Posted on 09/02/2009 6:56:50 AM PDT by Vincent Jappi
Having just won a revolution, the Founders were faced with constituting a new nation. Under the constitutional plan devised by the Founders, they had to identify who were the members of the new nation. They called these members “citizens” of the United States. Thus, they created our first generation of United States “citizens.” These persons were either born abroad or in the British colonies before July 4, 1776 or abroad or in the new States thereafter, but in all cases inhabited one of the colonies or States and were loyal to the American revolution. The Founders under Article II grandfathered these original “citizens” to be eligible to be President. Under this plan, once the new nation had its first generation “citizens,” it was placed in position to have in the future its Article II “natural born Citizens,” who would be born in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution and descend from mothers and fathers who were both original “citizens.” Given that America was already a land of immigrants and that the Founders expected that many more immigrants would come to its shores in search of a new life and to share in its vast resources, t hey gave Congress in Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 the power to naturalize aliens and thereby create more future first generation United States “citizens.” Having become a naturalized “citizen,” one would then be in a position to procreate with another “citizen” (born or similarly naturalized) a “natural born Citizen” who would be eligible to be President.
Throughout American history, there have been no doubts or disputes as to who is a “natural born Citizen.” As we have seen, it was not English common law but the law of nations that became United States common law that defined a “natural born Citizen.” [Link to Prior Article on The Law of Nations and The Principles of Natural Law] It defined such a citizen as being born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens. It is this definition which our United States Supreme Court incorporated into our federal common law. It is this definition that creates subsequent generation “citizens” who are “natural born Citizens.” They are subsequent generation because born in the country to a mother and father who are citizens.
On the other hand, throughout our history, there have been doubts and disputes as to who may be a born “citizen” (as distinguished from a “natural born Citizen” or a naturalized citizen). These disputes have concerned the question of whether to be a “citizen,” must a child be simply born on U.S. soil and be subject to its jurisdiction, without any reference to the citizenship of the parents (jus soli which follows the old English common law), or must that child also be born to U.S. citizen parents (jus soli and jus sanguinis united which follows the law of nations’ definition and which any way only applies to “natural born citizens”). This dispute has concerned the question of whether we should declare a child a first generation “citizen” (in effect having the same status as one of the original first generation “citizens” which Article II grandfathered to be eligible to be President).
The dispute has not been with whether we should declare that child a subsequent generation “natural born Citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment settled who could be a “citizen” by bestowing such status upon those born in the United States or naturalized here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. “Citizens” who meet this Fourteenth Amendment definition can be either first or subsequent generation United States “citizens.” If first generation, they are simply “citizens.” If subsequent generation, they are not only “citizens” but also “natural born Citizens.” Congress has also declared who may be a born “citizen” through legislation and has thereby not only confirmed what is already stated in the Fourteenth Amendment but has also granted citizenship to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents (one or two). Senator McCain, being born in Panama, falls into the two United States-parent category. The question of whether foreign-born children, born to two United States parents and thus falling in this category (by definition they would be subsequent generation “citizens” but not born in the United States) are “natural born Citizens” has not been resolved by any Court. If such a child were born to just one United States citizen parent, he or she would not only acquire the allegiance and loyalty of the nation on whose soil he or she may be born but also that of his or her foreign parent’s nation and thereby further compromise his or her claim for “natural born Citizen” status.
A study of citizenship and nationality case law, statutes, treatises, and other sources shows that one acquires allegiance and loyalty through citizenship . Obama has admitted that under the British Nationality Act 1948 when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and not a U.S. citizen and that he himself was a British subject/citizen by descent from his father. Therefore, what is clear and established by his own factual admissions is that Obama cannot satisfy the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for he was born with allegiance and loyalty not only to the United States (assuming he was born here) but to the same degree also to Great Britain. The best that Obama can be is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” assuming that he was born in the United States and assuming that one born subject to a foreign power can also be born subject to the full and complete legal and political jurisdiction of the United States. In such a case, he would be a subsequent generation “citizen” through his American mother but only a first generation “citizen” because of his foreign father. If Obama was not born in the United States or if being born in the United States he was not born subject to its jurisdiction, then he is not even a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment or any applicable Congressional Act. Hence, we can see that Obama is missing the mandatory Article II constitutional status of being at a minimum a second generation “citizen” through both a citizen mother and citizen father. What creates further allegiance and loyalty problems for Obama is that his birthright British citizenship, which continues in effect until today, also allowed him to gain Kenyan citizenship from the age of 2 to the age of 21 or 23. Being 47 years old when he was elected, just his Kenyan allegiance and loyalty occupied him for almost one-half of his then life span.
It is Obama’s being only a first generation U.S. citizen because of his father not being a United States citizen at Obama’s birth that caused his divided allegiance and loyalty at birth (United States v. British and Kenyan) and disqualifies him to be President and Commander in Chief. It is through his father that Obama was born with allegiance and loyalty to Great Britain (which continues until today), which then converted to allegiance and loyalty to Kenya. It does not matter that his mother was a United States citizen because at birth Obama inherited allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power (Great Britain) from his father just as he would have inherited allegiance and loyalty to a foreign power if born to parents who were both non-United States citizens. By Obama’s mother being a United States citizen at his birth, Obama was just spared acquiring even another foreign allegiance and loyalty. Just like a naturalized citizen who--despite taking an oath renouncing all foreign allegiances and loyalties and which incidentally Obama has never done --cannot be President because he or she is born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, Obama, born with allegiance and loyalty to a foreign country, also cannot be President. All this leads to the inescapable conclusion that Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is therefore ineligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. 185 Gatzmer Avenue Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
Okay, let’s separate the issue and it how it drives the mentality of obama. obama did not grow up in America or spend his formative years in this country, as a result he doesn’t understand how Americans think. His alien thought process along with a sense of superiority is not a good mix and will eventually cost this nation dearly.
He has already turned the Federal Government in to a foriegn power as far as I am concerned.
How do we get rid of an unconstitutional usurper? Is that the question?
But he is president, and has been sworn in, and is acting as presdent and I think we need to deal with him on that level.
Best think to do is work toward conservative victories in ‘10, not argue about what we can not change.
Well written, well said!
Of course, if ACORN and their Marxist brethren let us have a fair election.
Meanwhile, all his policies should be completely defeated BEFORE and after '10. We can't wait to stop 0b0z0's agenda, which he's trying to implement at lightening speed.
Military ousting, just like the constitution says.
It doesn’t specify military, but who else?
Hawaii is a foreign power?
The first step is to understand rights are not granted by divinity but by force. After that, it all kinda falls into place.
The best way to defeat Acorn is to have huge conservative turn out, and wide margins.
The best way to defeat Barry is to challenge his agenda with facts.
As for his place of birth and his dual citizen ship the Umpire has made the call, and he was declared the winner. We need to make the winning of the election meaningless.
The Constitution should be the Umpire, not any other set of rules, interpretations, politics, fear of riots, etc.
I would say that the jury is still out on that. Meanwhile, we can walk and chew gum at the same time to defeat his agenda while demanding to see ALL the ghost's records, period.
BTW, i'm a ghoster not a birther.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
The key phrase is “one acquires allegiance and loyalty through citizenship.” I’m willing to believe that he was born in Hawaii until definite proof is produced that he was born outside the US. What bothers me is his seeming lack of allegiance and loyalty to the US. That well-known photo of him disrespecting the flag from a year or two ago (during the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem) says it all.
Presenting facts as to why Obamanation should be removed from office helps to build support to defeat the Dims in 2010. Arguing about policy will always have pros and cons, but to show that Obama is a criminal usurper and most of his party and administration are committing crimes against the Constitution can help build a ground swell of support to defeat them.
As I recall the idea that Clinton should be impeached for obstruction of justice did not work well for the Rebublicans.
I think I recall Newt taking it in the shorts for Clinton having an afair with Monica.
A mojority of Americans want a smaller government, and are ticked off about the bailouts. These are the chinks in thier armor. We are gaining traction with these arguments.
The birth and dual citezenship issues will get us now where.
That’s the ONLY question!!!
You ought to tell this to ALL the town hall meeting’s protesters, or maybe better you go back to the “greenery”???
The best way to defeat Barry is to challenge his agenda with facts.
As for his place of birth and his dual citizen ship the Umpire has made the call, and he was declared the winner. We need to make the winning of the election meaningless.
All are very noble intentions. However, that will NOT work when you are dealing with Chicago-Al-Capone-style politics, (trampling our Constitution,)NEVER!!!
You can PTL that you are not living in year 1776!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.