The True Meaning and Interpretation of Article II "natural born Citizen

Post & Email ^ | Nov. 4, 2010 | Jedi Pauly

[STE=Q]

I wish to undertake a critical analysis of the incomplete works of attorneys Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, and Mario Apuzzo, concerning the meaning and definition of "natural born Citizen" within the political context and intent of Article II. It is my contention that none of the attorneys working on exposing the illegal usurper known as Barack Obama have described any valid theory of law that properly explains why Obama cannot possibly qualify to be President under Article II. I will show what I believe are their mistakes and limitations and expose their incomplete efforts as failed hypotheses rather than valid correct legal theories. I will then state the correct and complete legal theory that I believe clearly defines "natural born Citizen" within the context and intent of Article II and show how and why Obama cannot possibly qualify for the office of President.

[gunnyg]

edrivera.com

[Kleon]

Wow, even other birthers keep a safe distance between your arguments and themselves.

[Tex-Con-Man]

Birther Kleagle bushpilot1 wrote...

"It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendents of the White Europeans who formed the country.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2620065/posts?page=26#26

What say you?

[patlin]

Mario,

You do great work, however, you consistently have neglected the natural right of "expatriation" in your augments & writings. Expatriation is the "KEY" to proving that the founders & colonists had thrown off the feudal law of 'jus soli' & adopted the natural law of 'jus sanguinis'. When you write about the 14th, you can not define its meaning without the addition of the sister Act to it that was passed just mere days after the 14th was ratified. Without this right of expatriation, natural law citizenship does not exist and this right was proclaimed at the onset of the revolutionary war when people of the colonies had to make a choice, British or American, they couldn't claim both. This is the law of nature, man makes the choice, not the soil and thus it is the natural law citizenship that was adopted by our founders, not the feudal law of allegiance to a single person who claims ownership over the soil...

[DoctorBulldog]

Good points and I don’t blame you for wanting to wash your hands of Orly Taitz...

Also, don’t forget that even if Obama had legal claim to a Natural Born citizen designation, Obama gave up his NB Citizenship status when he went to Kenya-—the other half of his dual citizenship-—and actively campaigned for Odinga.

Even the much ballyhooed “United States v. Wong Kim Ark” agrees with that!

Cheers

[patlin]

Jedi Pauly wrote the most sexist article on the subject I have seen thus far. I doubt Jedi has even read any of the laws on citizenship written at the time which makes Jedi's claims that much more offensive.

I use the phrase “a right based on natural law” in the sense that a “Natural Born Citizen” has the “natural right” to run for President Of The United States — providing he meets the other requirements of age etc.

Under natural law, a female is under the tuition of the father until she marries. Until then, she is a member of the society in in which her father is a member of. On the day she marries, she leaves the father & joins the society of her husband whom she is now under the protection of.

“In the eyes of the law, the two become one” Justice James Wilson, 1st US Supreme Court

In natural law, no one has a quote, “RIGHT” to citizenship. They have a choice at the coming of age what society they choose to align themselves too. Until a child is of age, that child is the “subject” of the parents because it can not speak for itself. The child owes obedience to the parents & the society in which the parents are members AND the laws of nature dictate the parents owe protection to the child during until it reaches the age of reason that is set by the positive laws of the society. In America, at the time of the founding, it was 21. Sure, the child may have been considered a member of the local society in which the parents were members of, but politically, it was the child's choice to make upon emancipation form the parents. Take that which he naturally was connected to through blood or travel and find another. It is all based on the consent of the individual.

Period, end of lesson. No rights involved, it is as the Law of Nature and of Nature's God intended it to be. There is no right, but there is a choice.

[STE=Q]

What they both fail to realize is that none of the U.S. Supreme Court cases have done anything at all to change the meaning and interpretation of Article II. They could not even if they wanted to, because it requires a Constitutional Amendment to change Article II, not a judge’s opinion or a statute from Congress.

"This is a rather bold statement. Courts have interpreted the meaning of the Constitution ever since Marbury v. Madison and will continue to do so."

============================================================

The problem is the meaning and interpretation of the "Natural Born Citizen" clause -- in Article II -- is based on Natural law.

If Natural law can be "interpreted" out of the constitution, then the constitution becomes "just a piece of parchment"... writ and un-writ, according to the ever changing whims of man.

Forget separation of church and state.

The subverter's would like to separate the constitution from Natural law; thus making our unalienable, Natural rights --bestowed by a "creator" -- alienable and subject to the State.

In short, the sovereignty -- the liberty -- of "the people" is being transfered to the State.

The State then takes the place of a "creator" that has bestowed "unalienable rights"

To the contrary, the rights the State "bestows" are alienable and can be taken away, at a moments notice, by same.

The stakes are high and our liberty hangs in the balance.

"A CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT ONCE CHANGED FROM FREEDOM, CAN NEVER BE RESTORED. LIBERTY, ONCE LOST, IS LOST FOREVER." ~JOHN ADAMS

STE=Q

[curiosity]

It is my contention that none of the attorneys working on exposing the illegal usurper known as Barack Obama have described any valid theory of law that properly explains why Obama cannot possibly qualify to be President under Article II.

Of course. That's because there exists no such valid theory. Unfortuantely, he qualifies, and no amount of wishful thinking to the contrary will change that. Now stop wasting your time and energy on this dead end, and work to defeat him at the ballot box in 2012.

[centurion316]

Every single word in the Constitution may be changed:

1. Judicial interpretation (establishment clause, commerce clause

2. Amendment (Amendments 1 through n)

3. Constitutional Convention (yet to occur)

There are no exceptions for “natural law” whatever that means.

[STE=Q]

I use the phrase “a right based on natural law” in the sense that a “Natural Born Citizen” has the “natural right” to run for President Of The United States — providing he meets the other requirements of age etc.

"In natural law, no one has a quote, “RIGHT” to citizenship. They have a choice at the coming of age what society they choose to align themselves too."

============================================================

I simply defined my terms.

A "RIGHT" based on Natural law is a Natural -- intrinsic -- indelible right.

It goes without saying that a Natural RIGHT can be exercised -- or not -- at the discretion of the individual, at the coming of age.

In fact, expatriation is itself a Natural Right -- as you pointed out in post #24

I believe one has a Natural right to self defense.

Does that mean one can't "choose" to be a pacifist?

Of course not!

There is no right, but there is a choice.

There may be both a Natural right AND a choice.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

"Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the NATURAL rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind"... James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

There are no exceptions for “natural law” whatever that means.

Whatever that means?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?... cynical?... or did you simply forget the sarcasm tag?

STE=Q

[patlin]

A man has a quote “natural right” under natural law to belong to “A SOCIETY” as man can not exist without it. Now naturally that would be the one he was born into through his parent's membership in that society, but ultimately it is his choice. The term “Natural” "ONLY" comes into play when the parents do not belong to another society, thus there was no foreign society that could claim the child as one of their own.

This was not the case of Obama. He clearly had a choice between 2 societies in which he was born into according to current US interpretation of the 14th. The 14th was NOT law in 1789 when A21C5 qualifications were written because at the moment of his birth to married parents, the father being British, Great Britain could claim him as one of their own if war should break out between the US & GB.

US Circuit Court, District of Columbia, 1808:
Contee v. Godfrey, 6 Fed. Cas. 361 (#3140) (U.S.C.C. D.C. 1808), denied that the British-born daughter of an American antenatus who had chosen the British side could claim citizenship under the statute 7 Anne c. 5 (discussed in Kettner, Am. Citizenship, 20) which in English law had extended subjectship to the foreign-born children of subjects. In this case, the parent’s choice of alienage (before the daughter’s birth) clearly affected the descendant.

[STE=Q]

A man has a quote “natural right” under natural law to belong to “A SOCIETY” as man can not exist without it. Now naturally that would be the one he was born into through his parent's membership in that society, but ultimately it is his choice. The term “Natural” "ONLY" comes into play when the parents do not belong to another society, thus there was no foreign society that could claim the child as one of their own.

This was not the case of Obama. He clearly had a choice between 2 societies in which he was born into according to current US interpretation of the 14th. The 14th was NOT law in 1789 when A21C5 qualifications were written because at the moment of his birth to married parents, the father being British, Great Britain could claim him as one of their own if war should break out between the US & GB.

US Circuit Court, District of Columbia, 1808: Contee v. Godfrey, 6 Fed. Cas. 361 (#3140) (U.S.C.C. D.C. 1808), denied that the British-born daughter of an American antenatus who had chosen the British side could claim citizenship under the statute 7 Anne c. 5 (discussed in Kettner, Am. Citizenship, 20) which in English law had extended subjectship to the foreign-born children of subjects. In this case, the parent’s choice of alienage (before the daughter’s birth) clearly affected the descendant.

Ah so!

Very interesting.

I hope that Mr. Apuzzo will take a look at your argument.

STE=Q

[Puzo1]

patlin,

I thought that you and I were done feuding but I see that I was mistaken.

It is some coincidence that your treatment of my position on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is so similar to that of Jedi. Like I told Jedi, it might be a good idea to read my writings before posting on the internet what my position is or is not on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Your “compliment” that I do “great work” rings so hollow and insincere given that you state falsehoods regarding my position and attack me with no basis.

You say that I have “consistenly neglected the natural right of ‘expatriation’ in [my] arguments & writings.” Here is what I wrote on my blog in August 20, 2009:

“The English common law had no concern for whether a person consented to be declared a “natural born subject.” This phenomenon was made much worse by the British not allowing any “natural born subjects” to expatriate and forcing them to be bound to the King for life through their perpetual natural allegiance. The English common law provided for perpetual natural allegiance which a subject could never renounce (once a British subject always a British subject). The English common law did not allow for a “natural born subject” to elect upon becoming of age another citizenship. English common law did not recognize a “natural born subject” as losing his or her allegiance to the King through the act of naturalizing in another country. But U.S. common law and statutes provided that an alien or U.S. citizen could expatriate and become a different citizen from that which he/she was born. For the Founders, consent was the foundation of citizenship. It was through that consent that the Founders expected U.S. citizens to give their absolute and sole allegiance to the U.S. This consent which was expressed as a transfer of allegiance to the U.S. was also critical to an alien becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. It was expatriation that allowed foreigners to come to America, naturalize, and procreate a child on U.S. soil, which allowed that child to be born with sole allegiance and loyalty to the U.S. and eligible to be President. The Founders’ knowledge of consent as the basis for citizenship and acceptance of expatriation and election of citizenship upon becoming of age, had their source in the law of nations and not in the English common law which did not involve itself with these concepts.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 20, 2009

Mario Apuzzo, ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is (August 20, 2009)
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

Here is what I wrote on May 19, 2010:

“A “natural born subject” under English common law could never renounce his or her allegiance. Mannie Brown explained the “old common-law doctrine Nemo potest exuere patriam by quoting Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case: “Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth-right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign.” Mannie Brown, Expatriation of Infants, University of Toronto Press 97 (1939). But as we have seen above, in his 1799 citizenship law Jefferson wrote that a person could exercise his “natural right of expatriating himself” “whensoever” he saw fit to do so. Jefferson included in his law a right in a person to relinquish his citizenship in a manner prescribed by law. This right was known as the right to expatriate which was not only alien to English common law but forbidden by it. Jefferson’s idea that a person could renounce allegiance to the country of his or her birth was so accepted by early Congresses and society that Congress codified this right by passing the Naturalization Act of 1795 (1 Stat. 414, c. 20), which provided persons naturalizing in the United States to absolutely renounce and abjure all allegiance to any foreign prince or state and to support the Constitution. Over the years, there continued a debate in the courts whether an American citizen could expatriate himself or herself. The matter was finally settled in 1868, when Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1868 and Representative Woodward of Pennsylvania proclaimed that by doing so Congress had driven feudalism from our shores.

Jefferson’s views on a person having a right to expatriate reveal that he looked to natural law and the law of nations and Vattel rather than the English common law on questions of citizenship. In a letter dated June 12, 1817, to Dr. John Manners, Jefferson made his views on whether the English common law applied to such questions well known:

“To Doctor John Manners.

Monticello, June 12, 1817.

SIR

Your favor of May 20th has been received some time since, but the increasing inertness of age renders me slow in obeying the calls of the writing table, and less equal than I have been to its labors.

My opinion on the right of Expatriation has been, so long ago as the year 1776, consigned to record in the act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right expressly, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The evidence of this natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of kings. If he has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode; and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for each individual, the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness. It certainly does not exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, I might safely affirm, that there is not another nation, civilized or savage, which has ever denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another which refuses its exercise. I know it is allowed in some of the most respectable countries of continental Europe, nor have I ever heard of one in which it was not. How it is among our savage neighbors, who have no law but that of Nature, we all know. . . . “ http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1817.html. We can see how Jefferson was clear in stating the right to expatriate, like the right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness, was a natural right that came from God and not from the English common law. He also explained that the English common law was adopted by the states and was applied by them on local issues. But when it came to the national government, he stated that no such law was adopted. Hence, the right to expatriate could have come only from natural law rather than the English common law. As Jefferson applied natural law to the question of expatriation, he would have also applied it to defining a “natural born Citizen.” These historical writings show that Jefferson surely would not have considered a “natural born Citizen” to have the same meaning as an English common law “natural born subject.”

All this leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the Founders and Framers did not give the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning that the English common law gave to a “natural born subject.” For further information explaining that the Framers did not rely upon English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel to define a “natural born Citizen,” see my essay entitled, ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 19, 2010

Mario Apuzzo, A U.S. Constitution Article II “natural born Citizen” Is Not the Same As an English Common Law “natural born subject”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.html

These are two examples and I do not believe it is necessary in the interest of time that I go looking for more. As you can clearly see, you are wrong in saying that I do not address the issue of expatriation in my writings.

I do not understand why people like you and Jedi have to attack me (in error no less) in a feable effort to aggrandize yourselves. Just leave me out of your posts and just make your points. You and Jedi will have more credibility (whatever is left of it) among those who really know what is going on. The both of you really do not gain any points with well-informed persons when you make unjustified attacks against me.

One would think that you and Jedi (the grader of the works of attorneys who have risked their honor and careers to bring Obama to justice) would have something good to say about the Kerchner case and me given that I am now waiting to hear from the U.S. Supreme Court if they will grant my petition for a writ of certiorari. All this by you and Jedi should lead a reasonable person to doubt your true motives and loyalties.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

[patlin]

I wasn't feuding, geez get a grip.

Your posts are long, loaded with information and the right of expatriation gets lost in the shuffle. Expatriation is the “key” as it does not exist in English feudal law that had only been in place a short time compared to the long history of England. It was a huge part of the civil war in England in the mid 1600’s. While you expound on Vattel, you neglect Locke & Sidney who set the sparks flying. Those most distinguished Englishmen, one executed & the other escaped into exile, had much more to do with the actual revolution & why it happened as their works focus on natural law, while Vattel focused on the Law of Nations. Locke & Sidney are the seeds that sprouted the knowledge of true natural law as it originally existed in England well before feudal law was incorporated. So, while you focus on Vattel who was oh so important as the founders were dealing with 13 sovereign nation states, you neglect English history which is key to understanding why the founders even went looking for Vattel. They read Locke and Sidney as youth, they knew of the civil war in England in the mid 1600’s & most importantly, they had been taught the heritage of their forefathers and of the days when England first began & wasn't under feudal law.

Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, signer of both the Declaration & the Constitution, 2nd only to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution...

Date: 1791

English law has its roots in Anglo-Saxon customs, which were too firmly established to be completely broken by the Norman Conquest and still form the basis of their common law today. In 1068, having at last reduced the country to submission, William set to work to establish a Roman government on a firm and lasting basis. Roman law, the legal system of ancient Rome is now the basis of civil law, one of the main European legal systems...

I know that the term citizen is often applied to one of the more numerous party—to one of the people: and I shall be obliged to take the description of a citizen from the character which he supports as one of the people. But you will easily perceive, that the same person may, at different times, act or be viewed in different characters; and though his description be taken from one of them, the account of his duties and of his rights too may, on a particular occasion, be referred to the other. This I have chosen to do, rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification. Besides, the expression is frequently employed also in the sense in which I now use it. “Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”

A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights ; but his legislative I consider as his characteristic right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union : for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen...

You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.

[Puzo1]

First you said, “you [meaning me] consistently have neglected the natural right of “expatriation” in your augments & writings.” I prove you wrong and you fail to admit it. In your effort to deflect attention away from your error, now you argue “[w]hile you expound on Vattel, you neglect Locke & Sidney who set the sparks flying.” You really do not give up do you.

Well, you say that my “posts are long, loaded with information and the right of expatriation gets lost in the shuffle.” I do not see how my explanation of the expatriation doctrine got lost anywhere. It is clearly written there and anyone could have read it. But you refuse to admit that you did not and rather just continue with more baseless attacks against me.

Also, you complain my posts are long and now you also complain that I did not speak about Locke and Sidney. So you wished that my post were longer if you also want me to write on those historical figures. So which way do you want it?

You speak about Justice Wilson who is very important in understanding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” You snidely (”oh so important”) attempt to undercut the importance of Vattel and rather put forward a theory that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” may be found in English history and Locke and Sidney who focused on natural law rather than Vattel who focused on the law of nations. You fail to show any connection between English history and Locke and Sidney and a “natural born Citizen.” You also fail to realize that both Jefferson and Wilson, among the many Founders and Framers, looked to Vattel as the master on explaining natural law and the law of nations which they believed had a divine origin and was therefore immutable and binding. And it was in Vattel’s Law of Nations Section 212 that he defined what a “natural born citizen” (”naturels, ou indigenes” in French which we know is equivalent to “natural born citizens” or “natives” or “indigenes” in English) is.

You also fail to realize that natural law and the law of nations existed well before English history and Locke and Sidney. The law of nations developed from jus gentium which was a Roman concept. Roman lawyers came to believe that jus gentium, since it was based on universal principles and was common among nations, was the lost law of nature. Cicero, a very famous Roman lawyer and orator, who was one of the Founders and Framers (especially Jefferson and Wilson) favorite, wrote extensively on natural law. I could go on at length on this point but it is not necessary for my purpose here.

Again, I do not know what your and Jedi’s motive is regarding why you feel compelled to prove me wrong in any way that you can. Again, I do not know who you or Jedi are and would recommend that if either of you have something that you want to share with the public or me on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” just do it without trying to prove that you know this subject better than me.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

[patlin]

AGAIN, I was not feuding with you, I was stating MY opinion. So, what are you now, the birther police chief who determines who can or can not have an opinion?

Me thinks you doth protest too much, especially against those on the same side of the argument. The term “natural born” appeared in English law well before Vattel & well before feudal law that arose after the Norman Conquest. The tern “natural born” was written in text books & commentaries on natural law that were embedded into the minds of the framers well before Vattel’s 1st edition of the Law of Nations in 1758. Where do you think the English originally got it from? Vattel was important because his works affirmed the century's old doctrine of the natural law nations that began with Adam & Eve.

Again, Vattel was important because his works are on the laws of nations according to natural law. At the declaration, each state became a quote “sovereign NATION state”, each with the right to make their own laws, including those of citizenship as at that time there was NO federal citizenship. The states determined immigration based on the needs of their own sovereign state & thus Vattel was brought in. His works were the epitome of the subject, even by Brits who cited Vattel in their records of “The House of Commons”, British Parliament, especially during the wars they. Vattel took natural law, written by many earlier philosophers on the subject and brought it together in one neat little set of works that also included the law of nations. This had never been done before. AND if you actually go to Congressional records, you will find that Pufenfdorf, Locke & Grotius are more widely used when speaking of natural rights of citizens and who those citizens are.

John Adams:

A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern Englishmen, to mention in their company, the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke...You and I, my dear friend, have been sent into fife, at a lime when the greatest lawgivers of antiquity would have wished to have lived. How few of the human race have ever enjoyed an opportunity of making an election of government more than of air, soil or climate, for themselves or their children.

[Puzo1]

You can have all the opinions you want. Just don’t make them at my expense.

[patlin]

The international law and custom of ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1 By Coleman Phillipson (1911)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zb0yAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA264&dq=Rome,+natural+born&hl=en&ei=JhnWTPbyEpGonQe1koHBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[patlin]

You need to get over yourself & your self imperialistic attitude that no one has a right to any other opinion than that of which you write...

FYI...If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.