Replies

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Update on Kerchner et als. v. Obama & Congress et als.

There are many who want an update on what is going on with the court in the Kerchner case. The court listed the defendants’ (Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) motion for a second extension of time to answer or otherwise move as to the amended complaint for June 1, 2009.

Not receiving any decision from the court as of June 5, 2009, I contacted Judge Schneider’s law clerk on June 5, 2009. She advised me that the June 1, 2009 date was a tentative date, with the court being able to decide the motion either before or after the date.

She told me that the defendants’ motion was still pending and that “they” were working on it. She was not able to give me any more specific information as to when we can expect a decision.

I know that many of you are frustrated and have lost faith in the integrity of our legal system. I know that many of you do not believe that, given that we are so far post election and the lack of any support from our political leaders, institutions, and mainstream media, a court will have the moral and legal courage to do what you believe to be justice.

But at this point, we can only believe and hope in a court honoring the Constitution and the rule of law by upholding the original intent of the Founding Fathers on the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Our Constitution at Article II says, in pertinent part, that only a “natural born Citizen” can be President. At the time of the Founding, the Framers relied upon the law of nations which was based on natural law for, among many things, the definition of what a “natural born Citizen” was.

They did not rely on English common law for the definition. The latter law was not accepted by most civilized nations of the world but the former was.

Before the Constitution was adopted, the colonies and eventually the states decided on their own the definitions of citizenship and naturalization. The result was that there was no uniformity among the colonies and States on these important matters which affected not only relations between the states themselves but also America’s relations with foreign nations.

Indeed, and unlike the English common law, the law of nations provided for the Founding Fathers a uniform definition of what a “natural born Citizen” was, a definition that could and would be accepted by every State in the new Republic and by most every other civilized nation.

It was the law of nations that provided the definition for the new national citizenship in the new Republic. The Founders relied heavily upon Emmerich de Vattel and his The Law of Nations, as the source for what the law of nations said on the many topics that were incorporated into the Constitution, and in constituting the new nation.

Under the law of nations as explained by Vattel, a “natural born Citizen” (he called them “naturels” or “indige’nes” in French) was a child born in the country to a mother and father who were also citizens of the country (“parents who are citizens”). These were the “true citizens” who would preserve and perpetuate the society and all its values. Id. Sec. 212, Book 1, The Law of Nations, 1758, Vattel.

It was Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” was that was incorporated into American common law. Vattel was correct in his analysis, for these “true citizens,” having a unity of citizenship at the time of their birth (jus soli and jus sanguinis united in them at the time of their birth) were born with a sole allegiance and loyalty to the society into which they were born.

Vattel had a profound and lasting impact in the formation of the new Republic, not only in defining national citizenship but also in many other areas of nationality and immigration law. He also wrote on (1) naturalized citizens, (2) legal residents (he called them perpetual inhabitants), (3) legal visitors (he called them just inhabitants), (4) travelers, (5) emigrants, (6) expatriates, (7) asylum seekers (he calls them supplicants), (8) those who are involuntarily exiled from a country (forced to leave it “without a mark of infamy”), (9) those who voluntarily exile themselves from a country, and (10) those who are banished from a country (those who are forced to leave a country “with a mark of infamy annexed”). Id. Sec. 213-29.

He also states that a nation, having the right to protect its safety and “natural liberty,” has the right to decide who it will admit into its territory. (11) Id. Sec. 230.

All these concepts as expressed by Vattel are part and parcel of our immigration law today which expresses these concepts as follows:

(1) naturalized citizens, (2) legal permanent residents, (3) visitors, (4) visitors, (5) emigrants and immigrants, (6) expatriates, (7) refugees/asylees (8) those who are given the privilege of “voluntary departure” rather then removed or deported under our immigration laws, (9) refugees/asylees, (10) those who are “removed” (formerly called “deported”) from the U.S. under our immigration laws.

We characterize in our immigration laws the right and power of the U.S. under No. 11 as the U.S. being able to decide who is or is not admissible into the country. These are not the only subjects which the Founders and later Congresses incorporated into our Constitution and naturalization laws. There are many more but I will not go into those areas at this time.

Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British subject when he was born in Kenya. When Obama Jr. was born in 1961, his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father a British subject. At the time of his birth, his father, being in the U.S. only on a temporary basis to study, was not even a permanent resident or immigrant.

When Obama was born, under the same British Nationality Act of 1948, he automatically became a British subject by descent from his father. Obama Jr., having a British father and being born a British subject himself, along with presumably being a United States citizen under a liberal and probably erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment (if he was born in the U.S.), was born with multiple allegiances and therefore fails the law of nations test and is not eligible under Article II to be President.

Moreover, given how Obama has so far comported himself and poorly represented the interests of the United States internationally, I doubt that he knows and appreciates that he “ought therefore to love [America] . . .” and “express a just gratitude to it, and requite its service as far as possible by serving it in turn.” Vattel.

Only our courts and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court are able to tell America what a “natural born Citizen” is, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The fate and future of and what type of nation America is going to be is all in their hands. In our Constitutional Republic, we have to allow due process to take its course and wait for their decision.

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. Also, 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].

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

~ ~ ~ ~

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/06/update-on-kerchner-et-als-v-obama-et.html