Screenshot of Sunday Standard article (click to enlarge)
An article in Kenyan daily The Sunday Standard from 2004 describes US President Barack Obama as “Kenyan-born,” leading some to conclude that knowledge of his true birthplace has been an open secret for years.
The Sunday Standard article, which is archived here, reports on Obama’s assent into the US Senate back in 2004.
Titled “Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate,” the opening paragraph is written as follows:
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider exposed Obama’s Republican rival, Jack Ryan, as having forced his wife, actress Jeri Ryan, to attend several swinger clubs against her will. The scandal was uncovered when Judge Schnider ordered that the Ryan’s divorce records be opened to the public at the request of The Chicago Tribune newspaper and local ABC affiliate WLS-TV.
Speculation on whether Obama is a natural born citizen grew during the 2008 US Presidential election, with a flurry of lawsuits demanding the Democrat Party candidate release his true birth certificate.
Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle ordered Obama’s birth certificate sealed back in October 2008.
Related posts:
Of course he is not American and clearly IS a Muslim.
It really doesn’t matter where Obama was born…
his father was not a citizen, so Obama is not a “natural born citizen”.
Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, as he claims, he was born with dual citizenship, which makes him a US citizen, but not a “natural born citizen.”
Don't dis me bitches. You ain't seen nuffin' yet!!
The citizenship of a parent or even of two parents does not affect the Natural Born Citizen status of a US citizen who was born in the USA.
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
Dual Citizenship has no effect either. To think that it does implies you believe that a foreign law can decide whether a US-born citizen is eligible to be president. Besides, foreign nationality laws are crazy. Some hold that the child of one of their citizens will continue to be a citizen even if the parent of the child had been naturalized before the child’s birth.
The citizenship of one parent or even of two parents does not affect the Natural Born Citizen status of a US citizen who was born in the USA.
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
Dual Citizenship has no effect either. To think that it does implies you believe that a foreign law can decide whether a US-born citizen is eligible to be president. Besides, foreign nationality laws are crazy. Some hold that the child of one of their citizens will continue to be a citizen even if the parent of the child had been naturalized before the child’s birth.
The reason that Obama’s election was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Congress is that not one member believed that dual nationality had any effect on Natural Born Citizen status. And, it doesn’t. To think that it does means you think that a foreign law can affect whether a US-born citizen is eligible to be president.
And, foreign laws are crazy. Some, such as those of Italy until recently, held that the children of its citizens continued to have citizenship in Italy even if their parents have been nationalized in the USA before the child was born in the USA.
The only people who can do anything about it is the Senate. Since the dems control it, no action will be taken. The two most important issues to ask candidates for Senate in November are; do you support repeal of Obamacare, and will you take action to remove Obama if he cannot prove his citizenship status?
GraniteD your arguments are exactly what the perpetrators of this elaborate strategy count on to thwart any evidence that might surface and to create the mockery of the “birther.those tin hat wearing racist conspirators”. No one person regardless of party affliation or power status can state simply that any one is or is not a natural born citizen without challenge. This is evidenced by the bill (I believe) s.2128 introduced in 2004. It was a bill for the purpose and intent to define once and for all the “definition of Natural born citizen in regard to the eligibility factor for the POTUS”. Barbara Boxer (D) stated the reason for this bill needed to be passed was “because court cases that could be used as precedents in defining the meaning of Natural Born in regards to eligibility for the POTUS are all over the place….and that we shouldn’t wait for a future election for this to be called into question”. A committee was set up to study but the bill never passed and here it is an election in which a Natural Born citizen eligibility factor is indeed called into question without resolve. If even one law suit were to make it to the Supreme Court and they were to rule on the intent of the wording honestly and without prejudice then they would find that George Washington’s letters of argument against any French person having rule over American colonists during the war would prove to show that Geo. Washington’s intent on this wording that if a President as Commander in Chief (the only office that rules the military) should have no conflicting allegiance to any other government or country other than his own. How could he wage war with his homeland and brothers and sisters in another country? Obama as a dual citizen would be found by a just Constitutional ruling to be ineligible as he has a conflicting allegiance to another country and other peoples other than America and is now demonstrating his “fundamentally” changing our laws to mirror those of another country. He lied under oath when he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States because he had already said in his book that he found the Constitution to be “fundamentally flawed”.
He has a plan and he is working that plan…not to be President but ruler of the world…everything he does is to that end.
Ugali for everyone!
The definition of a “natural born Citizen” comes from the law of nations which is not foreign law to the Founders and Framers. Rather, it was that law, which had its origins in natural law, and not the English common law that the Founders and Framers adopted as part of the the “Laws of the United States.” The “Law of Nations” is even mentioned in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution, where it says that Congress shall define and punish “Offenses against the Law of Nations.” No where does the Constitution say expressly or even by implication that the English common law is adopted as part of the “Laws of the United States.”
The Founders’ and Framers’ definition of a “natural born Citizen” may be found in the law of nations as commented on by Emer de Vattel in his highly influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1758 French edition, 1759 first English edition) and not in the inapplicable English common law. The Framers adopted the “Law of Nations” as part of Article III’s “Laws of the United States” but did not so adopt the English common law. We also know that under Article VI, the “Laws of the United States” which are made in pursuance of the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Under the law of nations, a “natural born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents, meaning both mother and father. Vattel, Sections 212-33. Under the law of nations, Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the military because, being born with conflicting allegiance to Great Britain which he inherited from his non-United States citizen father and possibly to the United States if he was born in Hawaii as he claims but has not shown, he cannot meet the Founders’ and Framers’ constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which requires the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth only to the United States which status is acquired at birth only if the child is born in the United States (or its equivalent) to a citizen mother and father.
Hi, Mario!
How much do you think the 3d Circuit is going to sanction you for being wrong? $5k? $10k?
Are you freaks for real? I guess a Jew or a Hindu will never get elected to any office…unless they convert to your robot religions. I would imagine you would issue uniforms and standards of appearance so we would all look exactly alike…I mean like white “Christians” of course.
I nominate Paul for dumbest comment of the week.
I find it interesting that some unhinged people hate President Obama so much that they now think that the President of the United States is subject to the laws of other countries and the whims of a dead swiss philosopher. If you like the laws of other countries so much then you are free to leave, I’ll stick with the Constitution and laws passed by the US Congress thank you. You lost, get over it
Hi Mario.
You have gone crazy if you really believe that the reference to the Law of Nations in the discussion of piracy in the Constitution refers to The Law of Nations by Vattel. Notice that the THE in that phrase is not capitalized in the Constitution. Law of Nations is capitalized, but then the Constitution also capitalized People, Union, Tranquility, Welfare, Liberty, Posterity, Powers, Members, Qualifications, Branch, Etc. In other words, the capitalization of Law of Nations was simply because the writers wanted to stress Law and Nations.
In other words, the section refers to the generic law of nations and not to Vattel’s book. Vattel, by the way is not mentioned at all in the Federalist Papers, which he surely would be if his book was mentioned in the Constitution. The Common Law, is however mentioned in the Constitution and about 20 times in the Federalist Papers. (And Jay wrote it into the first Constitution of the State of New York, in 1777.)
Yes, the writers of the Constitution did read Vattel, but they read a lot of other things too, in particular they read Blackstone. Vattel was a respected expert on International Law, but elections are not international law, they are domestic law, and Vattel says nothing about elections. Nor, for that matter does Vattel say anywhere in The Law of Nations that the leader of a country should have two citizen parents. He cites several cases of countries picking their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries (even those that spoke different languages), and he never says that that is a bad thing.
Vattel also did not use the words Natural Born Citizen. He said that an “indigines” had two citizen parents–but what is an indigines? To be sure, some people can translate an indigines as a Natural Born Citizen, but it could just mean an indiginous person. It is an assumption of the translator TEN years after the Constitution that Vattel meant Natural Born Citizen. Citizen is citoyen in French, and natural is naturel and born is ne’.
So what did the translator do when he translated “indigines” as Natural Born Citizen. He simply added the fact that the person was a citizen to the fact that the person was born in the country. That is the meaning of Natural Born Citizen EVEN in the translation of Vattel. To be sure, persons who have two citizen parents and are born in the country are natural born citizens, but ALL citizens who are born in the country are Natural Born Citizens.
Citizens who are cross-eyed are cross-eyed citizens, and citizens who are left-handed are left-handed citizens, and citizens who were born in Ohio are Ohio-born citizens, and citizens who are Natural Born are Natural Born Citizens.
At the time all the leaders of America used the term Natural Born simply to mean “born in the country.’ It was the expression used at the time instead of Native Born, which was not a popular expression. In extensive searches into the writings of Hamilton, John Adams, Wilson and Jefferson, I cannot find a single case where Natural Born was used to mean “two citizen parents.” It ALWAYS was used to indicate that the citizen or subject was born within the country.
IN a draft of a proposed treaty, Franklin, Adams, Jay and Livingstone wrote a section that would make a Natural Born Subject of Britain receive all the rights of a Natural Born citizen of the USA when visiting the USA and vice versa. This could hardly mean that in the USA Natural Born meant “two citizen parents” while we know that in Britain it meant “born in the country.” If it did, the US would be offering any person born in Britain more than a US-born citizen with one or two foreign parents would receive in return.
This is just one of MANY examples. Hamilton, for example, lists only two kinds of citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized.
There is NO question that the Natural Born Citizen clause was adopted to protect against foreign influence, as Jay recommended. The evidence is overwhelming however that the writers of the Constitution thought that barring foreigners from being president and barring naturalized citizens from being president was sufficient for this purpose. Further proof of this is Madison saying that there is only ONE criterion of allegiance in the USA, the place of birth. This fits with Blackstone, who held that a person could not have divided allegiance but only one allegiance, to the country of birth.
By the way, I suggest you check whether Scalia and Alito are Natural Born Citizens according to the dual citizenship side of what you are saying. They MAY have been born after their father was naturalized (but before or after, they are likely to ask “what difference does it make?”), but Italian law for a long time, until quite recently actually, held that the children of its citizens were still citizens of Italy EVEN IF THEIR PARENTS WERE NATURALIZED BEFORE THEY WERE BORN.
The idea that if a foreign country considers the children of its citizens to be citizens and another foreign country does not consider the children of its citizens to be citizens influences the Constitution of the United States is a silly and anti-conservative idea. It means that a foreign law can stop someone from being eligible while the absence of such a law allows that person to be eligible. Madison and Blackstone would laugh at that idea.
Oh, and on the two-parent side of the allegation: The legal parents or the real DNA parents? Vattel, a natural law philosopher, surely would have argued for the latter, but then how do you test future candidates? Do they have to prove that their fathers were really their fathers?
RE: “Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA… “
Defining the NBC is not the function of Congress and even less of the function of the individual members of Congress. It is interpretation of law, reserved for the Judicial Branch.
What ever Hatch, Graham or Boxer have said has absolutely no legal meaning. Their statements show their incompetence. Even Congress can not change the NBC clause unilaterally; they would have to go through the process of a constitutional amendment.
However, Congress could demand SCOTUS to define NBC. In that case SCOTUS would have difficulty practicing what Alen Keyes calls “dereliction of duty” and avoid ruling on merit.
Mr. Apuzzo, would you please comment, and correct me if I am wrong?
RE: “By the way, I suggest you check whether Scalia and Alito are Natural Born Citizens …”
Scalia and Alito do not have to be NBC to hold their office. They only have to be citizens.
Re: “Defining the NBC is not the function of Congress and even less of the function of the individual members of Congress. It is interpretation of law, reserved for the Judicial Branch. ”
I am saying that the judicial branch, the Supreme Court, would vote seven to two or eight to one (if they ever called the case, which requires four justices) that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because even the conservative members of the court believe that the original meaning of Natural Born was “born in the country.” And, I am saying that if the allowed the case to be heard, even the conservative members of the court would laugh at the any lawyer who argues the two-fer side.
That is because the example of Hatch and Graham show that the interpretation of Natural Born as “born in the country” is held OVERWHELMINGLY.
Re Scalia and Alito, of course they do not have to be Natural Born Citizens, but unless they had proof from the actual words of the law or from the writings of American leaders at the time of the writing of the Constitution that “Natural Born” referred to two citizen parents or excluded dual nationals, they will not vote to make others like themselves not eligible. “Are you saying that I would be somehow different if my father was naturalized after I was born than before I was born? Well, I don’t believe it, AND I don’t believe that the writers of the Constitution did either–it is a stupid idea now, and the writers of the Constitution would have realized that it was a stupid idea then.” (Or words to that effect.)
And they’d have a lot of fun kicking around the notion of whether the two parent theory applies to legal parents or DNA parents. “Are you saying that future presidents would have to prove their fathers by DNA testing and then prove that they were citizens prior to birth? That is a stupid idea now, and it would have been a stupid idea then, and I don’t believe the writers of the Constitution meant it.” Or words to that effect.
This is an illegal regime and they have no concern about doing illegals things and not following the rule of law. They are lawless and the ministry of lies gives them cover.
There are two types of citizens, those who were citizens at birth aka. Natural Born Citizens and those who were naturalized after they were born. No amount of wishing, hand waving or hating President Obama is going to change that. You lost, get over it.
Well said You Lost.
Defining “natural born Citizen” comes down to what law did the Founders and Framers rely upon for that task. The Constitution and the historical record gives us the answer. It was not the English common law. Rather, it was the law of nations. And the law of nations defines a “natural born Citizen” as one born in the country to citizen parents. Obama does not satisfy that definition and so he is not eligible to be President.
Hi, Mario!
Again, how much do you think your sanctions are going to be? Over or under $5k?
Hhmmm…All of the trolling Oilbama supporter comments and not one addresses the topic of this blog post. That’s typical of them. Idiots.
Hi Mario:
You said: “The Constitution and the historical record gives us the answer. It was not the English common law. ”
You say this, but you do not show any proof. The Common Law is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton, Adams, Etc never use the phrase Natural Born in any way other than it is used in the common law. John Jay write the common law into the 1777 Constitution of New York. The early constitutions of the states use Natural Born the way that it is used in the common law, and certainly not in the way that would indicate “two citizen parents and born in the country.”
You said also that it is the law of nations that defines a natural born citizen as one born in the country to citizen parents. There is no evidence for this at all. Some nations define citizenship as being born in the country. Others define it as being born of A citizen parent (rarely two). Most commonly these days nations define citizenship as EITHER born in the country or born out of the country to a citizen parent or two citizen parents. NO nation that I know of requires that a leader of the country be born in the country AND have two citizen parents (except, you say, the USA, but there is no proof of that).
Also, that does not affect the definition of Natural Born, which was commonly used in the United States not only in the common law but in common usage to mean “born in the country.” The phrase Native Born was rarely used in those days; natural born was used all the time, and always as a synonym for our current use of Native Born. There is even an example in which the use of Natural Born Citizen is used as a synonym to Natural Born Subject. No American leader at the time can be found who uses Natural Born Citizen to mean “two citizen parents.” If you find one, please tell us.
Tell us also why you believe that Natural Born Citizen is a special term requiring a definition of the complete phrase and not simply the combination of the common phrase used at the time of the writing of the Constitution “Natural Born” along with the legal term Citizen. If it were special, it would have been discussed in the Federalist Papers or in some commentary at the time, but it is not discussed at all. I believe that you have said in the past, or perhaps it was Leo, that the reason that Natural Born Citizen was not discussed in the Federalist Papers was that the Vattel meaning was so widely held that everyone knew it and it did not require discussion. But, in fact, that is not true. The Vattel meaning was not used at all, and the “born in the country” meaning was, as far as I can see, universal.
AuntieMadder said: “not one addresses the topic of this blog post.”
That is because the Kenyan newspaper got it wrong. Obama was not born in Kenya. His mother never even went to Kenya. His Kenyan grandmother did not say that the was born in Kenya. In the taped interview she said that he was born in Hawaii several times, and in another interview she said that the first that her family had heard of the birth was in a letter from Hawaii.
The National Review said: “The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”
RE: (bob): “ Mario, why don’t you want to discuss your upcoming sanctions…”
I am sure that you know that Mario can not comment on his own pending case, without the possibility of hurting the case. So you are placing him in a situation where it is difficult for him to defend himself.
I am new to this site but it seems that some of the commentators favor serious conversation without personal attacks, name calling or the like. So, please, do us a favor and wait and see what the judge will decide. Thank you.
I have not attacked Apuzzo, called him any name, or the like. And there is nothing prohibiting Apuzzo from discussing his own case.
As for why SCOTUS hasn't taken any of these cases, it because none of the parties before SCOTUS had standing (just like Apuzzo's case).
In the Ankesy case, however, there was a ruling on the merits:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903…
The Indiana court there had no problem rejecting Apuzzo's view. Yet Ankesy was never appealed to SCOTUS. Why was that? Why didn't Apuzzo (or some other attorney) file in SCOTUS for Ankesy?
WWW1,
Show me where in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers it demonstrates that the Founders and Framers adopted the English common law as Article III “Laws of the United States?” This showing goes beyond demonstrating to me how the States selectively adopted the English common law as their local law. If you cannot show me that, then how can you reasonably argue that the Founders and Framers relied on the English common law to define such a critical phrase in the Constitution as the “natural born Citizen” clause? On the other hand, if I can show you that it is written in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers that the Founders and Framers adopted the law of nations as part of Article III “Laws of the United States,” why will you not agree with me that it is only reasonable to conclude that the Founders and Framers would have relied upon that law to define the “natural born Citizen” clause and not the English common law?
P.S. Please keep the money-hungry bob at bay.
Mario, why don’t you want to discuss your upcoming sanctions? I’m curious as to how much you think the 3d Circuit is going to take out of your hide. And I’m also curious if you are going to apologize to everyone who correctly predicted the outcome of your case — it would seem they know the law better than you do.
As for the topic of this blog, snopes already covered it. Last year:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ap.asp
Greetings Mario. As i think someone said once, you are a great lawyer, but the case that you are riding is a three-legged horse.
Re; ‘Show me where in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers it demonstrates that the Founders and Framers adopted the English common law as Article III “Laws of the United States?”
Answer: I don’t have to. All I have to do is show that the writers of the Constitution used Natural Born the same way that it was used in the common law, which was “born in the country.” Conversely, for you to prove your case, you must show that they used it the way that Vattel allegedly did, meaning two citizen parents and born in the USA, and they didn’t. And you haven’t.
You said: ‘how can you reasonably argue that the Founders and Framers relied on the English common law to define such a critical phrase in the Constitution as the “natural born Citizen” clause? “
How can you reasonably argue that they used Vattel? They did not use the term “Natural Born” the way that Vattel allegedly used it. They NEVER did. They always used it the way that the common law uses it. It is not the common law that defines Natural Born, it is the way that they used the phrase. No example can be found of them using it to mean “two citizen parents.” Many examples can be found in which Natural Born means “born in the country.”
You said: “On the other hand, if I can show you that it is written in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers that the Founders and Framers adopted the law of nations as part of Article III “Laws of the United States,”
Answer: Since you do not capitalize law of nations, I take it you are NOT referring to Vattel here. Yes, the Constitution does refer to the generic law of nations in its discussion of piracy and the law of the sea, but no one has been successful arguing that the law of nations applies to such things as inheritance or criminal law in the USA. It would be a most un-conservative thing to argue that the law of nations forbids a state to have capital punishment. It would be strange indeed to think that the law of nations applies to our elections. If the International Court held that proportional votes and not winner-take-all were the rule, would we be forced to obey that?
However, if you are referring to The Law of Nations, by de Vattel, then I disagree completely. They weren’t. Vattel is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers and is an expert in international law, where elections are a domestic matter. Moreover, it is a stretch to consider even citizenship an international matter. It is a domestic matter, and Vattel is not really an expert in it. If he had been an expert, he would have said whether he meant two parents by genetic background or two parents by marriage. In fact, all that he said was that an “indigines” had to have two citizen parents—which is nice, but what is an indignies?
Re: “why will you not agree with me that it is only reasonable to conclude that the Founders and Framers would have relied upon that law to define the “natural born Citizen” clause and not the English common law?”
Because they used the term Natural Born the way that it is used in the common law in all their writings and did not use it the way that Vatttel described an indigines (sorry about the spelling, I can never get it exactly right). And because the issue of who can be president is a domestic matter, not an international one.
And because if they had meant “two citizen parents,” they would have told us, and because if they had meant “two citizen parents” they would have had to say whether by the parents’ marriage or the actual parents by blood. And because Madison said that birth in the country is the sole criterion of allegiance, and Blackstone said that a person can have only one allegiance, to the country of his birth.
Getting back to the law of nations, generic, as I said before some nations use the place of birth in citizenship. Some use a parent or two parents (the latter is rare). Some use either of the two that applies. But none require both for anything as far as I know (You say that the USA does for the presidency, but you haven’t proven it).
Getting back to the common law. Here is what Hamilton said about it: “The noble principles of the common law cannot cease to engage our respect, while we have before our eyes so many monuments of their excellence in our own jurisdiction. http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php
bob,
The plaintiffs in Ankesy, while they cited Emer de Vattel, did not make my law of nations argument. Hence, that court did not address that argument.
Additionally, there are several serious problems with the Ankesy decision: 1. The Ankesy court just barely acknowledged Emer de Vattel. It refers to Vattel's highly influential work, The Law of Nations, as "an eighteenth century treatise" and discusses neither Vattel nor his work. Hence, it fails to understand the importance of the law of nations and Vattel to the Founders and Framers and in the founding of our nation and their drafting of our Constitution in which they included the law of nations and not the English common law as part of Article III "Laws of the United States." 2. It used English common law to define an Article II "natural born Citizen" when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Wong Kim Ark, have used the law of nations to do so. 3. The court erroneously conflates an Article II "natural born Citizen" with a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." 4. The court misreads Minor v. Happersett, saying that the Minor Court read Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment "in tandem," suggesting without any support that the latter somehow amended the former. It also erred when it said that Minor "left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." The Court did no such thing. Rather, the Court left open that question as it applies to a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," not an Article II "natural born Citizen." 5. It incorrectly takes the Wong Kim Ark holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," and even though Wong itself provides a different definition for an Article II "natural born Citizen," and even though Wong cites and accepts Minor's definition of a "natural born Citizen," the Ankesy court equates the Wong "citizen of the United States" with an Article II "natural born Citizen" and says that the Wong decision stands for such a proposition when it does not. 6. It erroneously equates an English "natural born subject" to an American "natural born Citizen." 7. It cites and quotes from Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) in support of its definition of a "natural born Citizen" when the question of the meaning of the clause does not exist in that case and the only reference therein to a "natural born Citizen" was made by the court when it recited the facts but not when it provided any legal analysis. 8. Ankeny is a state appellate court (not even state Supreme Court) case and is not binding on the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court which is the ultimate decider of the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen."
So as you can see, the Ankeny decision has many problems and is a far cry from providing the correct word let alone the last word on the meaning of a "natural born Citizen."
RE: (WWW1) : “I am saying that the judicial branch, the Supreme Court, would vote seven to two or eight to one (if they ever called the case, which requires four justices) that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because even the conservative members of the court believe that the original meaning of Natural Born was “born in the country.” And, I am saying that if the allowed the case to be heard, even the conservative members of the court would laugh at the any lawyer who argues the two-fer side. That is because the example of Hatch and Graham show that the interpretation of Natural Born as “born in the country” is held OVERWHELMINGLY…..”
We don’t know what the definition would be. We could argue about that forever. I am siding with Mario on that issue and you oppose his interpretation. Which side SCOTUS would take is speculation at this point. In my opinion the “OVERWHELMINGLY” held interpretation of NBC would weigh little in the decision of SCOTUS. I think, as Mario said: “Defining “natural born Citizen” comes down to what law did the Founders and Framers rely upon for that task. “
Now I will speculate: The reason SCOTUS is not granting the 4 votes to hear cases on merit (that would necessitate a definition of NBC) is that they would cause an unprecedented situation if not a constitutional crisis, if they defined NBC as they should.
Alen Keyes calls their avoidance “dereliction of duty”. Their duty is to uphold and protect the Constitution. However, they make the Constitution unenforceable by not ruling on merit. If that is not “dereliction of duty” then what is? So they are choosing “dereliction of duty” as opposed to constitutional crisis. Not a very honest choice, but practical, because they get away with it and keep their life-time jobs and high dignity.
If you were right and they think that your definition is correct, they would not block ruling on merit (and that goes for the lower courts as well). They would go ahead and confirm the Prez’ eligibility. This would be the desirable outcome from their point of view, as the Birthers and the Duelers would shot up and the country would live in harmony. But they are not taking that route, because they already know that they could not come to that interpretation if applied the law correctly.
So we will never get an answer for the definition of NBC, or at least not until 2012.
RE: (WWW1) “Scalia and Alito, … they will not vote to make others like themselves not eligible….”
As you may have noted, from my prior comments, I do not hold SCOTUS in high esteem, but I would doubt that they would be motivated by the theoretical possibility that they would be president one day. They have a wonderful life-time job, sitting in an ivory tower, impunity from “dereliction of duty”, no dirty political attacks, having polite conversation with colleagues all day.
Better job than the Prez has. Only 4 or 8 years with high constant stress. They all age about 20 years in 8. Look at Gorge W’s or Bill Clinton’s face.
As far as “not making others like themselves not eligible”, why not? I think assuming such solidarity is very speculative and unrealistic.
Chester: Too bad that you do not hold “SCOTUS in high esteem.” In our system they make the final legal ruling unless of course you get a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states to make a new amendment to the Constitution. An alternative for you, however, would be to get Congress to impeach the president on the grounds that he is not a Natural Born Citizen. That only takes a majority of the House and one vote more than two-thirds of the Senate. (A laughably slim possibility.)
A third alternative would be revolution, but we would squash that like a bug. A fourth I do not want to mention, but nothing could be more counter-productive to your cause. Nothing.
So, you say that the motive that four justices would not call the case is not that they believe that Vattel’s definition of indigines had no impact on the writers of the Constitution, but it was that they believe that calling the case would cause civil unrest. Well, sure, so what? On the other hand, you don’t KNOW that. I have shown that it is far more likely that they consider the Vattel definition laughable. In my opinion, if you have any chance of them calling the case, it is for them to have a good laugh.
When you said ‘So, we will not get an answer for NBC, at least until 2012,” that is not correct. In 2012, the presidential election will be held, and the decision will be mainly on whether Obama was a good president or not and whether his opponent is likely to better for the country than Obama. A minor issue in the election might be whether Obama is an NBC, but that will not decide it. In fact, in the general electorate there are likely to be very few who think that Obama is not an NBC. The Vattel argument is very weak.
It probably better for your side to leave your allegation as unproven, with you saying that the four justices did not call it because of the threat of civil unrest, rather than lose nine to zero or eight to one or seven to three. Sadly, it does not work that way. Unless four justices think that there really is a constitutional issue to be settled, they will not call the case (even, unfortunately, for a good laugh).
So, since we are in agreement that the chances of the Supreme Court calling the case are slim for either your assumed motive or mine, why don’t we just debate the highly debatable notion that American leaders such as Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton really believed that a Natural Born Citizen required two citizen parents when they never wrote anything to that effect. In fact, Madison clearly wrote that there was only one criterion of allegiance, the place of birth. Adams, Jay and Franklin used Natural Born Citizen as a synonym of Natural Born Subject in a draft of a treaty, and we know what the definition of Natural Born Subject was.
Hi, Mario!
What you seem to forget is Ankesy was decided by real judges, in a real court. In your mind, you always win. But in a real court, the argument was a clear loser.
(And, really, do you expect to be taken seriously as a lawyer when your filings are called frivilous, you are ordered to show cause why you shouldn't be sanctioned, and you can't even answer the most basic questions about your own case?)
But, hey, if the Ankesy decision was so very wrong, why didn't you offer to write the cert. petition?
Mario.
You reply to Bob and not to me, and you do not address my arguments, but I’d like to comment anyway.
You said; ‘8. Ankeny is a state appellate court (not even state Supreme Court) case and is not binding on the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court which is the ultimate decider of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Actually, the case was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, which refused to take it, meaning that accepted the ruling of the state appellate court. The case, of course, can be appealed to the federal courts, but apparently the plaintiffs are not doing so.
It is my suggestion that this case should be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court because I do not see how it can be thrown out on the issue of standing. After all, it does make a constitutional ruling, and if a higher court feels that that ruling was wrong, it should take the case.
This is considerably better than cases that include allegations about Obama’s place of birth which do two things: (1) They muddy the issue of the definition of NBC; (2) They have a bad smell, making it unlikely that a court would take the case even if they believed that the NBC issue might be worth considering. Still, you have no control over the Ankeny appeal. If the plaintiffs do not want to appeal, they won’t.
You continue to say that de Vattel was highly influential (implying that he was influential in the definition of indigines) and that the law of nations influenced the writers of the Constitution, when I say directly that there is no proof that they used Vattel’s definition. I also said that the law of nations does not specify that a person should be both born in the country AND have two citizen parents in any way. Where is there a country that requires the combination of birth and two parents for anything? (You say the USA for the presidency, but there is no evidence of this.)
You do not take up my argument that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen at the time of the writing of the constitution and also now is simply a person who fulfilled the criterion of being a citizen and also fulfilled the criterion of being Natural Born.
The criterion of what is a citizen must follow current law. For a time Indians were not allowed to be citizens, but now they are. So, if they were Natural Born, they are now Natural Born Citizens. The criterion of Natural Born is at the minimum, the definition that the American leaders at the time of the Constitution used, and as I have shown, that was never anything other than “born in the country.” No American leader or commentator at the time used Natural Born to mean “two citizen parents.”
So, there is really no proof that Vattel was all that influential on the Natural Born Citizen clause. He might have been influential on the piracy provisions, however.
Mario Apuzzo said on June 19, 2010:
"On June 29, 2010, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals will receive for decision the Kerchner et al. v. Obama/Congress et al. appeal to that Court of the Federal District Court's dismissal of the case for what it said was lack of standing and political question. Putative President Obama's supporters are out and about arguing that the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case is exactly like the Berg v. Obama case and therefore the Third Circuit Court of Appeals should affirm the District Court's dismissal of the case for lack of standing. This is not only an incredible statement but an outright lie."
It seems the judges in the Third Circuit not only agreed with the "putative Obama supporters" they agreed so strongly as to propose sanctions against Mario for not citing their decision in his appeal brief in Kerchner v Obama. Many of those same "putative Obama supporters" told Mario that this was an incredible mistake that only a lawyer as inept as Orly Taitz would make. Now Mario is touting the same ridiculous argument that Orly made that sanctions against HIM somehow gives his client standing. Mario and Orly seem to be two peas in a pod.
To Mario Apuzzo – Your theories are demonstrably false. Why don’t you go back to defending drunk drivers, once you get your sanctons straightened out with the Third Circuit?
The President’s Hawai’i birth certificate and the recent Ankeny case take care of all of your current arguments. Maybe you and Orly Taitz could go on a cruise together and take all your insanity out into the ocean. I understand the Gulf of Mexico is especially ripe right now.
Chester said:
"Did not we have an other eligibility case in CA when the judge threatened sanctions and backed off when the plaintiff’s attorney warned the judge that if sanctions are made the attorney is entitled to discovery? "
No
Attn.: WWW1
RE: “…unless of course you get a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states to make a new amendment to the Constitution. “
The LA Times had an article about a year ago, that promoted a constitutional; amendment to redefine NBC so what ever the facts are the Prez is eligible. I would whole heartedly support such move. That would be within the law.
RE: “to get Congress to impeach the president on the grounds that he is not a Natural Born Citizen”
I agree that impeachment is a slim possibility. Most members of Congress on either side don’t give rat’s ass about the Constitution.
RE: “Revolution”
Nonsense – no one wants that. It will never happen.
RE: “counter-productive to your cause”
The only cause I care for is protecting and upholding the constitution. Nothing more – please don’t read more into it.
RE: “Vattel”
I already said that I side with Mario on that point and he extensively discussed that with you. I would just repeat his arguments in answering you on this point.
RE: “It probably better for your side to leave your allegation as unproven, with you saying that the four justices did not call it because of the threat of civil unrest”
Yes, I agree it is unproven. Please note that I said it was speculation on my part. Nevertheless, I agree with Ambassador Alen Keyes who calls it “dereliction of duty”.
RE: ‘So, we will not get an answer for NBC, at least until 2012”
I meant we may never have a definition for NBC and depending on the political landscape in 2012 there is slight chance to get a definition. Hillary or other potential opponent may use the NBC issue to weaken the opposition’s position, that may trigger SCOTUS to define it.
Don’t forget that Hillary said in one of her campaign speeches that her opponent: “does not have American roots”. She may just follow up on that, depending on the political situation in 2012. But I admit that this is speculation as well.
"That is why it is unfair that you keep prodding him about that."
Unfair? Huh? Am I in some sort of competition with Apuzzo? (And if he thinks he won't be sanctioned, why can't he say even that?)
"My own opinion is that there will be no sanctions. Neither the defense nor the judge called the merit frivolous, if I recall correctly, they called the fact the he appealed, frivolous."
When Apuzzo first filed this suit, the 3d Circuit's decision in Berg hadn't yet been rendered; same as when the district court dismissed Apuzzo's suit. But Berg was filed soon thereafter, and a competent attorney should have realized it foreclosed the argument. And any competent attorney, nonetheless pressing forward, would have cited Berg in the opening brief, and then argued around it.
"Most members of Congress on either side don’t give rat’s ass about the Constitution."
The failure to address this frivolous claim means hating the Constitution? Huh?
"I agree with Ambassador Alen Keyes who calls it 'dereliction of duty'."
Keyes is wrong (and an idiot). All of these before SCOTUS had standing problems; the much more likely reason they denied cert. is because it agreed standing was lacking.
"Hillary or other potential opponent may use the NBC issue to weaken the opposition’s position"
Huh? Hillary is going to campaign for Obama. And no democrat is going to raise this (non-)issue against any legitimate candidate (i.e., McCain, Jindal).
A natural born citizen is simply a citizen from birth.
“Early America’s evident concern about presidential dynasties also lurked beneath Article II’s most questionable eligibility rule: it’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen” — that is, a citizen at the time of his birth.” [Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constittion: A Biography, page 164]
Questions for Mario: Do you think Professor Amar’s book is a good reference, and if not, why did *you cite it* in your brief opposing the motion to dismiss Kerchner v. Obama? It’s not a good authority, why is it in your table of authorities?
We can cite reference after reference showing that “natural-born citizen” means a citizen from birth, and being born in the U.S. is (with a few specific exceptions) sufficient. We have law dictionaries, renowned constitutional scholars, court opinions, testimony in congress, articles in peer-reviewed legal journals. You disagree; O.K. when did you *start* disagreeing? You wouldn’t have needed “standing” to write essays challenging the prevailing view.
I know you guys bristle at any suggestion of bigotry, but we have to ask: Mario, how come no one heard you say a word about your legal theory until you needed reasons why the black man with the Muslim name cannot be President of the United States?
With Birthers like Apuzzo, Donofrio, Liberi and Meroni I am humiliated to be Italian-American. I am considering having the terminal vowel surgically removed from my surname.
RE: “And there is nothing prohibiting Apuzzo from discussing his own case.”
He is working on the response to the court, due in a couple of weeks or so. He would make a serious error by answering your question about the size of the sanctions. What ever his answer would be to you, the defense would use it to their advantage. That is why it is unfair that you keep prodding him about that. You will see his answer in a couple of weeks.
My own opinion is that there will be no sanctions. Neither the defense nor the judge called the merit frivolous, if I recall correctly, they called the fact the he appealed, frivolous.
That requires sanctions? That would discourage any appeal by any plaintiff. What is the appeal court for?
Did not we have an other eligibility case in CA when the judge threatened sanctions and backed off when the plaintiff’s attorney warned the judge that if sanctions are made the attorney is entitled to discovery? The judge quickly retreated – discovery that is untouchable? – good heavens, it might reveal the truth.
Chester wrote: "The LA Times had an article about a year ago, that promoted a constitutional; amendment to redefine NBC so what ever the facts are the Prez is eligible."
I suspect you are misremembering the details. The latest proposal in Congress to amend the NBC clause (Article II, section 1, clause 4 or 5) was in 2003, when Senator Orrin Hatch (R Utah) introduced an amendment to replace it with a requirement for being a citizen for at least 20 years. Several other amendments to the clause had been proposed in congress over the years. None involved redefining "natural born citizen" to mean something other than a citizen from birth. The 14'th Amendment resolved birthright citizenship for most of the population, but did not change the definitions of terms.
Chester: "I meant we may never have a definition for NBC"
If you want to know what a legal term means, go to Black's Law Dictionary and look it up. No need to make a federal case of it.
Obama eligibility denial lives in a blogsphere world of make-believe. Here in reality, 9/11 was not an inside job; perpetual-motion machines don't work so the energy companies don't bother suppressing them; Neil Armstrong really did walk on the Moon, and Barack Obama really is President of the United States.
WWW1,
You will be the only one I will address for obvious reasons.
You said: “So, since we are in agreement that the chances of the Supreme Court calling the case are slim for either your assumed motive or mine, why don’t we just debate the highly debatable notion that American leaders such as Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton really believed that a Natural Born Citizen required two citizen parents when they never wrote anything to that effect.”
My Response: Did Franklin and Hamilton give us definitions for every word that is written in the Constitution? Of course, not. Hence, it is not a necessary condition for us to determine what the “natural born Citizen” clause means that we find that Franklin and Hamilton wrote anything about what it means. Rather, natural law, the law of nations, the historical and revolutionary context, the Founders’ intellectual activity, and the Constitution all speak to provide us with the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”
You said: “In fact, Madison clearly wrote that there was only one criterion of allegiance, the place of birth.”
My Response: Obama’s supporters have so abused and misconstrued this quote from Madison that comes from the 1789 Ramsay-Smith debate. First, Madison in making that statement was only defining a “Citizen of the United States” which is a requirement to be eligible to be a Representative. He was concerned with that status and no other because William Smith had to show that he was a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years in order to be eligible to be a Representative under Article I, Section 2, Clause 2. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a “Citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen.” Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 tells us that Smith did not have to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be a Representative, for that status only applied to the Office of the President. Rather, he only had to be a “Citizen of the United States” to be eligible to be a Representative. Hence, Madison never would have intended his statement to be used to define a “natural born Citizen” and his statement cannot be used for that purpose. Second, we can see that Madison did not recite the colonial English common law which referred to the dominion of and allegiance to the King. He did not provide one citation to any source which suggests that he was looking to the English common law for his definition of a “Citizen of the United States.” Madison said: “I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, as a member of a new community; that he was absolved from a secondary allegiance that he had owed to a British sovereign.” Note that Madison said the person owed his allegiance to the “new community.” He did not say he owed it to any one person such as the President (it would have been the King under English common law) or any other person. We can see that Madison applied a maxim of natural law and the law of nations as expressed by Pufendorf and Vattel that defined the first citizens of a society that comes into being by way of revolution. Third, if you read the Federalist Papers No. 42 you will see what Madison thought about using the English common law to define any word in the Constitution. He never would have done it. In fact, Madison, as did so many of the Founders and Framers, saw the English common law and statutes as “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining a term used in the constitution. On the contrary, we can see from No. 42 that Madison had no problem using the law of nations for such purposes. Fourth, even Smith, when arguing that he was a “citizen of the United States,” did not resort to the English common law for authority. Rather, he cited Vattel and the law of nations as the basis for providing that definition.
You said: “Adams, Jay and Franklin used Natural Born Citizen as a synonym of Natural Born Subject in a draft of a treaty, and we know what the definition of Natural Born Subject was.”
My response: The context of and the reason for the revolution shows that you are wrong. Kings were never members of the “subject” population. Rather, they were born of Royalty and their blood. Kings were derived from a very small part of the population. In contrast, “natural born Citizens” were derived from the greatest part of the population. Subjects could not be kings but any one “natural born Citizen” was eligible to be President. “Natural born Citizens” chose and consented through their parents to be members of their society and they had the right to leave their society and become a member of a different one if their pursuit of happiness so told them to do. The King made persons his subjects for life whether the person liked it or not. The Founders fought for equality, independence, and freedom for the individual, inalienable rights which they told us persons derived from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (The Declaration of Independence) and not English common law. To the Founders, being subjects of the Crown was anathema to this vision. The People, through the Framers, gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which were an expression of the People limiting the power of government over their lives. English subject had no such station in life, for they were subjected to the absolute rule of the King with no say in how he exercised that power over them. Hence, how could a “natural born Citizen” be the same as a “natural born subject?”
All this is confirmed by Historian David Ramsay, who in 1789 clearly told us that a natural born “citizen” is totally different from a “natural born subject.” Even the recent discovery showing that Jefferson wrote “subject” and then replaced it with “citizen” in his draft of the Declaration of Independence demonstrates that the two words were not the same for the Founders.
All told, you and your Dr. Conspiracy group really have no arguments left showing that the Founders and Framers used the English common law rather than the law of nations to define a “natural born Citizen.” The rest of your arguments are nothing more than ridicule and personal attacks against me and others who give their opinion on the Obama eligibility issue which does not fit well with your political agenda. Your group can carry on in such a fashion on the blogs, brazen by the benefit of and maneuvering under the cloaking device of anonymity. But I would love to see you try such tactics in a court of law.
Mario Apuzzo wrote:
[i]You will be the only one I will address for obvious reasons. [/i]
Obvious reasons including:
- Complete inability to explain that the judges didn't buy a single line of your hogwash.
- That you are so embarrassed by your previous statements about "obots' that you would prefer everyone just forget them quickly.
- That you are incapable of honest debate on an open forum so you will post a couple of times here and run back to your own blog where you and Charlie can moderate anything short of adoration for your "brilliant" (and completely unsuccessful) legal theories.
- That getting kicked around in debate on open forums might be bad for Kerchner's and your PayPal haul.
Yes, the reasons are quite obvious.
“Third, if you read the Federalist Papers No. 42 you will see what Madison thought about using the English common law to define any word in the Constitution.”
A perfect example Apuzzo’s lack of comprehension.
From Federalist 42: “The power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, belongs with equal propriety to the general government, and is a still greater improvement on the articles of Confederation. These articles contain no provision for the case of offenses against the law of nations; and consequently leave it in the power of any indiscreet member to embroil the Confederacy with foreign nations. The provision of the federal articles on the subject of piracies and felonies extends no further than to the establishment of courts for the trial of these offenses. The definition of piracies might, perhaps, without inconveniency, be left to the law of nations; though a legislative definition of them is found in most municipal codes. A definition of felonies on the high seas is evidently requisite. Felony is a term of loose signification, even in the common law of England; and of various import in the statute law of that kingdom. But neither the common nor the statute law of that, or of any other nation, ought to be a standard for the proceedings of this, unless previously made its own by legislative adoption. The meaning of the term, as defined in the codes of the several States, would be as impracticable as the former would be a dishonorable and illegitimate guide. It is not precisely the same in any two of the States; and varies in each with every revision of its criminal laws. For the sake of certainty and uniformity, therefore, the power of defining felonies in this case was in every respect necessary and proper.”
…a rather straightfoward explantion promoting the need for a singular federal government to regulate foreign relations. How Apuzzo got to his “conclusion” from that is, well, bizarre.