalist thinking as to the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” was consistent with an intent on the part of the authors of the constitution to adopt jus sanguinus citizenship model rather than the jus soli model of the English common law. There has been academic controversy over aspects of the meaning of the expression ”natural born citizen,” particularity with respect to individuals born to American parents outside the United States. Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63, 66 (D.N.H. 2008). This controversy attended the candidacies of at least George Romney and John McCain. While Mr. Apuzzo mightily attempts to distinguish the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, that English common law was adopted as to which model of citizenship was intended by the original framers, this court concludes that his arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113533939/VT-Paige-v-Obama-Et-Al-DeCISION-Vt-Super-Ct-Nov-2012

The case of Paige v.Onama is sceduled for oral arguments before the Vermont Supreme Court on April 23rd.

On another subject, Obama was born under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarron-Walters Act).

Section 301(a)(1) - a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:

and

Section 305 - ... A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30th, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf

453 posted on 04/05/2013 12:09:50 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies ]


To: 4Zoltan
VT-Paige-v-Obama-Et-Al

This relies extensively on U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which doesn't apply to Obama. His father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. and Justice Gray limited the applicability of the ruling by stating "the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion."

We already know Obama doesn't meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement as defined by the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman in the Congressional Record. So the most of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act doesn't apply.

Section 305 - ... A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30th, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf

Now this is interesting in that this law declares that those born in the U.S. must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. in order to be considered citizens. But that same requirement is missing for those born in the states of Hawaii and Alaska. There is no "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement for birthright citizenship in those two states at all.

Hmmm...

455 posted on 04/05/2013 1:10:37 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson