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
Sez who?
Name one US Statute, or one US Supreme Court Case, or one Section of the Constitution, or even one quote from the Federalist Papers that says we have three flavors of Citizenship in this country, (1) Natural Born, (2) Born Here Yet Somehow Not Natural Born, and (3) Naturalized.
The 14th Amendment says 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States Citizens are either born or naturalized. Period. Either join the "BO is a Kenyan, and in illegal alien" crowd, or suck it up.
How about doing some homework before going out and showing your ignorance?
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/craig-v-us-10th-circuit-court-of-appeals-held-08-05-2009-14th-amendment-native-born-citizens-have-no-constitutional-right-to-natural-born-citizen-status/
CRAIG V. US – 10th Circuit Court of Appeals – HELD (08.05.2009): 14th Amendment native born citizens have no Constitutional right to natural born citizen status.
Posted on August 24, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
Steven Craig recently brought a law suit – Craig v. United States – in the Western District of Oklahoma where he argued that he was deprived of a Constitutional right to be determined a “natural born citizen”. His argument was based on the fact that Congress has specifically determined who is a naturalized citizen but as to natural born citizens there is no concrete answer.
Mr. Craig was essentially trying to force the courts into making a judicial definition of “natural born citizen” by asserting that without such a definition Mr. Craig is deprived of his legacy status as a natural born citizen.
This was a novel attempt, but as I have recently told Mr. Craig, natural born citizen status is not a protected civil right. In fact, it’s not a right at all. And as such he could not expect to prevail as the court would not have subject matter jurisdiction. Without a deprivation of rights, the court has no claim to adjudicate. Furthermore, I explained to Mr. Craig that he does not meet the federal standing requirements in that his alleged injury is no different than millions of other citizens.
Mr. Craig’s suit was dismissed by the District Court. In the Court of Appeals (10th Circuit), the dismissal was upheld. The court rejected the case on the basis that they had no subject matter jurisdiction since there was no injury in fact as none of Mr. Craig’s rights were harmed. It was also held that Mr. Craig did not have standing. As stated above, this came as no surprise to me.
However, a rather incredible turn of events has taken place and Mr. Craig’s law suit has actually advanced the cause of POTUS eligibility truth by accident. Or, perhaps Mr. Craig knew he was backing the courts into a corner just by bringing this suit because as it turns out, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed the movement its greatest judicial victory thus far. Mr. Craig deserves a round of applause for his novel attempt which appears to have forced a very important judicial admission from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
RECAP OF RECENT MEDIA BIAS
Let’s stop here for a second and consider all of the recent media ridicule and propaganda which has attempted to paint the natural born citizen POTUS eligibility issue in discriminatory tones. Obama pundits argue that all “native born” citizens have the right to be President and that we shouldn’t discriminate based on parental heritage as that would deprive civil rights.
The problem with their analysis is that there is no “right” to be president. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees.
And that’s what I’ve been saying all along. POTUS eligibility being limited to natural born citizens is not a an issue of civil rights, it’s an issue of national security.
The Obama eligibility pundits demand that all citizens born on US soil – despite whether they be born of alien parentage – have a Constitutional right to be President in that it would be a deprivation of their civil rights if natural born citizen status is not granted to them.
This is the mantra of those who support that Obama is a natural born citizen even though Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth via his father who was never a US citizen.
But the status of “natural born citizen” is not a right owed to native born US citizens. In fact, it’s not a right owed to any US citizen because nbc status is simply not in any way, shape or form a “right” at all.
QUESTION: If natural born citizen status is not a right then what is it?
ANSWER: It’s a description of a certain path to citizenship.
There are various paths to citizenship:
- naturalized citizen
- 14th Amendment native born citizen
- statutory citizen
- natural born citizen
All of the above citizens have exactly the same rights.
This is undeniable and SCOTUS has confirmed it on numerous occasions. A naturalized US citizen has every damn right that natural born citizens have bar none.
THE 10th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVIEW OF CRAIG v. US
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals described Mr. Craig’s claim as follows:
Though it is somewhat difficult to distill Mr. Craig’s arguments on appeal, he continues to assert that due to the lack of a legal definition for natural-born citizen, the existence of citizens who are naturally born, as understood by the Constitution’s Framers, is no longer acknowledged. According to Mr. Craig, this has resulted in the “involuntary expatriation” of those whom he believes fall into this category of citizens… He further argues that the district court should legally define “natural born Citizen” in an effort to prevent the deprivation of citizenship legacy, as contemplated by the Constitution, and the diminution of his and purported class members’ “rights and intrinsic property as . . . multi-generational citizen[s].”
10th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING:
The district court correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over this case…
Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig’s claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such “right” (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.
That’s an incredible holding. It simply crushed the mantra which cries that 14th Amendment native born citizens have a legal right to be deemed natural born citizens. According to this holding, not even a native born US citizen like Mr. Craig – whose parents were both US citizens at the time of his birth – has a right to obtain certification of natural born citizen status.
Furthermore, the court unequivocally stated that the claim was not grounded in a Constitutional or federal question.
The Court quotes the following case law to support its position:
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1…
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824))…
That quote from Schneider v. Rusk is very important. It states that the rights of all citizens, naturalized or native born are equal. It carefully uses those two terms in discussing equal rights. But the Supreme Court used a different term than “native born” in the next sentence as to Presidential eligibility where they indicate that the only thing which separates natural born citizens from all naturalized citizens and those native born citizens who do not rise to nbc status is the ability to be President.
The 10 Circuit Court of Appeals holding makes it clear that there is no right to be deemed a natural born citizen. Mr. Craig does not have that right and his law suit to protect that right was correctly dismissed. If Mr. Craig, a native born US citizen born of citizen parents has no right to be deemed a natural born citizen, then no other native born US citizen has that right, not even Obama.
QUESTION: Why is it important that there is no right to be deemed a natural born citizen?
ANSWER: Because you can’t be President unless you are a natural born citizen but no court has ever answered the question of who can be President.
QUESTION: Then how can we determine who meets the natural born citizen requirement of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 ?
ANSWER: By Constitutional amendment or federal judicial review of the issue with the Courts examining all relevant evidence.
That hasn’t happened yet.
All the media reports and propaganda stating all the various liberal definitions concerning natural born citizen status are bogus. Both SCOTUS in Schneider v. Rusk and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Craig v US have unequivocally stated that all citizens have equal rights. Therefore, natural born citizen status and the legal eligibility to be POTUS is not a protected right available to any citizen.
If you are President and there exists a legitimate challenge to your eligibility then the courts should be called upon to adjudicate the issue because the phrase “natural born citizen” is specifically written into the Constitution. Under our Constitution, the voters do not decide the meaning of this provision. The media does not have that power either. Only the courts or the Congress through an amendment can decide the issue.
If a President’s eligibility is in doubt and that doubt has a fair grounding in the legal and foundational history of the nation, then the federal courts should hear the issue.
The fact that the courts have refused to hear every single case on the merits tells you that the Constitution is under attack. If Obama retains his position as POTUS without a judicial determination then he will have set a precedent for future generations to be governed by the sons of foreign leaders who hate America.
How do you feel about Kim Jong Il fathering a child with an American woman who gives birth on US soil? Should that child be eligible to be Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces? The same goes for children of Osama Bin Laden.
If that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, then this is the twilight zone and I need to go home now.
As was stated in both SCOTUS cases, Minor v. Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark, the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen” so we must look outside the Constitution for that definition. Obama supporters have a certain body of law and commentary they point to in support of their position that he is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be POTUS.
On the other hand, people like myself have a body of law and various historical commentaries which make a very strong case that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS. I will be publishing some incredible research on this issue by a group who has been forwarding me some rather incredible historical finds on this issue.
The simple truth is that the most important safeguard of our national security – the President of the United States – is only eligible to that office if the Constitutional requirements are met. But in our entire history of a nation, this issue has never been judicially determined.
SCOTUS in Minor and Wong Kim Ark – both decided years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment – tell us the definition of natural born citizen is not written into the Constitution. Any attempt to simplify the issue by stating that all 14th Amendment native born citizens are also POTUS eligible on that basis is a fraudulent statement.
The issue is in serious need of litigation. It’s in the best interest of the nation to have the issue settled because this is no joke. If Obama’s eligibility is not heard on the merits in our judicial system, then the answer to who is a natural born citizen will be settled by virtue of Obama being President.
97 Comments »
Yeah, several people have killed trees filing law suits in Federal Courts. That just shows that they are (1) clueless, or (2) deliberately trying to mislead people. They should have bothered to read the Constitution. The House of Representatives shall ... have the sole Power of Impeachment. Art. 3 Section 2. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. Art. 2 Section 3.
No, I don't' believe for a minute that their cases have any merit, but it is indisputable that the only legal way to remove the President of the United States from office is to have him impeached by Congress. They impeached a Federal Judge/convicted felon a few weeks ago, but he remained a Federal Judge, with full pay and benefits, right up until the moment 2/3 of the Senate voted to boot him out of office.
BO could announce, at his upcoming address to Congress, that he was indeed born in Kenya, show a black and white home movie of the blessed event, introduce the Doctor who delivered him, and produce an original Kenyan birth certificate, complete with his new born foot print on it, and no court in this Country could touch him. He would remain President until successfully impeached.
This isn't going anywhere people.
Of course, and that is why the Usurper has spent $ 1.400 000 NOT to have to release his birth certificate, and why his accomplices do everything they can to kill the issue.
The American people would certainly not react if they knew for sure that their so-called “President” is a Usurper, and the Law Enforcement would obey him quite the same.
You have an uncanning unability to see the forest from the trees, but unfortunately all Socialists are not that way.
And that, of course, is called “changing the subject”.
For those who understand what the issues are about.
The money isn't coming from his pocket...and it doesn't look like they have to try very hard. Not a single case has made it to within spitting distance of trial.
I seriously doubt that all of his legal fees since the election have been related to this eligibility issue, which has never entered a courtroom.
Oh, really? Looks like me like desperation. "We have no plan but, hey, we read on someone's blog that according to the mutterings of an 18th century Swiss philosopher, Obama isn't eligible so vote for us! Anyways, he was born in Kenya! A Moldavian dentist from southern California has pictures of his birth certificate!"
You can't be serious.
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.
If you haven't noticed, there aren't any notable Republicans who have jumped aboard the Birther train to crazytown. Wouldn't they be just as complicit?
The Birther path to conservative victory! Man, you guys are a hoot!
What other lawsuits has there been?
It's not just about lawsuits. There are all kinds of matters he might seek legal help with. The same article states that McCain spent $1.4 million on legal fees during the campaign.
This is speculation, as oppose to an assessment made by professional journalists.
obumpa
Being "sworn in" is a misnomer. The requirement in the Constitution is to take the specified oath, before entering into the execution of the office. However given that one has satisfied the requirements, one becomes President at noon, January 20th, or upon completely satisfying the requirements if that is later. Those requirements are: 35 years old or older, 14 years a resident of the US, a natural born citizen of the US, get a majority of the electoral votes, and having sworn the oath. The oath itself could be done on paper only, but if administered orally, it need not be done by the Chief Justice, or any justice for that matter. LBJ was sworn by a federal district court judge in Dallas, aboard AF1. Other Presidents have had the oath administered by other than a Supreme Court justice. it's not like a coronation.
If someone not a natural born citizen, or under 35, or less than 14 years a citizen swears the oath, it means nothing. They are still not President, because they are not eligible to BE President.
Clinton was impeached. That part worked fine. The Senate, who are supposed to conduct a trial, failed to even look at the evidence. Instead they disputed whether the charges themselves merited removal.
Bears repeating, over and over again.
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.